Re: Gang of 9
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72]Revenue sharing is what has made the NFL what it is today, the strongest pro sports league. It's why small market teams like Jacksonville and Green Bay can flourish.

Get rid of the revenue sharing and the NFL will become MLB overnight, and I don't think anybody wants that to happen.[/QUOTE]
I totally agree. Revenue sharing is a fundamental necessity for a successful sports league. They thing is that there is clearly a group of teams who refuse to take the same steps that the more profitable teams take to make money. All the while they propose to take more money from the teams that are the ones taking these steps. To me the league is at a good place right now. I think extending the CBA to grow proportionally to the the revenues of the league is appropriate but simply infusing a not so insignificant chunk of revenues treams into the shared revenues has very little value to the league as a whole but a ton of value to those "poorer" teams. I don't see where it makes the league better and in fact I see ways it hurts the league. I think the balance they have now needs to be maintained.

Daseal is right. Teams that are less profitable are so because they aren't trying hard enough for the most part. I don't expect Green Bay to necessarily make exactly the same amount as DC but I can't see how they don't make enough to stay as competitive as every other team. If you look at the "gang of 9" it is a group of longer term successful teams. They make money because they are good but with the cap I think it is very suspect that they are good because they make money. They are good because they do the best job scouting, coaching and those things. Put some effort into marketing and put a good product on the field and your team makes its own money. When that happens something tells me that the gang of 9 might grow by a team all of a sudden.

Re: Gang of 9
 

the steelers would probably be on that list too if they didn't have the smallest stadium known to man :P

Re: Gang of 9
 

[QUOTE=That Guy]i dont think anyone is asking to ditch revenue sharing altogether, but if you slide all the way into outright communism, then the desire to compete disappears completely, and everyone's profits end up going away. That's what this seems like.[/QUOTE]
Ding ding ding ding! There needs to be some level of self sustaining that every team has so that A) they are motivated and B) the fans don't perceive that the team only cares about profits and they see revenue sharing and not a good football team as the easiest and best way to profits. This league has to primarily be about football and not sharing money and fans need to know that.

Re: Gang of 9
 

[QUOTE=That Guy]the steelers would probably be on that list too if they didn't have the smallest stadium known to man :P[/QUOTE]
Also a good point. We're not talking about fundamental disagreements here. We're talking about a group of successful teams not wanting to give MORE of their money to the less successful teams. If there were 5 or 6 more teams who considered themselves more self sustaining then all of a sudden it is a 50/50 split and the less successful teams look a little bit more like whiners looking for a handout.

Re: Gang of 9
 

[QUOTE=FRPLG]I totally agree. Revenue sharing is a fundamental necessity for a successful sports league. They thing is that there is clearly a group of teams who refuse to take the same steps that the more profitable teams take to make money. All the while they propose to take more money from the teams that are the ones taking these steps. To me the league is at a good place right now. I think extending the CBA to grow proportionally to the the revenues of the league is appropriate but simply infusing a not so insignificant chunk of revenues treams into the shared revenues has very little value to the league as a whole but a ton of value to those "poorer" teams. I don't see where it makes the league better and in fact I see ways it hurts the league. I think the balance they have now needs to be maintained.

Daseal is right. Teams that are less profitable are so because they aren't trying hard enough for the most part. I don't expect Green Bay to necessarily make exactly the same amount as DC but I can't see how they don't make enough to stay as competitive as every other team. If you look at the "gang of 9" it is a group of longer term successful teams. They make money because they are good but with the cap I think it is very suspect that they are good because they make money. They are good because they do the best job scouting, coaching and those things. Put some effort into marketing and put a good product on the field and your team makes its own money. When that happens something tells me that the gang of 9 might grow by a team all of a sudden.[/QUOTE]

I think this sentiment pretty much sums it up for me as well.

I think it's a fine line. You don't want to share too much revenue because it takes away the incentive for teams to bring in revenues. But you want to make sure you're sharing enough so that everyone has a shot at signing the best coaches and players.

I think the currrent system in place is just fine. There are no small market teams out there that aren't making enough money to cover player and staffing salaries. Whether or not all owners are making a profit should not be the primary concern of the league. The only thing that matters is do you have enough revenue to staff your coaches, trainers, and pay for players. Everyone does, and that's enough to remain competitive on the field.

Any profits you take in aside from those revenues should be on you to come up with.

The small market owners remind me of someone on welfare who wants to be supported with $30,000 per year from the government. The whole point of welfare is to give you the BARE BARE essentials so you can live your life. Food, shelter, healthcare. It shouldn't be paying for you to afford nice clothes or pay for meals at TGI Fridays. In the NFL, the bare minimum that each team needs is the money to cover player salaries up to the salary cap, and coaching/training salaries. Beyond that, you're just asking for a handout.

Re: Gang of 9
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10]The small market owners remind me of someone on welfare who wants to be supported with $30,000 per year from the government. The whole point of welfare is to give you the BARE BARE essentials so you can live your life. Food, shelter, healthcare. It shouldn't be paying for you to afford nice clothes or pay for meals at TGI Fridays. In the NFL, the bare minimum that each team needs is the money to cover player salaries up to the salary cap, and coaching/training salaries. Beyond that, you're just asking for a handout.[/QUOTE]

Welfare doesn't provide enough for the basics of living in today's world, but that's an argument for another day. :)

Re: Gang of 9
 

[QUOTE=Mattyk72]Welfare doesn't provide enough for the basics of living in today's world, but that's an argument for another day. :)[/QUOTE]

Depends upon what you call "the basics." But you're right we don't have to go there. The main point is that all NFL teams really need is enough money to field a competitive team, which means player and coaching salaries. Above and beyond that, I think teams should be on their own.

Re: Gang of 9
 

Lost in this is the fact that [u]every single team that [b]owns[/b] its own stadium[/u] is on the list. The revenue for these teams is higher because their investment is greater.

The Redskins can maximize their revenue on gameday in a way that the Ravens (for example) can't. The leased space in FedEx doesn't go to some state Stadium Authority, or to some third party landowner, it goes to the Washington Redskins. That is what makes the Skins more valuable than, say, the Ravens, whose M&T Bank stadium was funded through a combination of proceeds generated from the sale of tax-exempt revenue bonds, debt service paid by lottery proceeds and the Ravens.

Should the Ravens, who don't have the same responsibilties (financial or otherwise) in their stadium have the same stadium revenue as the Redskins? Nine teams don't think so. Neither does the budding capitalist in me.

PS - this isn't a crack on the Ravens or their fans. Don't get your Googles in a bunch.

Re: Gang of 9
 

9 clubs huh?

we shall call them...

the fellowship of the bling

Re: Gang of 9
 

[QUOTE=BrudLee]Lost in this is the fact that [u]every single team that [b]owns[/b] its own stadium[/u] is on the list. The revenue for these teams is higher because their investment is greater.

The Redskins can maximize their revenue on gameday in a way that the Ravens (for example) can't. The leased space in FedEx doesn't go to some state Stadium Authority, or to some third party landowner, it goes to the Washington Redskins. That is what makes the Skins more valuable than, say, the Ravens, whose M&T Bank stadium was funded through a combination of proceeds generated from the sale of tax-exempt revenue bonds, debt service paid by lottery proceeds and the Ravens.

Should the Ravens, who don't have the same responsibilties (financial or otherwise) in their stadium have the same stadium revenue as the Redskins? Nine teams don't think so. Neither does the budding capitalist in me.

PS - this isn't a crack on the Ravens or their fans. Don't get your Googles in a bunch.[/QUOTE]

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.

Re: Gang of 9
 

as long as the nfl keeps the television revenues split among the teams,there is no such thing as a small market team.tv is what makes this league go.the arguements are over going the extra mile in making your franchise MORE profitable.if the cardinals and other franchises choose to sit on their asses and do nothing extra,they shouldnt be rewarded for it

Re: Gang of 9
 

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.

Re: Gang of 9
 

I don't think anyone here disagrees with the basic concept or even the exisisting CBA. It's been the lifeblood of the recent success of the NFL. It's just that the more enterprising owners, in their opinion, are being unduly "penalized" for being more profitable, which they feel has everything to do with how they operate their franchises.

I think an even better question is, what would a Dan Snyder or Jerry Jones do with, let's say a team in Green Bay, Arizona, Cincy, or Cleveland, for instance. I dare say, they won't elevate to where the Cowboys and Redskins currently exist in terms of revenue, but chances are they probably would be better off financially.

Re: Gang of 9
 

12th well said.the jones and the snyders of the world suceed by spending money to make money,something some of the other owners dont get,or dont want to get.i think everyone agrees the cardinals franchise would be much more sucessful if either one of those 2 owners ran that team.im not against revenue sharing,i agree its what makes the league what it is.but either make the other owners invest more into their team,or split the revenue differently,going by different guidelines

Re: Gang of 9
 

to add,i was just checking the salary cap situation,and think its kind of ironic that just about every team deemed small market is way under the cap.maybe instead of marketing,this is how the owners make extra money.any thoughts?