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

[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, I find it rather funny those teams would vote to "bite the hand that feeds them" per say.

What does Snyder have to lose? The NFL is not going to kick him out, not going to take the team away from him, so what is there to lose? Snyder is not running for a lead or head position in the NFL so if he pisses off 30 other owners, who cares?

I really hope Snyder has the balls to pull this off. What the NFL did was morally wrong, illegal at the time (collusion). The NFL had ample and I repeat ample opportunity to advise the Redskins that the contracts were not going to be approved because of whatever reason and actually had the duty to do just that. Instead the NFL approved the deals. Clearly the NFL, by not denying them, did not have an issue with how those contracts were structured at the time (prior to the new CBA) so they (the NFL) should not have standing in any claim of damage or possible future damage since they approved them thus no punishment should have been put on anyone.

[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

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.

[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.