Gang of 9

im not argueing that point.my point is that teams like the packers,while i agree add alot to the league,are already being handed a ton of money by the tv contract that basically covers the salary cap for them.why should they be handed more "free" money?have them go out like the snyders and the jones' and EARN it

And that there is the crux of the argument. There is no team in the NFL that doesn't have enough revenue to cover the maximum player expenses stipulated by the salary cap. The current system is not tipping the scales too much from a player perspective, though the Skins do have an uncanny ability to outbid other teams for coaches.

But if you want to make the balance fair on the coaching side, put a cap on coaching salaries and just share a tiny bit more revenue to cover that part on top of the players. If teams still complained about money after that, they'd have no financial ground to stand on. They'd have all the money they'd need to stay competitive, and it wouldn't take anything more than a minute increase in shared revenues to accomplish that.

http://img393.imageshack.us/img393/638/godzillaowned6fu6ma.gif

Be sure and let me know when we are gonna' have the welfare thread! That should be lively.
On the original note, Danny is a smart little sh..
He demonsrated so by the ability to buy the skins at 34 or so for 600ish m. Monetarily, he never looked back. He continues to lead the league in revenue from his ingenuity. To force him to share the fruits of his labor creates a truly socialiist state in a Capitalist country. This is not good for about a Zillion reasons. The sharing that has taken place to date is responsible for the equality in the league at this time. It is also responsible for what has been described as "Vanilla" NFL. Enough is enough, why kill the American dream for the sake of some "do nothin', cry baby" owners looking to ride the backs of the entrepreuners. Want to make more???????? Improvise, adapt, and overcome!--Gunny Tom Highway

The point I'm trying to make is that they cannot ever make as much money as the Redskins due to inherent disadvantages of the wealth of the area they are in, original ownership wealth, etc.

Having far more money despite the salary cap as it is does still give a competitive advantage. If Dan Snyder maxes the cap, he has a lot left over. If Green Bay maxes the cap, they will have a lot less left over. The Redskins have much more freedom to spend money than teams that have less.

And yes, one way that manifests itself is in coaching salaries.





im not argueing that point.my point is that teams like the packers,while i agree add alot to the league,are already being handed a ton of money by the tv contract that basically covers the salary cap for them.why should they be handed more "free" money?have them go out like the snyders and the jones' and EARN it

oakland red you just made my point.green bay does nothing but live off owners that will take the initiative to MAKE more money while they sit back and complain about being a small market team.there is no way they want favre to retire because there goes any ability for them to market on a nationwide scale.sign a free agent like T.O. and try to market him,theres lots of money to be had.besides he will help your team win

The point I'm trying to make is that they cannot ever make as much money as the Redskins due to inherent disadvantages of the wealth of the area they are in, original ownership wealth, etc.

Sorry but I don't buy this argument that much. It is true that a competive market analysis would show the DC metro area as having a more affluent fan base but GB isn't hurting for fans. And while a more afluent fan base MIGHT mean they will spend less I'd love to see some empirical data to support this. I would venture a guess that with stronger and more innovative marketing GB and other teams in this like could generate comparable revenues to the top teams. Maybe not totally equal but not disparate enough to be of any true consequence. I don't think the differences between the tops teams and most other teams right now have any real consequences anyways. There are SOME teams at the bottom of the rung that simply can't generate revenues that are competitive but mostly these are teams that are either weak on a yearly basis causing a disinterested fan base or simply have bad owners. They only way for these teams to make more money for themselves is to focus on the on-field product and stop dicking the team arond. NE is a great example of having done this. I believe in the early 90s they weren't setting the world on fire in terms of revenues. But a nice run and some good mamangement by Kraft has put this team at the top in terms of revenues. And they didn't get to the top by spending vast amounts of money. They worked hard and got the job done. Other teams ought to take notice. Including the Skins.

Sorry but I don't buy this argument that much. It is true that a competive market analysis would show the DC metro area as having a more affluent fan base but GB isn't hurting for fans. And while a more afluent fan base MIGHT mean they will spend less I'd love to see some empirical data to support this. I would venture a guess that with stronger and more innovative marketing GB and other teams in this like could generate comparable revenues to the top teams. Maybe not totally equal but not disparate enough to be of any true consequence. I don't think the differences between the tops teams and most other teams right now have any real consequences anyways. There are SOME teams at the bottom of the rung that simply can't generate revenues that are competitive but mostly these are teams that are either weak on a yearly basis causing a disinterested fan base or simply have bad owners. They only way for these teams to make more money for themselves is to focus on the on-field product and stop dicking the team arond. NE is a great example of having done this. I believe in the early 90s they weren't setting the world on fire in terms of revenues. But a nice run and some good mamangement by Kraft has put this team at the top in terms of revenues. And they didn't get to the top by spending vast amounts of money. They worked hard and got the job done. Other teams ought to take notice. Including the Skins.

FYI - Your quote has expired. There is now a new T.O. thread up. :)

The point I'm trying to make is that they cannot ever make as much money as the Redskins due to inherent disadvantages of the wealth of the area they are in, original ownership wealth, etc.

Having far more money despite the salary cap as it is does still give a competitive advantage. If Dan Snyder maxes the cap, he has a lot left over. If Green Bay maxes the cap, they will have a lot less left over. The Redskins have much more freedom to spend money than teams that have less.

And yes, one way that manifests itself is in coaching salaries.It's America. Name one business that doesn't work that way. Making money is the name of the game for these owners, and asking other owners to give you their money isn't the best way to increase your profits. Heading up a successful marketing program for your football team and putting a good product on the field goes a long way, though.

Do you know how these deals work? I think the Ravens keep some, if not most of the luxury box revenue. If not, then why go to the trouble of marketing and staffing those premium seats? To me that's the real coup-- getting your locality to build the stadium and then raking in the profits. Snyder has all that debt because Cooke paid for the stadium which basically doubled the Redskins value. Snyder should ask the other owners if they would like to "share" his debt as well. But it would be interesting to see how much money goes back to the locality on one of these long term lease deals. I suspect the teams keep most of the money.

Someone said the Steelers should logically be in the Gang of 9. This is understandable because of their stalwart fans and signature brand appeal. They are a marquis name. Non-football fans know them. You would assume that they could generate large streams of revenue. My impression, though, is that Dan Rooney is sort of an ideologue on these issues. He is firmly in the "think league" camp. He was the driving force behind nixing the original Milstein/Snyder bid and was trying--some would say colluding--to allow John Cooke to retain ownership of the Skins. I think he would prefer the league to operate in a more clubby, civic minded way and not be so motivated by ostentation and profit. He views his ownership of the Steelers as a public trust rather than a business. On some level it's a stylistic rather than substantive difference. At least that has been my (total) outsider's view.

or maybe its because his stadium holds the least amount of people and doesn't have many luxury boxes.

Because some teams are in areas that are extremely wealthy, like the DC area, they will have an opportunity to make money that other teams don't. How can a Green Bay make as much money through luxury boxes, radio, local tv, and gate receipts, jersey sales, etc.? There is no possilbility of that, because the people who live in Wisconsin simply have far less money.

Also as Brud Lee points out, a team like the Redskins owns the stadium it plays in also - allowing them to rake in far more money than a team that has to pay a stadium authority.

Yet the Redskins benefit greatly from having the Green Bay Packers, and many other teams like them, in the league. It wouldn't be the NFL without them. The Redskins in fact are worth nothing without the other teams in the league to play. The NFL is what it is because of all the teams, and because the NFL has been a trailblazer at making sure that policy emphasizes "league first" revenue sharing rather than letting competitive balances tip greatly due to an inherently uneven playing field in terms of opportunity to earn money.

Sharing doesn't mean that everything is shared absolutely equally of course. If a team puts more into marketing, they still keep a lot of that money, but what is being asked is that they share more of it.

Otherwise you end up with a tiered "league" like MLB, where some teams have a dramatic competitive advantage due to the money they make. Do we want a situation where the Giants and Packers is similar in comparison to the Yankees and Brewers? That wouldn't be the NFL in my view.

logical fallacies at play here... the people around green bay don't necessarily have less money, its more a problem of population density.

secondly, no one is asking to do away with the current profit sharing (which is substantial), just not to increase it to insanity where teams share profits but not debts etc.