Riggo#44 Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 Just saw this on ESPN: Link: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4718965 Cowboys owner Jerry Jones was fined at least $100,000 in September for violating a gag order by suggesting that revenue sharing was on its way out.Turns out, he was only tipping the owners' hand. In a significant move that could impact the flow of money to potential free agents and the competitive balance of teams, the NFL has notified the players' union that effective in March, owners will pull the plug on the $100 million-per-year revenue-sharing program that has subsidized lower-revenue clubs, multiple sources said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scyber Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 They are ending $100million out of the $6.5 Billion of shared revenue. So while this is a move away from revenue sharing, it is a small move. By removing this supplemental fund, the teams that normally qualified for it would be exempt from the minimum salary requirements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjinhan Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 They are ending $100million out of the $6.5 Billion of shared revenue. So while this is a move away from revenue sharing, it is a small move. By removing this supplemental fund, the teams that normally qualified for it would be exempt from the minimum salary requirements. its $100 mil per team.. so thats $3.2 billion out of $6.5 billion so it is a significant move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhoRUSupposed2Be Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 They are ending $100million out of the $6.5 Billion of shared revenue. So while this is a move away from revenue sharing, it is a small move. By removing this supplemental fund, the teams that normally qualified for it would be exempt from the minimum salary requirements. Say whattttt?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scyber Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 its $100 mil per team.. so thats $3.2 billion out of $6.5 billion so it is a significant move. No its not, this particular program is $100 million in total: http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d814bea04&template=with-video-with-comments&confirm=true The NFL has told the NFL Players Association it will cut a $100 million annual supplemental revenue-sharing program that subsidizes lower-revenue teams. That plan, which is a small portion of the $6.5 billion shared in full by all 32 teams, will be cut because the 2010 season will not have a salary cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 its $100 mil per team.. so thats $3.2 billion out of $6.5 billion so it is a significant move.No it is not. It is $110M total, contributed to teams that need the money to stay afloat. If JAX had to contribute $100M to this pool, they would be belly up! Same for BUF, CIN, OAK.... Any team that has blackout issues would be in serious jeopardy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue collar Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 The NFL is on its way to becoming MLB. Just watch and see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 The NFL is on its way to becoming MLB. Just watch and see. Agreed. I don't think this is a good thing. Slaying the goose that lays the golden eggs. The league as a whole is strong. The league as individuals is not. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted December 7, 2009 Share Posted December 7, 2009 It is only $100M total, lowering the shared revenue from $6.5B to $6.4B. It is no way equitable to MLB. The owners told the players association they would do this if we were headed to an uncapped year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 It is only $100M total, lowering the shared revenue from $6.5B to $6.4B. It is no way equitable to MLB. The owners told the players association they would do this if we were headed to an uncapped year. If the small markets can't compete they should move or fold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OWUeagleMD Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 No it is not. It is $110M total, contributed to teams that need the money to stay afloat. If JAX had to contribute $100M to this pool, they would be belly up! Same for BUF, CIN, OAK.... Any team that has blackout issues would be in serious jeopardy. This is the first I've heard Oakland mentioned among these teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 Agreed. I don't think this is a good thing. Slaying the goose that lays the golden eggs.The league as a whole is strong. The league as individuals is not. ~Bang I actually disagree. This is a measure to do completely away with the salary cap and, more importantly, the salary floor. The owners feel they gave up way too much in the last CBA negotiations and they want the salary cap gone because most teams out there want to reduce their salaries to 80 mil or so vs the 110 they're spending now. The NFLPA is fighting this because the loss of the salary cap means less money is going to wind up in the player's hands, the talk about competitive balance is a smoke screen, this is all about the dollars and how much goes to the players vs how much stays with the owners. The owners are pissed off about the last CBA and they're doing something about it. Remember, this is only $100 mil, set aside to help keep the smaller teams spending to the salary floor. Removing the floor and thus lowering total salaries are the goal. Notice the $6.5 billion in revenue sharing is not going anywhere. All that's being removed is the money shot to raise total team salaries. Now, as far as the "any given sunday" aspect, the parody, there's more safeguards to that than you think. This is not individual owners trying to be able to spend whatever they want, it's the owners uniting against the players. For example, everyone knows that under the rules of an uncapped season, rookies aren't free agents for 6 years instead of 4. What most people don't know is that there are other safeguards like the fact that the playoff teams (I can't remember if it's all or just the divisional round teams) are not allowed to participate in Free Agency. Those teams may only sign a free agent if they lose a player and then they can only replace the salary lost. You can't cut a vet min player then sign Haynesworth, you need to lose a Haynesworth (and his contract) to replace him with an equally compensated player. The NFL knows parody is it's golden goose, they're not going to **** with it. Most of the owners don't want anything like the salary disparity in baseball....they just collectively think the players piece of the pie is way too big. Now if it's me, the first thing I try to fix is rookie contracts. They need to be paid A LOT less and there needs to be a pick by pick salary structure. Take a good chunk of the savings and use it to raise the vet minimum salary so the unsung heroes of the league who work their asses off and are invaluable to teams a bigger piece of the overall player salary pie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFKFedEx Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 If the small markets can't compete they should move or fold. Good thing you're not a fan of either pro football team in your state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFKFedEx Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 This is the first I've heard Oakland mentioned among these teams. Not surprised considering I heard that ALL of the Raiders home games have been blacked out locally this year. You can always see a ton of empty seats in the upper deck of the coliseum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
authentic Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 Wow this is crazy!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blue collar Posted December 8, 2009 Share Posted December 8, 2009 It is only $100M total, lowering the shared revenue from $6.5B to $6.4B. It is no way equitable to MLB. The owners told the players association they would do this if we were headed to an uncapped year. Get back to me in a few years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 If the small markets can't compete they should move or fold. Move where? Do you want 12 teams in NY City? I actually disagree. This is a measure to do completely away with the salary cap and, more importantly, the salary floor. The owners feel they gave up way too much in the last CBA negotiations and they want the salary cap gone because most teams out there want to reduce their salaries to 80 mil or so vs the 110 they're spending now. The NFLPA is fighting this because the loss of the salary cap means less money is going to wind up in the player's hands, the talk about competitive balance is a smoke screen, this is all about the dollars and how much goes to the players vs how much stays with the owners. The owners are pissed off about the last CBA and they're doing something about it. Remember, this is only $100 mil, set aside to help keep the smaller teams spending to the salary floor. Removing the floor and thus lowering total salaries are the goal. Notice the $6.5 billion in revenue sharing is not going anywhere. All that's being removed is the money shot to raise total team salaries. Now, as far as the "any given sunday" aspect, the parody, there's more safeguards to that than you think. This is not individual owners trying to be able to spend whatever they want, it's the owners uniting against the players. For example, everyone knows that under the rules of an uncapped season, rookies aren't free agents for 6 years instead of 4. What most people don't know is that there are other safeguards like the fact that the playoff teams (I can't remember if it's all or just the divisional round teams) are not allowed to participate in Free Agency. Those teams may only sign a free agent if they lose a player and then they can only replace the salary lost. You can't cut a vet min player then sign Haynesworth, you need to lose a Haynesworth (and his contract) to replace him with an equally compensated player. The NFL knows parody is it's golden goose, they're not going to **** with it. Most of the owners don't want anything like the salary disparity in baseball....they just collectively think the players piece of the pie is way too big. Now if it's me, the first thing I try to fix is rookie contracts. They need to be paid A LOT less and there needs to be a pick by pick salary structure. Take a good chunk of the savings and use it to raise the vet minimum salary so the unsung heroes of the league who work their asses off and are invaluable to teams a bigger piece of the overall player salary pie. Sorry mods to quote a huge chunk, but this is very good. Helped clear up alot of questions I had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted December 9, 2009 Share Posted December 9, 2009 If the small markets can't compete they should move or fold.No, the NFL should maintain a competitive landscape. We want to avoid a landscape like MLB has fostered, and to a certain extent the NBA. The Buffalo Bills and Green Bay Packers need to be able to compete with the NY Giants and NE Patriots. Jacksonville, on the other hand, needs to move. They never should have been awarded a franchise in the first place.The league is infatuated with the LA area. LA has proven they don't want an NFL franchise. Hell, USC can't sell out unless they are in the hunt for a National Championship. Look at the last game against Arizona. Owners need to understand that certain areas can't fill 80,000 seat stadium. Oakland needs a 65,000 seat stadium. Green Bay has the perfect sized stadium, and it is more like a college atmosphere than any other venue in the NFL (to include aluminum benches). Dallas will feel the pain next year, when they play to a 1/4 empty stadium or see 40% visiting fans. At the same time, players need to understand that in down economies you can't expect salaries to continue to rise. Nothing is recession proof. You can't expect a business that loses revenue year over year to increase expenditures year over year. That is how businesses go bust. The next CBA (if there is one) needs to allow for expansion or contraction, from a budgetary standpoint, based on the financial strength of the league. Otherwise you are creating an artificial bubble, and we have seen how well that works out when it bursts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinking Skins Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 The NFL is on its way to becoming MLB. Just watch and see. Then maybe Dan will become the Steinbrenner of the NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 Move where? Do you want 12 teams in NY City? Sorry mods to quote a huge chunk, but this is very good. Helped clear up alot of questions I had. I'd take one for Washington D.C. and one here for Columbus, OH. L.A. , San Antonio, Toronto, Mexico City and maybe even Portland,OR are places for relocation. This is just 100 million dollars. Not a big deal. The main revenue sharing isn't changing and never will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dallasfan Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 The league is infatuated with the LA area. LA has proven they don't want an NFL franchise. Hell, USC can't sell out unless they are in the hunt for a National Championship. Look at the last game against Arizona. Owners need to understand that certain areas can't fill 80,000 seat stadium. Oakland needs a 65,000 seat stadium. Green Bay has the perfect sized stadium, and it is more like a college atmosphere than any other venue in the NFL (to include aluminum benches). Dallas will feel the pain next year, when they play to a 1/4 empty stadium or see 40% visiting fans. The Coliseum seats more than 100k, not 80k, so I wouldn't go as far as saying LA has proven they don't want a team (for comparisons sake you guys seat +91k). If anything they have proven they don't want 2 teams, which I agree isn't a good idea, basketball has that city in a stranglehold, but I think any team would thrive in LA with a a smaller stadium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 The Coliseum seats more than 100k, not 80k, so I wouldn't go as far as saying LA has proven they don't want a team (for comparisons sake you guys seat +91k). If anything they have proven they don't want 2 teams, which I agree isn't a good idea, basketball has that city in a stranglehold, but I think any team would thrive in LA with a a smaller stadium.Based on?The Chargers? Nope The Rams? Nope The Raiders? Nope A city goes for 0 for 3, you shouldn't get a fourth shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enter Apotheosis Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 The NFL knows parody is it's golden goose, they're not going to **** with it. You had it 99.9% nailed. The NFL's golden goose is parity. The only person I can think of who makes money off of NFL parody is Chris Paul. Ribbing and grammar Nazism aside, though, that was a very well-stated summation of the situation at hand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.