Revenue Sharing

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by GoSkins!

In America, we call this ...


com·mu·nism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kmy-nzm)
n.

1. A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.

...From dictionary.com

Unfortunately for 100 million Earthlings unlucky enough to have been born in the last century in various parts of Asia or the European backwater called Russia, it was and is much more than "theoretical". But I digress... Back to football...

P.S. Maybe we should look up the definition of "sharring". I bet it has something to do with Shar Pourdanish.

[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.

[LongTimeSkinsFan]

Originally Posted by saden1

The sort of business where you can't just move your team to better situate yourself to have more financial success. Think of the NFL as customer sharing business rather than money a sharing business.

OK I'll go along with your argument after you explain a few things to me...

Baltimore Ravens ---> Originally the Cleveland Browns
Tennessee Titans ---> Originally the Houston Oilers
Arizona/Phoenix Cardinals ---> Originally the St. Louis Cardinals
St. Louis Rams ---> Originally the Los Angeles Rams
Oakland Raiders ---> previously L.A. Raiders ---> previously Oakland Raiders
Indianapolis Colts ---> Originally the Baltimore Colts

All these teams moved to improve their financial situation via, in many cases, a promised larger stadium, or a more exclusive market. I believe three (maybe four) of these teams went on to win SBs after their moves to new homes.

[dan_snyder69]

Burnnnnn!

[saden1]

In America, we call the NFL a monopoly. Actually even worse, it's a monopoly with its own subset of monopolies.

[70Chip]

St. Louis Cardinals - - - - Chicago Cardinals

L.A. Rams - - - - - - - - - Cleveland Rams

[CRT3]

Originally Posted by LongTimeSkinsFan

OK I'll go along with your argument after you explain a few things to me...

Baltimore Ravens ---> Originally the Cleveland Browns
Tennessee Titans ---> Originally the Houston Oilers
Arizona/Phoenix Cardinals ---> Originally the St. Louis Cardinals
St. Louis Rams ---> Originally the Los Angeles Rams
Oakland Raiders ---> previously L.A. Raiders ---> previously Oakland Raiders
Indianapolis Colts ---> Originally the Baltimore Colts

All these teams moved to improve their financial situation via, in many cases, a promised larger stadium, or a more exclusive market. I believe three (maybe four) of these teams went on to win SBs after their moves to new homes.

Only 2 of these with SB's. BAltimore and St. Louis.

[LongTimeSkinsFan]

Originally Posted by CRT3

Only 2 of these with SB's. BAltimore and St. Louis.

That's right. I had forgotten Tennessee lost to St. Louis in 1 super bowl. But as Houston, they made 0 appearances in the big game. Was Oakland the L.A. Raiders when they beat the 'Skins or were they still in Oakland at that time?

[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.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by LongTimeSkinsFan

OK I'll go along with your argument after you explain a few things to me...

Baltimore Ravens ---> Originally the Cleveland Browns
Tennessee Titans ---> Originally the Houston Oilers
Arizona/Phoenix Cardinals ---> Originally the St. Louis Cardinals
St. Louis Rams ---> Originally the Los Angeles Rams
Oakland Raiders ---> previously L.A. Raiders ---> previously Oakland Raiders
Indianapolis Colts ---> Originally the Baltimore Colts

All these teams moved to improve their financial situation via, in many cases, a promised larger stadium, or a more exclusive market. I believe three (maybe four) of these teams went on to win SBs after their moves to new homes.

You are right teams can move. Perhaps I should have been more clear and said they can move, but they can never move to big markets. What is really interesting though is how well new teams have done (Browns, Ravens, Texans). They certainly seem to have better management in place but that in itself is not enough if you want to be in the same league as the Redskins. You need affluent customers too.

[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!

[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.

[LongTimeSkinsFan]

Originally Posted by saden1

You are right teams can move. Perhaps I should have been more clear and said they can move, but they can never move to big markets. What is really interesting though is how well new teams have done (Browns, Ravens, Texans). They certainly seem to have better management in place but that in itself is not enough if you want to be in the same league as the Redskins. You need affluent customers too.

The Baltimore Ravens are drawing from the same SMSA as the Redskins. I would be inclined to think if their management was as agressive in marketing the Ravens, the Redskins would not be nearly as profitable as they have been over the past few years. The Tennessee Titans mismanaged themselves and had to release several high salaried veterans because of cap implications, but not because of financial insolvency. Who do the Titans compete with for a fan base in Tennessee other than college teams? No one. They are unique in their georgraphical area and I'm sure that was part of the incentive to move from Houston (with Dallas nearby). Indianapolis is much the same story. In Baltimore, they were competing against a Redskin team that was consistently a winning team if not a playoff team. Then owner Robert Irsay demanded a new, larger stadium to increase revenues. He didn't get it, and Indianapolis steps in- a new domed stadium and a market with no pro ball competition.

[JWsleep]

I'm not sure revenue sharing is communism. It's about the overall health of the league in the long term. I don't think leveling is the answer, but some kind of give-back where the rich teams help keep the league competitive isn't a bad idea. The question is how to best implement that idea without removing incentive to improve your team and so on.

Leagues with single team (or just a few team) dynasties don't make as much money overall, and are less fun to watch--so even the "rich" owners have an incentive to buy into the plan.

It's less like communism and more like a meeting of mafia dons deciding how to carve up their criminal empires. Don Snyder sends his repects to Don Jones. Perhaps Don Rooney will soon sleep with the fishes? Has Don Tagliabue made the owners an offer they can't refuse?

[That Guy]

those according to their abilities to those according to their needs.

It is at its heart a socialist idea; saying that it's not would be incorrect. Whether it's in the better interest of the league (as a whole) is debateable.

And with all the talk of moving teams, I can't believe no one mentioned the Boston Braves. shame on you.