Gang of 9
 

I found this on another website and thought it was relevant as the labor stuff unfolds. Apparently it was in WaPo somewhere but I hadn't seen it here:

from [url="http://www.profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm"]http://www.profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm[/url]

[b][size=3][font=Times New Roman]GANG OF NINE REVEALED[/font][/size][/b]


[size=3][font=Times New Roman]NFLPA executive director Gene Upshaw recently said that nine NFL franchises are resisting the expansion of revenue sharing by the league's 32 teams. Upshaw also told Mark Maske of [i]The Washington Post[/i] that the nine teams are planning to file suit if they are forced to share revenues that currently are not distributed evenly among all teams.[/font][/size]

[size=3][font=Times New Roman]A league source has identified for us the members of this modern-day Mudville nine: the Redskins, Eagles, Cowboys, Giants, Jets, Panthers, Broncos, Patriots, and Texans.[/font][/size]


[size=3][font=Times New Roman]We'd previously heard that the NFL and the union tentatively have agreed to expand the components of so-called "Defined Gross Revenue" (which is the basis for the team-by-team salary cap) to include money not currently shared by the various franchises. The proponents of enhanced revenue argue that, if any currently unshared revenue streams are to be included in the determination of DGR, the corresponding revenue should be shared equally -- and that, if the revenue is not to be shared, it should be excluded from the DGR calculation.[/font][/size]


[size=3][font=Times New Roman]The source also confirmed that the Mudville nine plan to sue if they are forced to accept expanded revenue sharing by the other 23 organizations. Frankly, we still don't understand how it would ever come to that, since nine votes are sufficient to block any changes to the way the NFL does business, given that 24 "yes" votes would be required to, for example, impose expanded revenue sharing.[/font][/size]
[size=3][/size]
[size=3][font=Times New Roman]NFL spokesman Greg Aiello tells us that, under the current system, teams share all national broadcast revenues, all sponsorship revenues, all licensing revenues, and the visiting team's share of ticket revenues. The following revenues aren't shared: the home team's share of the box-office revenue, local radio revenue, local TV revenue, local sponsorship revenue, and stadium-generated revenues from signage, concessions, parking, luxury suites, etc. [/font][/size]

Re: Gang of 9
 

That part of revenue is some stupid sh.. I'd get up in somebody's face to is forced to share my gate "beans"

Re: Gang of 9
 

Interesting that all of the NFC East teams are in this group.

Re: Gang of 9
 

It's a real mistake in my view for the Redskins to be unwilling to share more of the revenue. What makes the league work is that every team has a fair and equal chance. The Redskins really have to see that what makes the league stronger makes the Redskins stronger, and what makes the league weaker makes the Redskins weaker.

If we had an owner who wasn't as rich, I'm sure the Redskins would not be a part of any gang of 9.

The NFL is one league and all the ships will rise together or sink together.

Re: Gang of 9
 

[QUOTE=Oakland Red]It's a real mistake in my view for the Redskins to be unwilling to share more of the revenue. What makes the league work is that every team has a fair and equal chance. The Redskins really have to see that what makes the league stronger makes the Redskins stronger, and what makes the league weaker makes the Redskins weaker.

If we had an owner who wasn't as rich, I'm sure the Redskins would not be a part of any gang of 9.

The NFL is one league and all the ships will rise together or sink together.[/QUOTE]

Well, if we didn't have a rich owner, he wouldn't own the Skins......

Re: Gang of 9
 

[QUOTE=Oakland Red]It's a real mistake in my view for the Redskins to be unwilling to share more of the revenue. What makes the league work is that every team has a fair and equal chance. The Redskins really have to see that what makes the league stronger makes the Redskins stronger, and what makes the league weaker makes the Redskins weaker.

If we had an owner who wasn't as rich, I'm sure the Redskins would not be a part of any gang of 9.

The NFL is one league and all the ships will rise together or sink together.[/QUOTE]

danny is hundreds of millions of dollars in debt from buying the skins still, how does he pay for that? how is he supposed to make money?

fedex pays millions to have their name on the stadium, yet we're expected to share that money with the bengals and browns that refuse to sell their naming rights? If they don't want a sponsorship on their field, that's fine, but the SKINS shouldn't be responsible for paying for it.

Re: Gang of 9
 

[QUOTE=That Guy]danny is hundreds of millions of dollars in debt from buying the skins still, how does he pay for that? how is he supposed to make money?

fedex pays millions to have their name on the stadium, yet we're expected to share that money with the bengals and browns that refuse to sell their naming rights? If they don't want a sponsorship on their field, that's fine, but the SKINS shouldn't be responsible for paying for it.[/QUOTE]

I agree totally, after all we are not communists. I think the plum that the have-nots are really after is the luxury suite revenue. Although, now that I think about it, what team doesn't have a boatload of luxury boxes at this point? If the Browns and the Packers want us to share our FedEx naming rights money, they have got a lot of balls. It's like the Rolling Stones asking the Beatles to hand over some of their wig proceeds.

Re: Gang of 9
 

[QUOTE=70Chip]I agree totally, after all we are not communists. I think the plum that the have-nots are really after is the luxury suite revenue. Although, now that I think about it, what team doesn't have a boatload of luxury boxes at this point? If the Browns and the Packers want us to share our FedEx naming rights money, they have got a lot of balls. It's like the Rolling Stones asking the Beatles to hand over some of their wig proceeds.[/QUOTE]

fedex was designed specifically to maximize lux boxes... if that money goes into a shared pool, it's only hurting the owners of new stadiums (which again, fedex is part of the debt danny still has) and promoting others who build newer staddiums not to bother cause they'll only get 1/32nd of the profit and its not worth the trouble.

Re: Gang of 9
 

[QUOTE=Oakland Red]It's a real mistake in my view for the Redskins to be unwilling to share more of the revenue. What makes the league work is that every team has a fair and equal chance. The Redskins really have to see that what makes the league stronger makes the Redskins stronger, and what makes the league weaker makes the Redskins weaker.

If we had an owner who wasn't as rich, I'm sure the Redskins would not be a part of any gang of 9.

The NFL is one league and all the ships will rise together or sink together.[/QUOTE]
League seems to be pretty good as it stands right now. Why would exapnding the shared revenues help it? I think that is what Danny is fighting against. The exspansion of the shared revenues is a blatant attempt for the lesser successful revenue teams to increase their profits while doing nothing to benefit the league. The cap is going to end up just about the same in any case if the CBA is extended. Either they will expand the shared revenues but the players will get a smaller percentage of a larger pot or the revenues stay basically the same and the players get a larger percentage of a smaller pot. The real issues here are setting the precedent of including these other evenue streams which will in the future decrease profits for teams like the Skins. The CBA will happen when the owners figure their end out.

Re: Gang of 9
 

As the revenues increase, the disparity between the richer teams and poorer teams increases. If you are going to have a balanced league that works well, that is something that has to be addressed. The Green Bays and other teams will never have the resources of the Redskins and Giants and Cowboys, etc.

Revenue sharing doesn't mean that the other teams get as much of the gate revenue at Fed Ex as the Redskins, but an increased share is fair, since the revenues are getting so much more.

The NFL is the best sports league because they have been sharing the revenues far more fairly than other leagues. As the situation changes with increased revenues, the policy has to change with it, or the competitive balance becomes tilted toward the rich teams, and that isn't a fair league in my book. Let the competitive balance tip due to good playing, good coaching, good management, but not just because some teams play in areas that are far more wealthy than other areas.

Re: Gang of 9
 

[QUOTE=Oakland Red]As the revenues increase, the disparity between the richer teams and poorer teams increases. If you are going to have a balanced league that works well, that is something that has to be addressed. The Green Bays and other teams will never have the resources of the Redskins and Giants and Cowboys, etc.

Revenue sharing doesn't mean that the other teams get as much of the gate revenue at Fed Ex as the Redskins, but an increased share is fair, since the revenues are getting so much more.

The NFL is the best sports league because they have been sharing the revenues far more fairly than other leagues. As the situation changes with increased revenues, the policy has to change with it, or the competitive balance becomes tilted toward the rich teams, and that isn't a fair league in my book. Let the competitive balance tip due to good playing, good coaching, good management, but not just because some teams play in areas that are far more wealthy than other areas.[/QUOTE]

meanwhile the redskins stay in debt, values of successful franchises shrink (since they can't have any benefits like being profitable) and you end up with a league that refuse to build new stadiums (why add luxury boxes or more seats? you're team goes into debt and you only get 1/32nd of the new profit, and at that rate you'll never make up the costs) and where crap fan interesst in the browns ends up being paid for by profitable teams (like the skins) and they have no reason to try and improve.

if you're not even going to try to pull your weight, forcing someone else to do it is stupid. if the small market teams can't pull a profit or get local revenue, they need to consider moving or selling naming rights intead of just bitching about how its someone else's problem.

i believe the national share is something like 80mill, which is almost enough to max cap... a franchies can't raise 40mill to cover stadium and staff? and their inability to capitalize on their teams should be paid for by the local redskins stores?

Re: Gang of 9
 

the point of the whole arguement is that some owners stand staus quo and are happy making a profit, and some owners(like d snyder and j jones)want to make their teams as profitable as possible.if the skins want to make mega money promoting their franchise(stadium naming rights,etc.)in my opinion,that money should not be shared

Re: Gang of 9
 

Maybe it's me, but I believe in the whole you have to spend money to make money philosophy. If, as an owner, you don't feel you can spend the money it takes to compete in the NFL, then you shouldn't own a football team. In my opinion, if you have halfway decent marketing skills and you [b]attempt[/b] to put a winning product on the field every year, then you will have merchandise, tickets, concessions, and other sales go way up.

From what I understand, this basically means the NFL is one big company and the owners turn into nothing more than investors and micromanagers. Some teams will do better than others financially, some from the market they're in, some from just having great fans, and some from winning (Gilette stadium may go back to being empty half the time in a few years.) I like the way the NFL is setup now. I don't feel it's our job to carry the owners who won't spend the money we'll spend, yet when we're raking in profits from spending that money want their hand in the honeypot.

Re: Gang of 9
 

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.

Re: Gang of 9
 

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.

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?

Re: Gang of 9
 

[QUOTE=dmek25]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?[/QUOTE]


What you point out reflects the smaller amount of financial resources these teams have to begin with from their management, as well as the much smaller wealth to be found in their areas in general.

The point I want to make is that its important for teams to want to make the league stronger for everyone. How can we make this the best league, the most competitive league? A "we're all in this together" attitude makes for a much more interesting league for fans to watch.

The more there is an everyone for themselves attitude, then strife from all quarters threatens everyone's enjoyment of being a fan.

Right now for example, as the owners struggle over this issue, the labor agreement is in jeopardy. This sort of strife could lead to the Redskins having to release half their players. Not fun.

Re: Gang of 9
 

I think what will eventually happen is that the deal will get done in time.

When you look at all the "players" involved, the new ESPN set-up for Monday Night football, Sunday night games airing on a new network (NBC), the NFL network making a big push to get their hand in the cookie jar, and even the scouting combine is starting to be a big offseason production. My point is that someone will step in and help broker a new deal. There's more at stake than just the teams themselves.
A lot of moving parts here. Consider the money that goes into producing the Super Bowl alone.

I think the Gang of 9 just want that dollar figure to be a very reasonable one and one that all parties can obviously agree on. They are essentially sending a message right back at the NFLPA saying we won't just be pushed around by a bunch of "Union guys". There will be intense negotiating, but it will get done.

This is just my opionion....and it's only worth two cents on any given day.

Re: Gang of 9
 

Oakland_Red
Are you saying that right now everything should be split totally even in the league?

Re: Gang of 9
 

No, I said we aren't talking about a completely even distribution, just a fairer proportion to keep the competitive balance equal.



[QUOTE=FRPLG]Oakland_Red
Are you saying that right now everything should be split totally even in the league?[/QUOTE]

Re: Gang of 9
 

[QUOTE=Oakland Red]No, I said we aren't talking about a completely even distribution, just a fairer proportion to keep the competitive balance equal.[/QUOTE]

That's part of the fundamental disagreement with the owners opposing this, they feel it's already fair enough.

Re: Gang of 9
 

oakland red what smaller amount of financial resources are you referring to?the main revenue sharing that keeps all of the teams on a semi equal playing field is the tv deal.this is mainly what the salary cap is based on?so just because a team doesnt have the luxury boxes,or the strong fan base in terms of merchandise is only a very small part of the equation.if you put in 12-13 hours a day and build your product up to be one of the top 3 in the world,would you want to share with someone sitting on their ass doing nothing to better their situation?

Re: Gang of 9
 

[QUOTE=12thMan]That's part of the fundamental disagreement with the owners opposing this, they feel it's already fair enough.[/QUOTE]

Fair enough to have a competitive even playing field? That is the barometer to me. The other 23 teams feel that things are getting out of balance. The gang of 9 I think agrees that it is out of balance, but in their favor, so they prefer that.

I think that the idea that the gang of 9 would actually sue the other teams is disturbing, and if things go down that road, then the NFL will deteriorate.

The NFL can have these disagreements, but at the end of the day, we rise or sink together. Is the NFL the banner or is it the teams for themselves?

Perhaps an analogy would be in the founding of our country. The states worked together to form a Union, the [i]United[/i] States. Will the NFL be the United NFL teams, or will it be a Civil War?

Heh, maybe I'm not David McCullough, but there's a comparison there somewhere.

Re: Gang of 9
 

[QUOTE=dmek25]oakland red what smaller amount of financial resources are you referring to?the main revenue sharing that keeps all of the teams on a semi equal playing field is the tv deal.this is mainly what the salary cap is based on?so just because a team doesnt have the luxury boxes,or the strong fan base in terms of merchandise is only a very small part of the equation.if you put in 12-13 hours a day and build your product up to be one of the top 3 in the world,would you want to share with someone sitting on their ass doing nothing to better their situation?[/QUOTE]


Some teams will have all sorts of revenue streams due to the greater wealth of the people in that area, the stadium deal, the original wealth of the ownership group, etc.

Green Bay and Wisconsin can't make their state have more wealth. So they cannot ever make as much money as the Redskins with all the local media deals, stadium situation, merchandise, original ownership wealth, etc.

Yet, Green Bay adds immeasurably to the quality of the league. They add character, an illustrious history in their case, the interest of fans from their part of the country. All of these things make for a much better league, and in effect make the Redskins more valuable. Because everyone would be diminished if Green Bay no longer fielded a team, or had a team that compared to the Brewers.

Re: 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

Re: Gang of 9
 

[QUOTE=Oakland Red]Fair enough to have a competitive even playing field? That is the barometer to me. The other 23 teams feel that things are getting out of balance. The gang of 9 I think agrees that it is out of balance, but in their favor, so they prefer that.

I think that the idea that the gang of 9 would actually sue the other teams is disturbing, and if things go down that road, then the NFL will deteriorate.

The NFL can have these disagreements, but at the end of the day, we rise or sink together. Is the NFL the banner or is it the teams for themselves?

Perhaps an analogy would be in the founding of our country. The states worked together to form a Union, the [i]United[/i] States. Will the NFL be the United NFL teams, or will it be a Civil War?

Heh, maybe I'm not David McCullough, but there's a comparison there somewhere.[/QUOTE]

Well I 'aint so sure the United States was all for the people. I think if you censored a few ethnic groups, they would hardly agree that we came together without injuring quite a few groups. Not the best analogy, but I do get the spirit of what you're saying:)

You mention it's disturbing that teams would sue the NFL? I think it's just as disturbing that the Federal Government would take Bill Gates and his company to court, (which by the way, the Seattle Seahawks have been indirect beneficiaries of his genious) and watch other so called software giants bring legal complaint after legal complaint against them. It's interesting that the NFL and the Gang of 9 are really operating on the same basic business tenents as many major corporations and our government encourage.

I really don't want to get all tied into a knot over this, I think they'll figure it out.