Tuesday Vote

70Chip · 03-06-2006, 08:55 PM

The CW, based on my reading, is that there is not enough revenue sharing in the deal offered by the PA to satisfy the small market cabal. They suppossedly had a conference call recently and reaffirmed their solidarity. Cash over Cap is also a stumbling point here. If the deal fails but gets the approval of the Gang of 9 (the haves) and say 7 or 8 fencesitters won't that cast the have-nots as the antagonists in the whole drama?
As events unfold, the media may start to focus on what these clubs are actually asking for.
Up until now, revenue sharing has made sense because it was largely composed of television revenues. On television, a Green Bay or a Cincinatti contributes just as much to the league's success as New England or Dallas. As for NFL properties (jerseys etc.), revenue sharing could be viewed as a hedge for teams against a rainy day. These sales will fluctuate with a team's relative success and so it tends to even out. (I realize that there exceptions and clubs like the Raiders have a legitimate beef.) Dividing ticket revenue on a percentage basis makes sense for similar reasons.
However, in seeking to divide all revenue, these owners are essentially asking to be given ownership in their competition. Brown of Cincinatti is essentially saying, "It's fine for the Redskins to sell their stadium naming rights, but I would never do such a thing. My father's name is far too important. Now fork it over." I think it requires an enormous amount of nuts to make such a demand.
If the media would report on things this way, instead of always portraying Snyder et. al. as overcome with greed, there would be pressure on the poor group not only to get a new deal done, but to become more agressive in their marketing. I know I've made some of these points before, but it looks to me like the haves are being set up as the bad guys here and it really gets under my skin. I always thought that Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand was hamfisted, overwrought, and simplistic--a comic book for hyper-active adults. It sure looks prescient today.

mooby · 03-06-2006, 09:00 PM

phuck all the lower revenue teams. I mean seriously, they could make more revenue, they just need to put their minds up to it. Danny didn't get to where he was by sitting on his ass couting his cash. It's not like some teams are situation in ghost towns. They could even ask Danny for advice to start pulling in some cash. It's not like he would say no.

Sammy Baugh Fan · 03-06-2006, 09:01 PM

~buys you a beer when I meet you.

^5

Sammy Baugh Fan · 03-06-2006, 09:03 PM

lol
Not the 17 year old mooby but the original poster.

Mooby gets a soda!

peace

freddyg12 · 03-06-2006, 09:09 PM

competitive balance will be maintained w/a cap, so long as there's a cap I see no real logic in revenue sharing as its been discussed (or rather as I've read of it). I certainly don't buy the "small market" theory. Green Bay is hugely popular & doesn't have any problems selling tickets, there's a lot that they could do to boost revenues.

#56fanatic · 03-07-2006, 10:35 AM

For Green Bay they do not have an owner, only a operating GM. So there isn't money in the pocket to offer free agents, or at least several free agents. I think it is totaly wrong for local revenues to be shared. this is money that those owners spend to make money. Getting deals with local companies and marketing. Teams like the Cardinals, Saints, Colts, rely on large revenue clubs to exist. Hard to imagine colts in that mix, but its true. If there isn't a CBA signed look for them to move to LA, california. I think us bigger teams should hold out, what do we have to lose? NOTHING, its the smaller teams that will pay the price. Hey, we will have the cash to spend to improve our team, they wont. so bitch and moan all you want, it is the Dannys, the Jones that call the shots in the NFL, not the Bidwells!

firstdown · 03-07-2006, 10:57 AM

I always say that if you susidize another mans inocome that man will have to work that much less. These so called lower income teams are just feeding off another organizations hard work and creative ideas. Why have teams like the Cardnals been so bad for so long? I don't think its because of revenue it because of poor managment. Can anyone one tell me of a team without enough cash to pay it players? If I was Snyder I would be hard pressed to give a % of my revenue to other teams and if I was one of the other teams I would want a % of their income. Man this sounds like everyday arguments about our goverments social programs.

scowan · 03-07-2006, 12:21 PM

I admit to not understanding the total ends and outs of this whole thing, but I think a salary cap is an absolute neccesity for the NFL to continue its success, because the parity it creates allows different teams to shine each year, which is good for the league. As much as I would love for the Skins to win the Superbowl every year, I understand that realistically it would not be good for the league in general (just give me one right now!) Man, I hope they work this thing out!

RedskinPete · 03-07-2006, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scowan

I admit to not understanding the total ends and outs of this whole thing, but I think a salary cap is an absolute neccesity for the NFL to continue its success, because the parity it creates allows different teams to shine each year, which is good for the league. As much as I would love for the Skins to win the Superbowl every year, I understand that realistically it would not be good for the league in general (just give me one right now!) Man, I hope they work this thing out!

We all wanted to see them work this out but not by giving away the farm. Jerry Jones is right!!! Why should he give more of his hard earned money to teams that don't work as hard to beat his team each sunday? Same with the Redskins why should teams like Cincinnati get any money from teams that make money off naming stadium like Fedx? Another thing that low income ownes have not seen is teams like the Redskins own thier on stadium and there is a cost here as well that should be taken in to acount! These teams wantec team like The Redskins and Cowboys to throw money made in things like Local advertising and Radio in to the kitty as well!!! If the Redskins give in to this it just makes no sense! Why work hard when you are paying for teams like Cards to risk nothing, not work hard while other teams will do it for you?

shallyshal · 03-07-2006, 02:39 PM

it is going to come down to how much power tagliabue has and what he wants his final rep to be... he will be retiring soon and a league that tears itself apart over revenue would not look good as his epitaph as commish. you could not imagine rozelle allowing this to happen. but the league is a different animal now. hard for old pete to have imagined a billion dollar franchise.. but that is reality.

i am hoping for snyder and jones to hold the line. they put their own fortunes onthe line with debt service. nobody like the rooneys should have the right to pick their pockets

03-06-2006, 08:55 PM	#1
70Chip Playmaker Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Manassas Age: 53 Posts: 3,048	Tuesday Vote The CW, based on my reading, is that there is not enough revenue sharing in the deal offered by the PA to satisfy the small market cabal. They suppossedly had a conference call recently and reaffirmed their solidarity. Cash over Cap is also a stumbling point here. If the deal fails but gets the approval of the Gang of 9 (the haves) and say 7 or 8 fencesitters won't that cast the have-nots as the antagonists in the whole drama? As events unfold, the media may start to focus on what these clubs are actually asking for. Up until now, revenue sharing has made sense because it was largely composed of television revenues. On television, a Green Bay or a Cincinatti contributes just as much to the league's success as New England or Dallas. As for NFL properties (jerseys etc.), revenue sharing could be viewed as a hedge for teams against a rainy day. These sales will fluctuate with a team's relative success and so it tends to even out. (I realize that there exceptions and clubs like the Raiders have a legitimate beef.) Dividing ticket revenue on a percentage basis makes sense for similar reasons. However, in seeking to divide all revenue, these owners are essentially asking to be given ownership in their competition. Brown of Cincinatti is essentially saying, "It's fine for the Redskins to sell their stadium naming rights, but I would never do such a thing. My father's name is far too important. Now fork it over." I think it requires an enormous amount of nuts to make such a demand. If the media would report on things this way, instead of always portraying Snyder et. al. as overcome with greed, there would be pressure on the poor group not only to get a new deal done, but to become more agressive in their marketing. I know I've made some of these points before, but it looks to me like the haves are being set up as the bad guys here and it really gets under my skin. I always thought that Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand was hamfisted, overwrought, and simplistic--a comic book for hyper-active adults. It sure looks prescient today. __________________ This Monkey's Gone to Heaven

03-06-2006, 09:00 PM	#2
mooby Hug Anne Spyder Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 20,446	Re: Tuesday Vote phuck all the lower revenue teams. I mean seriously, they could make more revenue, they just need to put their minds up to it. Danny didn't get to where he was by sitting on his ass couting his cash. It's not like some teams are situation in ghost towns. They could even ask Danny for advice to start pulling in some cash. It's not like he would say no. __________________ Hail to the Football Team

03-06-2006, 09:01 PM	#3
Sammy Baugh Fan Playmaker Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Northern Virginia, Woodbridge Age: 62 Posts: 2,507	Re: Tuesday Vote ~buys you a beer when I meet you. ^5 __________________ Check out Mike Hedrick - The Next Food Network Star. Please Click and give me a Thumbs Up and Positive Comment. Thanks

03-06-2006, 09:03 PM	#4
Sammy Baugh Fan Playmaker Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Northern Virginia, Woodbridge Age: 62 Posts: 2,507	Re: Tuesday Vote lol Not the 17 year old mooby but the original poster. Mooby gets a soda! peace __________________ Check out Mike Hedrick - The Next Food Network Star. Please Click and give me a Thumbs Up and Positive Comment. Thanks

03-07-2006, 10:35 AM	#6
#56fanatic The Starter Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Charlotte NC Age: 50 Posts: 1,801	Re: Tuesday Vote For Green Bay they do not have an owner, only a operating GM. So there isn't money in the pocket to offer free agents, or at least several free agents. I think it is totaly wrong for local revenues to be shared. this is money that those owners spend to make money. Getting deals with local companies and marketing. Teams like the Cardinals, Saints, Colts, rely on large revenue clubs to exist. Hard to imagine colts in that mix, but its true. If there isn't a CBA signed look for them to move to LA, california. I think us bigger teams should hold out, what do we have to lose? NOTHING, its the smaller teams that will pay the price. Hey, we will have the cash to spend to improve our team, they wont. so bitch and moan all you want, it is the Dannys, the Jones that call the shots in the NFL, not the Bidwells!

03-06-2006, 09:09 PM	#5
freddyg12 Playmaker Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 4,540	Re: Tuesday Vote competitive balance will be maintained w/a cap, so long as there's a cap I see no real logic in revenue sharing as its been discussed (or rather as I've read of it). I certainly don't buy the "small market" theory. Green Bay is hugely popular & doesn't have any problems selling tickets, there's a lot that they could do to boost revenues.

03-07-2006, 10:57 AM	#7
firstdown Living Legend Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: chesapeake, va Age: 60 Posts: 15,817	Re: Tuesday Vote I always say that if you susidize another mans inocome that man will have to work that much less. These so called lower income teams are just feeding off another organizations hard work and creative ideas. Why have teams like the Cardnals been so bad for so long? I don't think its because of revenue it because of poor managment. Can anyone one tell me of a team without enough cash to pay it players? If I was Snyder I would be hard pressed to give a % of my revenue to other teams and if I was one of the other teams I would want a % of their income. Man this sounds like everyday arguments about our goverments social programs.

03-07-2006, 12:21 PM	#8
scowan The Starter Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: KY Age: 55 Posts: 1,559	Re: Tuesday Vote I admit to not understanding the total ends and outs of this whole thing, but I think a salary cap is an absolute neccesity for the NFL to continue its success, because the parity it creates allows different teams to shine each year, which is good for the league. As much as I would love for the Skins to win the Superbowl every year, I understand that realistically it would not be good for the league in general (just give me one right now!) Man, I hope they work this thing out!

03-07-2006, 02:39 PM	#10
shallyshal Special Teams Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 336	Re: Tuesday Vote it is going to come down to how much power tagliabue has and what he wants his final rep to be... he will be retiring soon and a league that tears itself apart over revenue would not look good as his epitaph as commish. you could not imagine rozelle allowing this to happen. but the league is a different animal now. hard for old pete to have imagined a billion dollar franchise.. but that is reality. i am hoping for snyder and jones to hold the line. they put their own fortunes onthe line with debt service. nobody like the rooneys should have the right to pick their pockets

Tuesday Vote

Locker Room Main Forum