Good/Bad News for a Change - 2013 18MM cap penalty probably (not) going away

I know no one want would want to piss off their fellow owners of a business or piss off board members of a company, but in this situation knowing the fact that the Redskins and Cowboys are two teams that provide the most money toward the pot of money that gets distributed to lesser teams in the organization and have been doing so for years, I find it rather funny those teams would vote to "bite the hand that feeds them" per say.

What does Snyder have to lose? The NFL is not going to kick him out, not going to take the team away from him, so what is there to lose? Snyder is not running for a lead or head position in the NFL so if he pisses off 30 other owners, who cares?

I really hope Snyder has the balls to pull this off. What the NFL did was morally wrong, illegal at the time (collusion). The NFL had ample and I repeat ample opportunity to advise the Redskins that the contracts were not going to be approved because of whatever reason and actually had the duty to do just that. Instead the NFL approved the deals. Clearly the NFL, by not denying them, did not have an issue with how those contracts were structured at the time (prior to the new CBA) so they (the NFL) should not have standing in any claim of damage or possible future damage since they approved them thus no punishment should have been put on anyone.

Your right in your statement but what the article is trying to point out is that the NFL should not be listed as a "non-profit" organization. They made money above the 6-7 mill donated by each team. To include TV deals, and sales of NFL apparel. So technically the NFL should be paying taxes on the 6-7 mill as well.

Well, does the League offices make the money, or is it distributed directly and proportionally to all 32 teams. I doubt that the League itself "makes" money, but I don't know. For example on NFL apparel, doesn't that revenue go directly to the teams, based on whatever the agreed split is. I don't think the League gets a separate percentage of sales.

Apparently the government doesn't care when your business is for entertainment and brings in billions of dollars in revenue streams for cities all around the U.S.

My guess is that the government would care if such an issue were to be brought to court.

the whole thing is a joke and goodell is a crook.

Your right in your statement but what the article is trying to point out is that the NFL should not be listed as a "non-profit" organization. They made money above the 6-7 mill donated by each team. To include TV deals, and sales of NFL apparel. So technically the NFL should be paying taxes on the 6-7 mill as well.

I agree with you about whether the NFL should be considered non-profit. But there is a huge difference between saying the NFL doesnt pay taxes as compared to saying the individual teams get a 6-7 mil tax write off each year.

I know no one want would want to piss off their fellow owners of a business or piss off board members of a company, but in this situation knowing the fact that the Redskins and Cowboys are two teams that provide the most money toward the pot of money that gets distributed to lesser teams in the organization and have been doing so for years,

.

Huh?What do you mean when you say" provide the most money toward the pot pf money that gets distributed to lesser teams",how many years and how much money?

Whenever revenue sharing started Giantone.

There is no doubt that two of the top three richest franchises in American football have been giving money to lesser teams as far as earnings since the league instituted revenue sharing.

Whenever revenue sharing started Giantone.

There is no doubt that two of the top three richest franchises in American football have been giving money to lesser teams as far as earnings since the league instituted revenue sharing.

Don't mistake the value of the franchise with revenue sharing,a very good portion of the Redskins value is tied up in real estate,same with the Cowboys.

To clear up some questions...


Revenue Sharing in the NFL (http://basketball.about.com/od/nba-vs-nbapa/ss/Revenue-Sharing-And-North-Americas-Major-Pro-Sports-Leagues_2.htm)


The NFL's revenue-sharing model is universally lauded as the reason pro football continues to thrive in tiny markets like Green Bay, Wisconsin.
The bulk of the league's revenue - approximately $4 billion in 2011 - comes from broadcast deals with NBC, CBS, Fox, ESPN and DirecTV. That income is shared equally among all teams. Income from licensing deals - everything from jerseys to posters to team-logo beer coolers - is also shared evenly.
Ticket revenue is split using a slightly different formula: the home team keeps 60 percent of "the gate" for each game, while the visiting team gets 40 percent.Other sources of revenue - things like the sale of luxury boxes, stadium concessions and the like - are not shared, which does give teams in bigger markets or with state-of-the-art arenas a significant edge in profitability. The new CBA attempts to remedy that in two ways. First, the league will set aside a percentage of revenue in a stadium fund, which will be used to match teams' investments in their facilities. Second, there will be an additional "luxury tax

Don't mistake the value of the franchise with revenue sharing,a very good portion of the Redskins value is tied up in real estate,same with the Cowboys.

Lets see. If the owners agree that each "profitable" team must put forth a certain % of their profits towards the big kitty, I would presume the Redskins would be pretty close to the top 3 teams making the most and pretty sure if you take a % of that profit it's going to be more then the majority of the other teams % they have to put in.

In other words if the Skins are one of the top 3 teams as far as making the most money and all owners have to put in 10% of their profits, I'm pretty sure the Redskins 10% would be more then the majority of the other teams %'s.