Revenue Sharing

[CRT3]

Ok if the owners agree to full revenue sharring that would mean the higher revenue teams would have to add all of there monies(luxury, club, local ads and so on) into a pool with team like the Bengals (Paul Brown Stadium) therefore making it a complete even playing field.

So my question would be if the arguement for complete revenue sharring is accepted shouldn't all ticket prices be even accross the board. I suspect you would see a lawsuit by a fan or 2 as to the fairness of this agreement. If the owners and players want it to be equal (sharring all of the money) then the fans, who supply all of this money should have fair based pricing system.

2 club seats with parking at FEDEX $6,500.
2 Club Seats with parking at Paul Brown Stadium $4,100

Any Thoughts?

[BigSKINBauer]

i always thought there would be no reason for individual owners to push to interact with fans. They would not need to put money into things like Redskins.com tv or extremeskins. They wouldnt' need to have training camp or the offseason beach blitz. If all money is shared why would one franchise work harder than the others. There would be no reason for upgrades to stadiums because the profits would be split 32 ways. It seems stupid to me. I think that they are sharing percentages though because without sharing %s there would be no reason to try as an owner. Even trying to win...

[dan_snyder69]

I totally agree.

To the stubborn smaller market owners: Hi, this is America. Maybe you've forgotten something that makes our country great, called capitalism!

I recognize that the smaller market owners could work just as hard as Dan Snyder or Jerry Jones and not make as much money, due to factors outside of their control. Life's not always fair, suck it up. All these owners are rolling in it anyway, and if a small market owner REALLY wanted to they could definitely match the richest teams, in terms of contracts, signing bonuses, etc. All teams make more than what the salary cap is set at, it's just a matter of if a owner wants to cut into their own profits a little bit, to keep up with Danny boy.

In the future, people who are thinking about buying a small market team should recognize this, and adjust their bids accordingly. For those who already overpaid for a small market team, sore out of luck (can't please everybody.) And for those who inherited a small market team, I have no sympathy for them either.

[dan_snyder69]

And I want to add that I don't even care if the players force 60% out of the owners (I would rather they don't.) I just really really don't want the large market owners to cave on the revenue sharing, because of principle.

[saden1]

It can't be denied that teams in bigger market have an clear and present advantage. I mean, can the Packers or Bengals ever generate as much money as the Redskins with their tri-fecta market of DC, Maryland, and Virginia?

In terms of a club generated revenue sharing I personally think it is necessary to share that revenue but only to the extent that every club shares a percentage of it not the entirety of it. That way teams that generate more revenue have an incentive to generate more money and keep more of it.

Bengals , you generate $150 million? Well, 50% of that goes into the pot. Redskins, you generate $300 million, we'll take $150 million of that. The Bengals will be left with $75 million and the Redskins $150 million. There should also be remedies to make sure teams are maximizing how much they earn (ala annual analysis of what teams are/aren't doing to make more money and penalize those teams that aren't doing enough).

Remember folks, the league is only as strong as it's weakest link.

[70Chip]

I don't think that clubs who refuse on principle to engage in a marketing or business strategies should benefit from those things. If you want to share in stadium naming money you have to name your stadium.

Another question I have relates to the mechanics of RS. Is Snyder going to cut a check to the league at the end of the fiscal year? Will the NFL collect all revenue and then pay the Redskins their share? Will Bill Bidwell get an office at the Park?

[Skins fan 44]

It is messed. We make 205 million over 27 years-7.2 a year- to name Fex Ex Field. Some others are not making anything due to having tradition i.e. Soldier Field, Lambeau Feild. Then you have Jacksonville making 620,000 for their naming rights. And we have to split our money we make. Below is what the other teams make or not for their naming rights.

http://www.leagueoffans.org/nflnamingrights.html

[dan_snyder69]

Fair enough, Saden. I can see that working, but I would like to see less extreme sharing than those numbers you used in your example. (even though we still had twice as much as the Bengals )

And Saden, if you want a strong league, which we all do, my theory is that saying flat out NO to revenue sharing would force the issue on the smaller market team owners. The issue being that they either try and maximize their potential market, like Danny boy, or suffer the financial consequences (which might make them want to sell the team to an owner who might actually give a damn.)

[saden1]

Originally Posted by CRT3

So my question would be if the arguement for complete revenue sharring is accepted shouldn't all ticket prices be even accross the board.

Absolutely not! You want to charge poor people in Cincinnati the same amount you would people in Norther Virginia and Maryland who happen to have 5 of the top 15 highest-income counties by per capita income in the United States? You'll be breaking all the rules of economics and not only that but you won't have people going to games in Cincy and you won't be making as much money as you could in Virgina.

[CRT3]

Originally Posted by saden1

Absolutely not! You want to charge poor people in Cincinnati the same amount you would people in Norther Virginia and Maryland who happen to have 5 of the top 15 highest-income counties by per capita income in the United States? You'll be breaking all the rules of economics and not only that but you won't have people going to games in Cincy and you won't be making as much money as you could in Virgina.

Yo dude there are a higher amount of poor people in PG County and DC then in Cincinati. There are poor people everywhere. IF you want to have complete sharring and equal revenues for all then prices should be equal period.

If you go by your theory then the Redskins should be able to keep more money cause of there demographics. I don't think the owners will make their decesion based on demos.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by CRT3

Yo dude there are a higher amount of poor people in PG County and DC then in Cincinati. There are poor people everywhere. IF you want to have complete sharring and equal revenues for all then prices should be equal period.

If you go by your theory then the Redskins should be able to keep more money cause of there demographics. I don't think the owners will make their decesion based on demos.

First of, in normal day to day business underpricing goods is illegal and over pricing goods is also illegal. Price fixing, which is what you are advocating, is also illigal. Since the NFL doesn't have any competition that will complain about Anti-competitive practices teams can under price goods (tickets and etc). Teams cannot, however, over price goods to the extent MOST of the consumers can't afford it. Why? Cause that's called price gauging which is a felony. If your really want to learn more about microeconomics have a look here.

Oh, but owners have already made their decision based on demographics. All the owners in favor of sharing have smaller demographics (smaller market teams) and all the owners with larger demographics are dead set against revenue sharing. Revenue sharing and demographics are not mutually exclusive.

[LongTimeSkinsFan]

Originally Posted by saden1

Teams cannot, however, over price goods to the extent MOST of the consumers can't afford it. Why? Cause that's called price gauging which is a felony.

The term is price gouging and you are using it out of context. The source of your definition provides a more valid example of price gouging as follows:

Price gouging may be charged when a supplier of essential goods or services sharply raises the prices asked in anticipation of or during a civil emergency, or when it cancels or dishonors contracts in order to take advantage of an increase in prices related to such an emergency. The model case is a retailer who increases the price of existing stocks of milk and bread when a hurricane is imminent. -Wikipedia

Price gouging could not be charged against the NFL teams because (1) the goods or services they provide would not be considered essential and (2) the price increase would not be initiated in anticipation of or during a civil emergency.

As far as the NFLs pricing strategy goes with their products like hats, shirts, etc., they can set price levels as high as they want. The demand on such goods is elastic to begin with since there are enough look-alikes to offer competition in the marketplace. As an example, my wife probably would have had to pay $125 or so for an official Clinton Portis jersey, but the one she picked up at Wal-Mart a couple of years ago for $20 suits me just fine. BTW, you wanna talk REAL anti-competitive practices, do a case study of Wal-Mart!

[saden1]

Originally Posted by LongTimeSkinsFan

The term is price gouging and you are using it out of context. The source of your definition provides a more valid example of price gouging as follows:

Price gouging may be charged when a supplier of essential goods or services sharply raises the prices asked in anticipation of or during a civil emergency, or when it cancels or dishonors contracts in order to take advantage of an increase in prices related to such an emergency. The model case is a retailer who increases the price of existing stocks of milk and bread when a hurricane is imminent. -Wikipedia

Price gouging could not be charged against the NFL teams because (1) the goods or services they provide would not be considered essential and (2) the price increase would not be initiated in anticipation of or during a civil emergency.

As far as the NFLs pricing strategy goes with their products like hats, shirts, etc., they can set price levels as high as they want. The demand on such goods is elastic to begin with since there are enough look-alikes to offer competition in the marketplace. As an example, my wife probably would have had to pay $125 or so for an official Clinton Portis jersey, but the one she picked up at Wal-Mart a couple of years ago for $20 suits me just fine. BTW, you wanna talk REAL anti-competitive practices, do a case study of Wal-Mart!

Excuse my misspelling of the word, thanks for pointing that out. I must also point out that you're are in correct in your assessment. If your read further down the article you'll notices that it states:

The term is not in widespread use in economic theory but is sometimes used to refer to practices of a coercive monopoly which raises prices above the market rate that would otherwise prevail in a competitive environment.

Since the NFL is a monopoly it [can] indeed engaged in price gouging and a determined individual can successfully sue them.

edit: added [can]

[CRT3]

Originally Posted by saden1

First of, in normal day to day business underpricing goods is illegal and over pricing goods is also illegal. Price fixing, which is what you are advocating, is also illigal. Since the NFL doesn't have any competition that will complain about Anti-competitive practices teams can under price goods (tickets and etc). Teams cannot, however, over price goods to the extent MOST of the consumers can't afford it. Why? Cause that's called price gauging which is a felony. If your really want to learn more about microeconomics have a look here.

Oh, but owners have already made their decision based on demographics. All the owners in favor of sharing have smaller demographics (smaller market teams) and all the owners with larger demographics are dead set against revenue sharing. Revenue sharing and demographics are not mutually exclusive.

This is why I love this board. Great info and intelligent arguements. Excellent Saden, point taken, but we will see in the comming days.

[Sammy Baugh Fan]

I still think that revenew sharing is un-American.
As a small business man I would not work as hard as I do and then share my money with companies around the Country that don't make as much.

That's.........STUPID.

Failing as a business[team]? Get better, Move, do something other than suck the blood out of me and my hard working company.

peace