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

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

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?

[artmonkforhallofamein07]

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.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by artmonkforhallofamein07

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.

[Giantone]

To clear up some questions...


Revenue Sharing in the NFL


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

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by Giantone

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.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by Giantone

To clear up some questions...


Revenue Sharing in the NFL


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

Thank you for the nice break down. But forget about 60/40 splits. The top 10 or 15 most profitable teams have to put money in the revenue sharing for the bottom 10 or 15 teams. Of their total income or profits. So if the Redskins are the most profitable team in the NFL and the Giants are #12, it stands to reason the Redskins would put more money into the revenue based off % of their profits.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

Thank you for the nice break down. But forget about 60/40 splits. The top 10 or 15 most profitable teams have to put money in the revenue sharing for the bottom 10 or 15 teams. Of their total income or profits. So if the Redskins are the most profitable team in the NFL and the Giants are #12, it stands to reason the Redskins would put more money into the revenue based off % of their profits.

Wow. Whatever you do, don't try to get a job as a financial analyst.

There's a major difference between profit and revenue, they are not at all the same thing.

The highest revenue generating franchises put the most money into the revenue sharing pot. Profit has nothing to do with it.

You can be the lowest revenue generator and still turn a massive profit if you skimp on costs.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

Thank you for the nice break down. But forget about 60/40 splits. The top 10 or 15 most profitable teams have to put money in the revenue sharing for the bottom 10 or 15 teams. Of their total income or profits. So if the Redskins are the most profitable team in the NFL and the Giants are #12, it stands to reason the Redskins would put more money into the revenue based off % of their profits.

Did you read what I posted,the 60/40 split is ticket revenue,revenue and profit are two different things.

[Gtothearry]

I'm hoping the Skins take legal action before they're forced to release important players.

@HTTR24_7: #Redskins could be forced to release LB-London Fletcher without salary cap relief from the NFL.

[HailGreen28]

So, back to the thread topic: What are the chances that the Skins can get any relief from the unjust cap penalty?

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

So, back to the thread topic: What are the chances that the Skins can get any relief from the unjust cap penalty?

We have no new information so there's no telling

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

So, back to the thread topic: What are the chances that the Skins can get any relief from the unjust cap penalty?

Chances? My opinion? Zippie.

My reasoning:

Snyder will not follow through and will not file the law suit. I figure he is trying to scare the league which will only piss off the powers that be and they will not back down. I doubt Snyder will want to piss off the other owners.

In other words I don't think DS has the balls to do it.

However, should he supprise me and file the injuction to hold off FA and files a law suit against the other owners.... I think DS has a pretty good chance of just getting a % of the CAP back. I could see the owners saying .."look just give him 8 mill back, call it a day, and lets move on." I think it also depends on if DS really cares if he pisses the rest of the league off or not. Is DS trying to get into a leadership role in the NFL? if so he would kiss that bye bye. If he's just trying to be another owner and doesn't care what the other members think then he should take it to court or atleast file the paperwork and let this play out all the way up until court day then drop the issue if he has to. That alone would hold off FA possibly atleast until the summer months.

I also think if he took it to court he would have a good chance to win. His premis is the same premis the NFL used against the NFLPA. The major reason the NFLPA lost though is because they signed away their rights to suit for collusion. DS is not fighting the collusion battle, he's fighting the fact the punishement came after the new CBA was signed when the NFL should have lost their rights to punish like the NFLPA lost their rights to claim collusion.

All in all, what idiot judge agree's to allow the punishement to remain when the NFL signed off on the contracts? This was not something done behind the NFL's back and they learned about it later and felt they needed to punish the owner, no, this was two contracts reworked, sent to the league for approval, and the NFL signed off on them. The NFL easily could have denied the contracts and told the Skins "no you can't do this."

[SBXVII]

I like this guy, or atleast his way of thinking.

Redskins should employ a full-court press - The Washington Post

Some people tell Post reporters that the Redskins have compelling arguments to convince a judge that they would suffer irreparable harm if they are not granted an injunction. Others say they don’t believe the Redskins have a legal leg to stand on considering their arguments already have been rejected by an arbiter. Apparently the landmark case to-may-to v. to-mah-to will be cited as precedent.

So what does Snyder have to lose? Legal fees and goodwill in the league. What does he have to gain? Millions to spend on free agents and goodwill among Redskins fans. He needs the latter far more than he needs the former. So file already.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

I like this guy, or atleast his way of thinking.

Redskins should employ a full-court press - The Washington Post

That guy is a woman

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

That guy is a woman

Are you sure? She looks like that head mask Arnold Schwarzenegger was wearing when going through Mars customers in Total Recall. It could be a dude in a mask.