Handful of Owners Resisting Parameters of New Deal

Interesting how this lockout can lead to society issues: since this sports obeys to capitalist rules, we shouldn't be surprises that each side is trying its' best to have the biggest possible part of the cake (assuming the invisible hand will make the best reality for everybody) ... but, one could say that maybe everything shouldn't be for sale (for example the name of a stadium) or that owners and players should have the same goal: to entertain people (which logically leads to making a lot of money anyway, don't worry).

If you take some time to read about the history of the NFL, you will soon learn that the commissioners of the 50s and 60s came up with the concept of revenue sharing for the league as a way to grow the product. Back then, the Giants in NY and the Bears in Chicago were the big money teams and the commissioners convinced those owners to share large portions of the league's revenues equally among all the teams.

That led to competitive balance.

Many would argue that competitive balance led to more interesting opportunities to wager on NFL games (legally or illegally) with point spreads and that fueled the great expansion of the NFL creating the economic juggernaut that it is in 2011.

Note that it was the RICH owners who acceded to the revenue sharing concept and it remains in the control of the RICH owners to create a revenue sharing system that will work for the league. The smaller revenue owners cannot - - in reality - - make that happen.

Danny Boy is in a position where he could exert some leadership here on the part of the RICH owners because he - - unlike some other high revenue owners - - also owns his stadium. However - and let me be as diplomatic as I can here - -, Danny Boy is nowhere near the "most respected owner" among the group of 32. He can play an important role in forging a deal here but he will have to mend a LOT of fences in the owner's room and with some of the NFL front office execs. And one of the problems is that Danny Boy seems to be far more adept at tearing down fences than mending them...

Interesting. Now these so called "sports-fans" who've been siding with the owners since day one will wake up and see who's the real bad guys in this case.

EXACTLY!

The greedy American employee always wanting more money and forcing the owner to turn to cheap labor which has spawned the ever growing hord of South Americans jumping our boarders trespassing and taking the jobs from the American worker so they can send money home to South America to support their families leaving Americans with out jobs and income to support their families. The next thing we will hear is the owners moving their businesses to foreign countries in order to get away from the taxes and the next thing you know sweat shops.

Oh sorry.

If you take some time to read about the history of the NFL, you will soon learn that the commissioners of the 50s and 60s came up with the concept of revenue sharing for the league as a way to grow the product. Back then, the Giants in NY and the Bears in Chicago were the big money teams and the commissioners convinced those owners to share large portions of the league's revenues equally among all the teams.

That led to competitive balance.

Many would argue that competitive balance led to more interesting opportunities to wager on NFL games (legally or illegally) with point spreads and that fueled the great expansion of the NFL creating the economic juggernaut that it is in 2011.

Note that it was the RICH owners who acceded to the revenue sharing concept and it remains in the control of the RICH owners to create a revenue sharing system that will work for the league. The smaller revenue owners cannot - - in reality - - make that happen.

Danny Boy is in a position where he could exert some leadership here on the part of the RICH owners because he - - unlike some other high revenue owners - - also owns his stadium. However - and let me be as diplomatic as I can here - -, Danny Boy is nowhere near the "most respected owner" among the group of 32. He can play an important role in forging a deal here but he will have to mend a LOT of fences in the owner's room and with some of the NFL front office execs. And one of the problems is that Danny Boy seems to be far more adept at tearing down fences than mending them...

I could be wrong but I don't know why I get the feeling your slightly wrong and that the whole revenue sharing was probably requested and possibly helped to be intstituted by the teams who were making the least to assist them in keeping their teams running. I'm sure the Rich owners decided it was the best thing to do to keep football growing.

Another note.... Snyder does not own his stadium. Last I knew he was under a contract to stay in Fed Ex and which is why he didn't agree to a new stadium back in DC or to move to VA because he is stuck in Fed Ex for another 10 or mabe it's 9 yrs now. So as I have said before fans look at the Skins and immediatly think all the teams are doing as well monitarily when in fact the Skins are one of the best money making teams in the NFL. Not all teams are in the same situation, BUT..... even though they are doing well monitarily keep in mind the owner has to pay rent, or a mortgage, or pay off loans in order to keep the stadium. Which by the way costs money and if the fans are starting to feel the pinch from the bad economy and are losing their homes then I can onl guess that they are not renewing their season tickets which means there is no guarenteed income and they are scared about a possible loss of revenue which might effect the overall 9 bill they are receiving......ie; why they are requesting another 1 bill from the players in order to ensure the team does not get screwed in the end when the income drops and the really good teams can't send as much to the total revenue for the really bad teams.

Pete Rozell helped come up with revenue sharing in the 60's

Economy in NFL History (http://www.shmoop.com/nfl-history/economy.html)

And Snyder definitely owns FedEx, it's one of the reasons the Skins are so highly valued, because the stadium is factored in.

Hopefully after the owners' meeting ends on Wednesday we'll have some good news.

EXACTLY!

The greedy American employee always wanting more money and forcing the owner to turn to cheap labor which has spawned the ever growing hord of South Americans jumping our boarders trespassing and taking the jobs from the American worker so they can send money home to South America to support their families leaving Americans with out jobs and income to support their families. The next thing we will hear is the owners moving their businesses to foreign countries in order to get away from the taxes and the next thing you know sweat shops.

Oh sorry.

http://www.oberholtzer-creative.com/visualculture/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/brainwashing.gif

Another note.... Snyder does not own his stadium. Last I knew he was under a contract to stay in Fed Ex and which is why he didn't agree to a new stadium back in DC or to move to VA because he is stuck in Fed Ex for another 10 or mabe it's 9 yrs now.

Read below. Snyder owns the stadium. That stadium was paid for when JKC built it and with his own money. That's exactly why the Skins sold for 800+million at the time.


And Snyder definitely owns FedEx, it's one of the reasons the Skins are so highly valued, because the stadium is factored in.


Also, the only reason Snyder hasn't moved back into DC is because nobody in the area is going to sponsor that asshole with taxpayer money. That's the only reason why.

Loverro: 'No way' Redskins get fully government-financed D.C. stadium | The National Press Club (http://press.org/news-multimedia/news/loverro-no-way-redskins-get-fully-government-financed-stadium-move-dc)

Pete Rozell helped come up with revenue sharing in the 60's

Economy in NFL History (http://www.shmoop.com/nfl-history/economy.html)

And Snyder definitely owns FedEx, it's one of the reasons the Skins are so highly valued, because the stadium is factored in.

After a lenthy thought process I figured I was not correct about the stadium but he is tied to the stadium for a few more yrs I presume due to naming rights?

After a lenthy thought process I figured I was not correct about the stadium but he is tied to the stadium for a few more yrs I presume due to naming rights?

He's not tied to it in the way you're referring other than by the fact that it is relatively new for a stadium. It's only now getting into it's middle age period.

And the thing that is keeping him in the stadium more than anything is the implosion in the real estate market (since cities have figured out that stadiums are not the revenue generators they are made out to be). That land is worth a mint 10 years ago. Enough to build him a new stadium. Now...not so much.