Gang of 9

[dmek25]

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

[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?

[Oakland Red]

Originally Posted by 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?

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.

[12thMan]

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.

[FRPLG]

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

[Oakland Red]

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

Originally Posted by FRPLG

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

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by Oakland Red

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

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

[Oakland Red]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

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

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 United 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.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by 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 United 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.

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.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by Oakland Red

Perhaps an analogy would be in the founding of our country. The states worked together to form a Union, the United 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.

bad analogy :P

the states form a republic, all of which look out for their individual interests. We don't send money from virginia state taxes to alaska, and this is what this situation seems like.

Surely you don't think there have never been border disputes. And i'd hardly compare a legal conflict (which hasn't happened) to a war.

ssome teams can pay for their expenses and salaries with the 80+mill from the tv deal alone and even pocket some... so if they don't feel like fielding a good team or marketing, that's really not our problem. They don't want to pay off the skins debt, i don't want to pay for their stupidity.

[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?

[Oakland Red]

Originally Posted by 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?

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.

[dmek25]

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

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by dmek25

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

And that there is the crux of the argument. There is no team in the NFL that doesn't have enough revenue to cover the maximum player expenses stipulated by the salary cap. The current system is not tipping the scales too much from a player perspective, though the Skins do have an uncanny ability to outbid other teams for coaches.

But if you want to make the balance fair on the coaching side, put a cap on coaching salaries and just share a tiny bit more revenue to cover that part on top of the players. If teams still complained about money after that, they'd have no financial ground to stand on. They'd have all the money they'd need to stay competitive, and it wouldn't take anything more than a minute increase in shared revenues to accomplish that.

[Oakland Red]

The point I'm trying to make is that they cannot ever make as much money as the Redskins due to inherent disadvantages of the wealth of the area they are in, original ownership wealth, etc.

Having far more money despite the salary cap as it is does still give a competitive advantage. If Dan Snyder maxes the cap, he has a lot left over. If Green Bay maxes the cap, they will have a lot less left over. The Redskins have much more freedom to spend money than teams that have less.

And yes, one way that manifests itself is in coaching salaries.

Originally Posted by dmek25

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