Gang of 9

70Chip · 02-22-2006, 01:21 PM

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 http://www.profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm

GANG OF NINE REVEALED

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 The Washington Post 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Hog1 · 02-22-2006, 01:59 PM

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

Master4Caster · 02-22-2006, 06:51 PM

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

Oakland Red · 02-22-2006, 08:51 PM

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.

saskin · 02-22-2006, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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

That Guy · 02-22-2006, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

70Chip · 02-22-2006, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

That Guy · 02-22-2006, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

FRPLG · 02-23-2006, 01:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Oakland Red · 02-23-2006, 03:20 AM

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.

That Guy · 02-23-2006, 03:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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?

dmek25 · 02-23-2006, 08:09 AM

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

Daseal · 02-23-2006, 08:51 AM

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 attempt 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.

MTK · 02-23-2006, 09:14 AM

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.

That Guy · 02-23-2006, 09:28 AM

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.

02-22-2006, 01:21 PM	#1
70Chip Playmaker Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Manassas Age: 53 Posts: 3,048	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 http://www.profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm GANG OF NINE REVEALED 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 The Washington Post 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. __________________ This Monkey's Gone to Heaven

02-22-2006, 01:59 PM	#2
Hog1 Quietly Dominating the East Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Naples, Florida Posts: 10,675	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" __________________ Goodbye Sean..........Vaya Con Dios thankyou Joe....... *“God made certain people to play football. He was one of them.” – Joe Gibbs*

02-22-2006, 06:51 PM	#3
Master4Caster Special Teams Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: DC area Posts: 374	Re: Gang of 9 Interesting that all of the NFC East teams are in this group. __________________ Master4Caster http://runningredskins.blogspot.com http://mvn.com/nfl-redskins

02-22-2006, 08:51 PM	#4
Oakland Red Special Teams Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Oakland, Calif. Posts: 268	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.

02-23-2006, 03:20 AM	#10
Oakland Red Special Teams Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Oakland, Calif. Posts: 268	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.

02-23-2006, 08:09 AM	#12
dmek25 MVP Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: lancaster,pa Age: 63 Posts: 10,672	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 __________________ "It's better to be quiet and thought a fool than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt." courtesy of 53fan

02-23-2006, 08:51 AM	#13
Daseal Puppy Kicker Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Arlington, Virginia Age: 41 Posts: 8,341	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 attempt 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. __________________ Best. Player. Available.

02-23-2006, 09:14 AM	#14
MTK \m/ Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: NY Age: 52 Posts: 99,518	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. __________________ Support The Warpath! \| Warpath Shop

02-23-2006, 09:28 AM	#15
That Guy Living Legend Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: VA Age: 42 Posts: 17,553	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.

Gang of 9

Locker Room Main Forum