PDA

View Full Version : Broncos part of "Gang of Nine" opposing expansion of Revenue Sharing


SoCalBronco
02-21-2006, 01:21 AM
from PFT. http://www.profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm

POSTED 9:24 p.m. EST, February 20, 2006; LAST UPDATED 12:12 a.m. EST, February 21, 2006



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.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not surprisingly, virtually all of these teams have new stadiums or (Dallas, NYJ) will get ones very soon. I actually agree here, we dont need to bend over backwards to line other teams pockets even further. Bowlen put in alot of his own cash and the Denver taxpayers paid as well for the stadium, why should it go to KC and Oakland? We already have revenue sharing to the extent noted above so that the NFL doesnt become an oligopoly (we also have the cap). There's no need for any team to give up more, especially when it comes from home ticket revenue and local revenues. I can see why national things like licensing, products, national broadcast stuff should be split up since there is no connection to a particular team there, but that doesnt hold up for local stuff.

yavoon
02-21-2006, 01:23 AM
they do have somewhat of a point. I like the salary cap but we also need to encourage good ownership. there are some hangerons in the NFL.

Clockwork Orange
02-21-2006, 01:30 AM
I'm all for competitive balance and I never want to see an uncapped NFL, but I don't like seeing owners who put those revenue sharing checks straight into their own pockets either.

-Slap-
02-21-2006, 01:32 AM
Bowlen is wrong here. The Broncos are not an individual organization. They're one of 32 branches of the same company. The healthier the overall product, the better it is for each individual branch. I think its great that some owners have been able to extort/strongarm their way into new stadium deals in recent years, most of them partially financed with low interest loans through League sources. Should they further increase their advantage over affiliates playing in weaker markets or inferior venues by having access to superior revenue sources?

yavoon
02-21-2006, 01:37 AM
Bowlen is wrong here. The Broncos are not an individual organization. They're one of 32 branches of the same company. The healthier the overall product, the better it is for each individual branch. I think its great that some owners have been able to extort/strongarm their way into new stadium deals in recent years, most of them partially financed with low interest loans through League sources. Should they further increase their advantage over affiliates playing in weaker markets or inferior venues by having access to superior revenue sources?

but a lot of these owners, snyder and kraft especially have brought a lot of value to the NFL and basically all the other teams want to share it away and I think they're right to say hey, we're doing the work.

-Slap-
02-21-2006, 01:39 AM
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.

I guarantee the local TV money is the sticking point. There are probably some very large disparities in the contracts each individual team signs depending upon their region. You'll notice most of the Mudvulle Nine are from huge TV markets.

-Slap-
02-21-2006, 01:42 AM
but a lot of these owners, snyder and kraft especially have brought a lot of value to the NFL and basically all the other teams want to share it away and I think they're right to say hey, we're doing the work.
How did they bring value, by grossly overpaying for their teams? Teams in every major sport have increased dramatically in value over the last 10-20 years.

Give me some tangible way in which Kraft or Snyder have personally increased the value of NFL franchises.

yavoon
02-21-2006, 01:46 AM
How did they bring value, by grossly overpaying for their teams? Teams in every major sport have increased dramatically in value over the last 10-20 years.

Give me some tangible way in which Kraft or Snyder have personally increased the value of NFL franchises.

snyder is a very aggressive and entreprenurial business person. like it or not the NFL is a business and having capable business ppl who can be aggressive and expand the NFL's marketing and revenue capabilities is important. kraft and snyder are both good at that. I like sharing revenue, but I dont want this to be a league where the hangerons are the big winners, where merely having bought the team 50 years ago and by virtue of still owning it u simply rake in money year after year.

Taco John
02-21-2006, 01:46 AM
Didn't Snyder start charging fans to watch practice?

Clockwork Orange
02-21-2006, 01:47 AM
Didn't Snyder start charging fans to watch practice?

Yep. $5 a person if I'm not mistaken.

Taco John
02-21-2006, 01:48 AM
What a douche.

But hey... If people will pay, right?

I guess the fact that they're willing to pay means that they're getting their money's worth.

Clockwork Orange
02-21-2006, 01:49 AM
What a douche.

So long as he remains as generous as he's been in making deals with the Broncos, he's cool with me. :~ohyah!:

BroncoBuff
02-21-2006, 02:03 AM
How did they bring value, by grossly overpaying for their teams? Teams in every major sport have increased dramatically in value over the last 10-20 years.

Give me some tangible way in which Kraft or Snyder have personally increased the value of NFL franchises.
Neither of them hold a candle to Jerry Jones. Jones' effort alone made all 32 owners significantly richer than they already were.

watermock
02-21-2006, 02:10 AM
Well...I like it the way it is...maybe a few tweaks...what you have here is a bunch of clingons that want a free ride while they slack off. Why should teams be told to share consessions, naming rights and parking ect?

Bowlen put all his eggs in one basket and has always spent every dime on the cap and never waivered from spending his own money for things like the Bronco statues, and the museum...which were not tax funded. yeah, taxes were levied, but paying 1 mill wasn't exactly back breaking when Mobil/Exxon was making 6 billion in one quarter this year. Other than building up the value of the franchise, Bowlen isn't a separately rich man like Snyder or Johnson in Dallas. He's, in Vegas terms..."All In"...and has worked tirelessly for the franchise and the league.

It's not his fault some owners are poor businessmen. I never could figure out how Cleveland was losing money.

watermock
02-21-2006, 02:14 AM
Originally Posted by -Slap-
How did they bring value, by grossly overpaying for their teams? Teams in every major sport have increased dramatically in value over the last 10-20 years.

Give me some tangible way in which Kraft or Snyder have personally increased the value of NFL franchises.

This isn't specifically tied to the value of franchises...it's year to year revenue sharing...cash flow...not equity. Yes, it would inflate the value of crap franchises...but this is akin to socialism...sink or swim or sell it to someone who knows wtf he's doing.

elsid13
02-21-2006, 04:03 AM
Didn't Snyder start charging fans to watch practice?

He did 4 to 5 year ago in training camp. When some pointed out that scouts from other teams could then attend and take notes, he stopped. Little Danny been pretty quite the last of couple of years, to busy buying 6 Flags.

Kaylore
02-21-2006, 04:45 AM
Should they further increase their advantage over affiliates playing in weaker markets or inferior venues by having access to superior revenue sources?
How? Am I missing something or doesn't this have no effect on the cap? It's not like this is giving a team some kind of advantage over another in terms of players. If they're all spending the same amount on players, how is some owners making more money than others going to affect the product (football) in any way?

I suppose you could make the case that teams with more dough can spend more on comforts, training facilities and whatnot, but I don't see those types of things really tipping the scales in any teams favor.

The Redskins are the richest organization in the league and they have been for some time. In spite of all their money and whatever "advantage" it should have provided, it seems that everything short of Joe Gibbs has done nothing to get that franchise out of total suck mode.

The way the "Nine" want it is the way it is right now and it seems to be working fine. National revenues are shared nationally. Local ones should be kept locally. I think that's completely fair.

watermock
02-21-2006, 05:01 AM
if our in a weak market you move it or fix the problem...its not the duty of Edge to prop up Colgate shaving cream...

There is allready sharing...it's a bunch of bastards holding this up like Al Davis. I'm not paying that moron's bill.

PatsWin2002
02-21-2006, 05:02 AM
Was anyone else surprised to see the Texans and Panthers in that group?

broncohaven
02-21-2006, 05:24 AM
Revenue sharing is hugely flawed. The idea is that the weak owners will reinvest the funds in the franchise, but that simply does not happen. Cheap owners will always be so, and revenues shared are more likely to be placed in the owners hedge fund than to upgrade the franchise.

The hard cap is more than enough to ensure a reasonable amount of parody, to go all the way to sharing local revenues is absurd.

epicSocialism4tw
02-21-2006, 05:27 AM
Was anyone else surprised to see the Texans and Panthers in that group?

The Texans have a potential goldmine in the Houston market. I think that the Panthers have a relativlely new stadium.

PatsWin2002
02-21-2006, 05:31 AM
The Texans have a potential goldmine in the Houston market. I think that the Panthers have a relativlely new stadium.

I know Houston is a top TV market (like #4-6). I guess it's their newness that surprises me.

I would've thought a team like the Steelers would be on that list before the Texans.

Hercules Rockefeller
02-21-2006, 05:35 AM
Was anyone else surprised to see the Texans and Panthers in that group?

Panthers, yes, but no on the Texans. They've always been Top 5 in value and revenue since they came into the league.

PatsWin2002
02-21-2006, 05:39 AM
The Panthers must own their own stadium. That's a big factor.

The Skins have the biggest stadium as far as I know....and New York is New York....lots of extra opportunity for advertising bucks.

Old Dude
02-21-2006, 05:52 AM
Both sides have points. Hopefully, they'll reach a compromise where there is enough revenue sharing to satisfy the poorer teams, but not so much that it creates a total windfall.

baja
02-21-2006, 06:06 AM
Bowlen is wrong here. The Broncos are not an individual organization. They're one of 32 branches of the same company. The healthier the overall product, the better it is for each individual branch. I think its great that some owners have been able to extort/strongarm their way into new stadium deals in recent years, most of them partially financed with low interest loans through League sources. Should they further increase their advantage over affiliates playing in weaker markets or inferior venues by having access to superior revenue sources?

I disagree with you here Slap. If a business is well run and the product is thoughtfully constructed as to generate greater revenues than their counter parts they should not be penalized for their success. Unless you like socialism

baja
02-21-2006, 06:12 AM
Was anyone else surprised to see the Texans and Panthers in that group?

This says to me that the Panthers have plans to move to a big market. LA?

-Slap-
02-21-2006, 06:54 AM
I disagree with you here Slap. If a business is well run and the product is thoughtfully constructed as to generate greater revenues than their counter parts they should not be penalized for their success. Unless you like socialism
Ah, the business known as the Denver Broncos. Tell me, what is the worth of the Denver Broncos without an NFL? The point most of you are unwilling to understand is that your football club comprises 1/32nd of a business and nothing more.

I think most of you just enjoy having some type of competitive advantage and could care less about anything else.

-Slap-
02-21-2006, 07:00 AM
I know Houston is a top TV market (like #4-6). I guess it's their newness that surprises me.

I would've thought a team like the Steelers would be on that list before the Texans.
The Rooney's are the last people you would see lining up to bite the hand that has fed them for the past 70 years.

baja
02-21-2006, 07:11 AM
Ah, the business known as the Denver Broncos. Tell me, what is the worth of the Denver Broncos without an NFL? The point most of you are unwilling to understand is that your football club comprises 1/32nd of a business and nothing more.

I think most of you just enjoy having some type of competitive advantage and could care less about anything else.

I do not think Bill Bidwell or Al Davis should be propped up by well run franchises allowing them to hang on to their franchises well beyond the time they would have been forced to sell do to bad business practices. Revenue sharing would weaken the NFL not strengthen it.

As to what is the Broncos worth with out the NFL I ask you what is Haliburton worth with out the US Government.... errr never mind there is revenue sharing in that case.

baja
02-21-2006, 07:14 AM
The Rooney's are the last people you would see lining up to bite the hand that has fed them for the past 70 years.

This has nothing to do with biting anyone's hand, it's about propping up, thus prolonging, bad ownerships

Raider Bill
02-21-2006, 07:19 AM
Why should the NFL logo apparel dough be divided up then? The Raiders sell more by far than anyone

baja
02-21-2006, 07:20 AM
Slap,

Look at this;

The 2006 free agency class, as assembled on Feb. 20, lacks the luster of years past.
There are no absolutes. No player who is the right fit for every team regardless of existing personnel and/or system.

Given this and the other significant factors at play — divided negotiations in talks to reach a new CBA have NFLPA executive director Gene Upshaw using words like “lockout” — expect the number of spenders to be critically low. Only the few teams with an excess of salary-cap space can afford to enter the free-agent pool without lightly dipping their toes into the water to gauge the temperature.

To find out which teams will be the players when the free agency frenzy begins on March 3, we asked an NFL personnel director where each of the league’s 32 teams stand with regard to the projected 2006 salary cap of $93.25 million. At this writing, there was a sliver of hope held by the league’s owners — and salary-cap experts — that free agency could be pushed back to April 1 in an effort to put in place a new CBA. The reason cap gurus want the new deal? The rolling wake of the new TV deal is about $7 million-$9 million more per team beneath the salary cap, meaning each team could have a payroll of just above $100 million if a CBA is stamped and approved before March 3. Operating under the assumption that, as Upshaw put it, a new deal was “doubtful,” here are the current players and bystanders based on up-to-date salary-cap data provided by an NFL club. (Team, amount under the projected cap)

1. Cleveland Browns: $25 million
2. Arizona Cardinals: $24.5 million
3. Minnesota Vikings: $24 million
4. Green Bay Packers $22 million
5. Seattle Seahawks: $20 million
6. San Francisco 49ers: $18 million
7. Jacksonville Jaguars: $17 million
Chicago Bears: $17 million
Cincinnati Bengals: $17 million
8. San Diego Chargers: $16.5 million
9. Baltimore Ravens: $16 million
10. St. Louis Rams: $14 million
11. Houston Texans: $14 million
12. Buffalo Bills: $11 million
13. New Orleans Saints: $10 million
14. Detroit Lions: $9 million
15. Philadelphia: $6.5 million
16. New York Giants: $3.5 million
17. Dallas Cowboys: $3 million
18. New England Patriots: $500,000
19. Indianapolis Colts: Even at $93.25 million
20. Carolina Panthers: $2 million over
21. Pittsburgh Steelers: $4.5 million over
22. Miami Dolphins: $5 million over
23. Tampa Bay Buccaneers: $9 million over
24. Atlanta Falcons: $10 million over
25. Tennessee Titans: $14.7 million over
26. Washington Redskins: $19 million over
27. Kansas City Chiefs: $19 million over
28. Denver Broncos: $23 million over
29. New York Jets: $26 million over
30. Oakland Raiders: $27 million over

As each team balances its own checkbook in the next two weeks, a few marquee names may become available. Drew Brees, Chad Pennington, Kerry Collins, Curtis Martin, Eric Moulds, Derrick Brooks, Simeon Rice, La’Roi Glover … all have brimming cap figures that could render them expendable. By dropping these high-paid players, teams get their own cap situations in order, and might even create enough room to make an addition or two. For example, when Jerome Bettis’ retirement becomes official, Pittsburgh will be right at the cap limit.

Cleveland won’t spend for the sake of breaking a $100 bill. The Browns will make a run at Jets DE-OLB John Abraham if he’s not a franchise player, could have a deal in mind for 49ers OLB Julian Peterson and should make an offer to a top back such as Jamal Lewis, whom GM Phil Savage endorsed when the Ravens drafted him. But in a class that is very heavy at the top and light on impact players, they’ll have to strike early.

Minnesota and Arizona could be competing for Colts RB Edgerrin James. Inevitably, the Colts were going to have to squeeze a star out of the budget to continue making improvements elsewhere with limited turnover, and James is on the verge of hiring the moving truck. Winning seems to matter to James, and the Vikings could give him the chance to play much the same role as he did with the Colts.

Shaun Alexander could shake loose from Seattle, which has the money to keep him around but might look to fill other needs rather than invest a $15 million guarantee in one soon-to-be 29-year-old back.
Being a year short of 30 makes Alexander anything but a safe hire. But in this market, there are zero absolutes.

<b>Why should a team that refuses to spent to the cap limit in order to put the best product on the field share in the revenue of a team that is rewarded by financial success because they did field that top product.

baja
02-21-2006, 07:21 AM
Why should the NFL logo apparel dough be divided up then? The Raiders sell more by far than anyone

I my opinion it shouldn't be.

-Slap-
02-21-2006, 07:21 AM
Why should the NFL logo apparel dough be divided up then? The Raiders sell more by far than anyone
Forget it, Bill. You guys are on your own. Your business partners think its better for the overall organization if your branch fails.

baja
02-21-2006, 07:25 AM
And if your argument is what about the poorer markets and their ability to compete that is what the cap does. Presumably all NFL teams can afford to spent to the cap and those that don't are cheap.

baja
02-21-2006, 07:27 AM
Forget it, Bill. You guys are on your own. Your business partners think its better for the overall organization if your branch fails.

It would not fail it would be sold to someone that does not own 50 leasure suits and change coaches like underwear.

Raider Bill
02-21-2006, 07:32 AM
Here's a list of the biggest spenders the past 3 years

This is a list of the National Football League's biggest spenders in the last three seasons, the teams and the amounts on the checks they have written to their players.
It is a list that proves nothing Millions1. Seattle Seahawks... $279.1

2. Washington Redskins... $269.4

3. Atlanta Falcons... $267.2

4. New Orleans Saints... $264.7

5. Minnesota Vikings... $263.9

6. Baltimore Ravens... $258.0

7. Houston Texans... $256.9

8. Eagles... $255.4

9. Carolina Panthers... $254.3

10. Detroit Lions... $253.7

11. New England Patriots... $253.4

12. Oakland Raiders... $252.3

13. Chicago Bears... $250.3 Those are the teams that all have spent more than a quarter-billion dollars on their players in the last three seasons. If you can discern a consistent pattern there, linking dollars to victories, you must have very good eyes.

3 of the worst revenue teams are on this list.

They are not all just being cheap, and in fact are spending more than the Broncos.

baja
02-21-2006, 07:45 AM
Here's a list of the biggest spenders the past 3 years



3 of the worst revenue teams are on this list.

They are not all just being cheap, and in fact are spending more than the Broncos.

The Raiders had the biggest market of all in LA and could not make a go of it, I say the good business people should not have to support the failures of bad business franchise partners. The best way to strengthen the league is not prop up bad owners. Do you really think there would be a shortage of buyers for the Raiders or Cardinals?

Raider Bill
02-21-2006, 07:49 AM
The Raiders had the biggest market of all in LA and could not make a go of it, I say the good business people should not have to support the failures of bad business franchise partners. The best way to strengthen the league is not prop up bad owners. Do you really think there would be a shortage of buyers for the Raiders or Cardinals?

Neither could the Rams.

baja
02-21-2006, 08:08 AM
Neither could the Rams.

I rest my case

-Slap-
02-21-2006, 08:14 AM
It would not fail it would be sold to someone that does not own 50 leasure suits and change coaches like underwear.
This is what this is really about for most of you, a grudge against Al Davis. At least admit that to yourselves.

Raider Bill
02-21-2006, 08:21 AM
I rest my case

What? I don't see anyone clamoring to go back there and play in the Colliseum.

Raider Bill
02-21-2006, 08:24 AM
This is what this is really about for most of you, a grudge against Al Davis. At least admit that to yourselves.


Exactly.

Before you go pointing out ticket sales as a reason why the Raiders are poorly run, up until this year, the Raiders had nothing to do with the marketing and sale of their tickets. The city oversaw it.

Now that the Raiders run it, the first thing they did was lower the price on 3/4ths of the seats since the city had them overpriced so badly. A 71 dollar ticket under the old pricing plan is now 46.

baja
02-21-2006, 08:26 AM
What? I don't see anyone clamoring to go back there and play in the Colliseum.

Part of good business practice is finding a way to create the facility/s necessary to field a good product, no?

You really don't think there are several groups and current teams that drool over the thought of having a team in LA?

maven
02-21-2006, 08:29 AM
For any success to happen in LA you need a retract-dome with lots of luxury boxes.

baja
02-21-2006, 08:31 AM
This is what this is really about for most of you, a grudge against Al Davis. At least admit that to yourselves.

yes him and other owners that weaken the league.

It's not about Al Davis the person it's about Al Davis the bad owner that weakens the league.

If you were to take a vote among the rest of the franchise owners to force Al to sell the Raiders what do you think the count would be.

baja
02-21-2006, 08:32 AM
For any success to happen in LA you need a retract-dome with lots of luxury boxes.

And I bet an owner like Jerry Jones or Snyder would have gotten it done. not that I like either one .

Raider Bill
02-21-2006, 08:34 AM
Part of good business practice is finding a way to create the facility/s necessary to field a good product, no?

You really don't think there are several groups and current teams that drool over the thought of having a team in LA?


The Raiders had a stadium deal set up at Hollywood Park.

The league kept trying to stick a second team into the mix.

Raider Bill
02-21-2006, 08:37 AM
And I bet an owner like Jerry Jones or Snyder would have gotten it done. not that I like either one .


Because Tags wouldnt have saddled either of them with another team in a stadium that they did all the legwork to obtain.

baja
02-21-2006, 08:40 AM
Exactly.

Before you go pointing out ticket sales as a reason why the Raiders are poorly run, up until this year, the Raiders had nothing to do with the marketing and sale of their tickets. The city oversaw it.

Now that the Raiders run it, the first thing they did was lower the price on 3/4ths of the seats since the city had them overpriced so badly. A 71 dollar ticket under the old pricing plan is now 46.

The Raiders cultivated a tough guy, renegade player image that attracted thugs to the games. Over the years these thugs took over the stadium causing many regular fans to stay home all the while Al Davis stood back and enjoyed the persona his team projected never considering the cost in revenue this tact created which, in my mind, is one more reason he is a bad business man and therefore a bad owner that the league would be better off without and now other better managed successful teams should give him money, I think not.

Kaylore
02-21-2006, 08:50 AM
I think most of you just enjoy having some type of competitive advantage and could care less about anything else.
This has nothing to do with competitive advantage. This doesn't change the salary cap or the types of players they can bring in. It's about how much revenue a team owner can keep to himself. These other teams already have new stadiums. Most of the reason they want to build new ones is because they build them with double the box seats since those ticket sales are the most expensive and the only ones not shared under the current system. The less rich old guys want a cut of the richer old guys' pie. Whether you agree with this or not, it doesn't give one team an advantage over another. They still have the draft and everyone still has the same cap.

Raider Bill
02-21-2006, 08:55 AM
The Raiders cultivated a tough guy, renegade player image that attracted thugs to the games. Over the years these thugs took over the stadium causing many regular fans to stay home all the while Al Davis stood back and enjoyed the persona his team projected never considering the cost in revenue this tact created which, in my mind, is one more reason he is a bad business man and therefore a bad owner that the league would be better off without and now other better managed successful teams should give him money, I think not.

What a load of nonsense.

http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com/al/oakland/MtDavis.JPG

I wouldnt pay 71 dollars to sit out there in center field either.

Raider Bill
02-21-2006, 09:05 AM
Al Davis had a stadium deal done back in 95

Had the league not tried to stick the Sehawks in there, it would have gotten done.

bronco militia
02-21-2006, 09:08 AM
This has nothing to do with competitive advantage. This doesn't change the salary cap or the types of players they can bring in. It's about how much revenue a team owner can keep to himself. These other teams already have new stadiums. Most of the reason they want to build new ones is because they build them with double the box seats since those ticket sales are the most expensive and the only ones not shared under the current system. The less rich old guys want a cut of the richer old guys' pie. Whether you agree with this or not, it doesn't give one team an advantage over another. They still have the draft and everyone still has the same cap.

yes and no...the Gang of Nine can afford to pay out larger signing bonuses/up front money. Get a new stadium/remodel and all is well.

baja
02-21-2006, 09:19 AM
The Raiders had a stadium deal set up at Hollywood Park.

The league kept trying to stick a second team into the mix.

I am not familiar with the details of this so I can't comment.

Kaylore
02-21-2006, 09:20 AM
yes and no...the Gang of Nine can afford to pay out larger signing bonuses/up front money. Get a new stadium/remodel and all is well.
Thank you. That answers my question from page one. So the amount of extra revenue that they make can be used on players then? If that is the case, then I totally disagree with this. I like the idea of shared national revenue but allowing local income to stay local. However, if the current system is allowing them to spend more money on players than other teams, it isn't functioning as it was designed and needs to be altered.

I don't care if one owner makes more money than another. That's incentive to perform. However I believe in the cap and keeping the league competitive, and rewarding richer teams in any way that effects personnel on the field would widden the competition gap.

watermock
02-21-2006, 09:41 AM
Exactly.

Before you go pointing out ticket sales as a reason why the Raiders are poorly run, up until this year, the Raiders had nothing to do with the marketing and sale of their tickets. The city oversaw it.

Now that the Raiders run it, the first thing they did was lower the price on 3/4ths of the seats since the city had them overpriced so badly. A 71 dollar ticket under the old pricing plan is now 46.

Baloney...the Raiders and Oakland both signed off on that deal...noone held a gun to Al's head...he held a gun to Oakland... Oakland's stupidity with Al's extortion scheme doesn't mean either side knew what they were doing.

Greasy Al is lowering prices because he can't fill the stadium with his crappy product..I don't see why the Broncos or any other team should prop them up...they can go out of business or be sold...Even Al is smart enough he needs to fill the stadium and get parking receits and consession stand revenue...

Unfortunately, it's probably too late for a "makeover" at this point.

watermock
02-21-2006, 09:48 AM
Take mock's hornheads as another example...the fans have always been loyal but while we are 23 over...they are 24 under...so Denver and the rest of the teams are supposed to prop up the Vikings even tho they sell out every games while cheap ass teams pocket money?

The stupid liberals will spend money on everything but a .1 mill levee for a new stadium....

Garcia Bronco
02-21-2006, 09:53 AM
If I understood it correctly from some time ago....they want them to share local revenue...which I agree they shouldn't have to share that at all.

Garcia Bronco
02-21-2006, 09:54 AM
Yep...I was right...and upshaw wants it included to yank a bigger piece of the pie percentage wise.

Garcia Bronco
02-21-2006, 09:55 AM
yes and no...the Gang of Nine can afford to pay out larger signing bonuses/up front money. Get a new stadium/remodel and all is well.

For the teams...it is cash flow...that's it.

bronco militia
02-21-2006, 10:01 AM
Yep...I was right...and upshaw wants it included to yank a bigger piece of the pie percentage wise.

there seems to be no evidence of this being a problem with the Gang Of Nine...so far the only issue seems to be about revinue sharring. Remember, it's not like they aren't sharing already.

give the players a raise and tell Al Davis, Lamar Hunt, and Spanos to get their **** together before asking for a bigger handout.

watermock
02-21-2006, 10:06 AM
PFT is a dimwitted idiot that spends all his time being a cynic...

You tell me why a company has to prop up another company...isn't that why we play the games?

Denver isn't a huge market...yet we always manage to spend to the cap, spent the money for new facilities at Dove Valley and have a new stadium...

These cheap ass owners can own up...this is rediculous...they want a free ride...

They are asking for parking, consessions and billboards for christ sake...

Raider Bill
02-21-2006, 10:06 AM
Baloney...the Raiders and Oakland both signed off on that deal...noone held a gun to Al's head...he held a gun to Oakland... Oakland's stupidity with Al's extortion scheme doesn't mean either side knew what they were doing.

Greasy Al is lowering prices because he can't fill the stadium with his crappy product..I don't see why the Broncos or any other team should prop them up...they can go out of business or be sold...Even Al is smart enough he needs to fill the stadium and get parking receits and consession stand revenue...

Unfortunately, it's probably too late for a "makeover" at this point.

Bull****. City control of the ticket sales was a deal breaker, the City wanted it and did a piss poor job. How else do you explain the Raiders winning a 34 million dollar judgement against the city?

Since the team returned to Oakland from Los Angeles in 1995, the city and county controlled ticket sales through the despised Oakland Football Marketing Association.

Technical and manpower issues at the association, coupled by a PSL concept that never took hold in the Bay Area, resulted in the Coliseum remaining half-full for many Raiders games.

It led to disputes between the team and its government landlord and eventually a $1.1 billion lawsuit that ended with a Sacramento jury awarding the team $34 million in damages.

Raider Bill
02-21-2006, 10:08 AM
PFT is a dimwitted idiot that spends all his time being a cynic...

You tell me why a company has to prop up another company...isn't that why we play the games?

Denver isn't a huge market...yet we always manage to spend to the cap, spent the money for new facilities at Dove Valley and have a new stadium...

These cheap ass owners can own up...this is rediculous...they want a free ride...


HA! Both the Vikings and the Raiders have spent more money on players than the Broncos the past 3 seasons. Whose being cheap here again?

This is a list of the National Football League's biggest spenders in the last three seasons, the teams and the amounts on the checks they have written to their players.
It is a list that proves nothing Millions1. Seattle Seahawks... $279.1

2. Washington Redskins... $269.4

3. Atlanta Falcons... $267.2

4. New Orleans Saints... $264.7

5. Minnesota Vikings... $263.9

6. Baltimore Ravens... $258.0

7. Houston Texans... $256.9

8. Eagles... $255.4

9. Carolina Panthers... $254.3

10. Detroit Lions... $253.7

11. New England Patriots... $253.4

12. Oakland Raiders... $252.3

13. Chicago Bears... $250.3 Those are the teams that all have spent more than a quarter-billion dollars on their players in the last three seasons. If you can discern a consistent pattern there, linking dollars to victories, you must have very good eyes.

baja
02-21-2006, 10:09 AM
there seems to be no evidence of this being a problem with the Gang Of Nine...so far the only issue seems to be about revinue sharring. Remember, it's not like they aren't sharing already.

<b>give the players a raise and tell Al Davis, Lamar Hunt, and Spanos to get their **** together before asking for a bigger handout.</b>


B I N G O!

watermock
02-21-2006, 10:12 AM
If the Vikings are spending so much money why are they shopping Pepp and 24 million under the cap?

Raider Bill
02-21-2006, 10:12 AM
Then why divide anything?

Why shouldnt the Raiders get the lions share of the merchandising loot? They've sold the most merchandise for years now.

watermock
02-21-2006, 10:14 AM
Then why divide anything?

Why shouldnt the Raiders get the lions share of the merchandising loot? They've sold the most merchandise for years now.

That's the whole point. There is allready revenue sharing...I don't care if punks want to wear gang gear...it's a good warning to cross the street.

Rock Chalk
02-21-2006, 10:14 AM
Was anyone else surprised to see the Texans and Panthers in that group?
Panthers yes, Texans no.

Local revenue down here is huge for the Texans, and the new stadium draws in huge amounts of money as well. Houston sucks, but they are not a poor franchise losing money.

Raider Bill
02-21-2006, 10:14 AM
If the Vikings are spending so much money why are they shopping Pepp and 24 million under the cap?


Cap schmap... that is the total of actual dollars paid out to players the past 3seasons. The cap is a completely different animal. Giving a guy a 10 million dollar SB on a 4 year deal only counts 2.5 to the cap, but the owner still laid out 10 mil

baja
02-21-2006, 10:15 AM
Then why divide anything?

Why shouldnt the Raiders get the lions share of the merchandising loot? They've sold the most merchandise for years now.

They should!

Rock Chalk
02-21-2006, 10:16 AM
Bull****. City control of the ticket sales was a deal breaker, the City wanted it and did a piss poor job. How else do you explain the Raiders winning a 34 million dollar judgement against the city?
How else do I explain it?

Al Davis can afford better lawyers than the city.

If you think justice is about judgements, you are ****ing crazy mistaken.

Raider Bill
02-21-2006, 10:16 AM
That's the whole point. There is allready revenue sharing...I don't care if punks want to wear gang gear...it's a good warning to cross the street.


But these guys only want to share the revenues that are to their benefit, 23 other squads disagree.

watermock
02-21-2006, 10:17 AM
Wrong...the Hornheads continue to be well below the cap because they underspent because the old owner was a prick and they didn't generate much revenue from the metrodome.

Alec...Pubes will at least pull that team out of the gutter....

baja
02-21-2006, 10:17 AM
If the Vikings are spending so much money why are they shopping Pepp and 24 million under the cap?

Because he is overrated because he is black???

Na only Rush would think that.

watermock
02-21-2006, 10:18 AM
well then make Greasy Al share his gang gear money...filthy as it is...

baja
02-21-2006, 10:20 AM
well then make Greasy Al share his gang gear money...filthy as it is...

He does

watermock
02-21-2006, 10:23 AM
I stand corrected.

bronco militia
02-21-2006, 10:27 AM
Jerry Jones has been the biggest whiner about sharing that part of their revenue streem...

-Slap-
02-21-2006, 11:19 AM
The company you keep says a lot about you. Bowlen rubbing elbows with Jones, Snyder and Loria speaks volumes.

I guess few remember when Bowlen floated the idea of the Los Angeles Broncos out there.

Mediator12
02-21-2006, 11:24 AM
I love how no one has criticized the players for asking for even more than 57% of the pie that they already command. Here is the one point that pisses me off. The owners actually have business expenses to incur and the players ask for more per diem on road trips every year, expect every meal to be offered by their employer during training camp, have no out of pocket travel expenses to be reimbursed etc. The owners support the infrastructure that allows them to do their jobs, pay the immense staffs and provide benefits to them, incur every penny of capital expenditure in their names etc.

As for different branches of the same company, I disagree. These are Franchises slap. This is more like McDonalds than Citibank. Sure McDonalds Franchises would not be worth as much without the name, but they are just as important as the name itself.

IMHO, the players need to do more with investing and Keeping their money than they do expending it over a three year period. There is way too much variance in the Worth of players for a team game where the grunts who only last an average of three years make an average of 350k so Peyton Manning can have a 20 million signing bonus to go with 12 million in endorsements a year. However, the players union has sought to battle the owners over total DGR instead of better taking care of their own and former players. Players union is all about getting more and not servicing the interests of the players.

bronco militia
02-21-2006, 11:25 AM
The company you keep says a lot about you. Bowlen rubbing elbows with Jones, Snyder and Loria speaks volumes.

I guess few remember when Bowlen floated the idea of the Los Angeles Broncos out there.

IMO, there's no difference among the 32....you have 9 owners that want to keep things the way they are, and 23 other owners that want a bigger hand out. How can you say one group is more greedier than the other? In the end, the players and fans will get screwed.

IMO, go to a hard cap like the NHL.

baja
02-21-2006, 11:25 AM
The company you keep says a lot about you. Bowlen rubbing elbows with Jones, Snyder and Loria speaks volumes.

I guess few remember when Bowlen floated the idea of the Los Angeles Broncos out there.

I remember, it was used as a threat to wring a new stadium out of the Denver voters.

clarker
02-21-2006, 11:29 AM
What a load of nonsense.

http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com/al/oakland/MtDavis.JPG

I wouldnt pay 71 dollars to sit out there in center field either.No kidding. How can having a team of low life thugs drive off a fan base made up of low life thugs.:~ohyah!: ROFL! As Chris Rock says "Two crack heads will stay together forever."

The Raiders and Raider nation in it for life.

clarker
02-21-2006, 11:36 AM
Thank you. That answers my question from page one. So the amount of extra revenue that they make can be used on players then? If that is the case, then I totally disagree with this. I like the idea of shared national revenue but allowing local income to stay local. However, if the current system is allowing them to spend more money on players than other teams, it isn't functioning as it was designed and needs to be altered.

I don't care if one owner makes more money than another. That's incentive to perform. However I believe in the cap and keeping the league competitive, and rewarding richer teams in any way that effects personnel on the field would widden the competition gap.Spending a ton of money doesn't mean that you will get a winner. Look at the Redskins, they have spent a ton of money since Synder has been the owner and I believe that this is the first year his team made the play offs.

Look at the Pats. How many big money players do they have, besides Tom Brady? Yet they seem to have done pretty good as of late.

Garcia Bronco
02-21-2006, 11:41 AM
there seems to be no evidence of this being a problem with the Gang Of Nine...so far the only issue seems to be about revinue sharring. Remember, it's not like they aren't sharing already.

give the players a raise and tell Al Davis, Lamar Hunt, and Spanos to get their **** together before asking for a bigger handout.


It's NFL welfare

Raider Bill
02-21-2006, 12:00 PM
Wrong...the Hornheads continue to be well below the cap because they underspent because the old owner was a prick and they didn't generate much revenue from the metrodome.

Alec...Pubes will at least pull that team out of the gutter....


Dude it's right there in black and white. The Vikings spent more than the Broncos, as did the Raiders and a whole host of other teams.

Raider Bill
02-21-2006, 12:02 PM
Revenue sharing is the pro labor/pro union stance.

So essentially you have 23/32nds of "management" agreeing with "labor"

Then you have 9 greedy pricks trying to gum up the works.

-Slap-
02-21-2006, 12:04 PM
As for different branches of the same company, I disagree. These are Franchises slap. This is more like McDonalds than Citibank. Sure McDonalds Franchises would not be worth as much without the name, but they are just as important as the name itself.
Not as inept an analogy as some offered on this thread (for example, equating revenue sharing to socialism), but still largely inapplicable. McDonald's franchises are not in direct competition with each other. The Clown is not going to allow two restaurants in the same shopping center, for example. Their corporate management understands that having weak or poorly managed franchises is a poor reflection on the overall quality of the product.

Almost 3/4 of the McDonalds in this country are independently operated, but those owners had to agree to run their restaurants per corporate guidelines before they were granted franchising rights. Too much deviation from those restrictions can get your license pulled.

clarker
02-21-2006, 12:05 PM
Dude it's right there in black and white. The Vikings spent more than the Broncos, as did the Raiders and a whole host of other teams.And yet the Broncos did better than both those teams. So money is not everything.

Bottom line for Raider fans, no matter which way they go, Al Davis will f.ck it up for you guys.

Raider Bill
02-21-2006, 12:07 PM
And yet the Broncos did better than both those teams. So money is not everything.

Bottom line for Raider fans, no matter which way they go, Al Davis will f.ck it up for you guys.


Way to change the topic. The point is, arguing that lower revenue teams are just being "cheap" is flawed. 3 of the 7 lowest revenue generating teams have outspent the Broncos (who are 2nd highest I believe).

In fact the point of the article I quoted was that $ does not = wins, but you can make a case that having more dough makes it a lot easier to bury your mistakes.

Raider Bill
02-21-2006, 12:12 PM
Slap is the only one being reasonable here.


Why divide ANY revenues then.. screw the Cardinals, if they don't sell any gear then why should they benefit from the Raiders?

Same principle applies here IMO.

Bowlen, Laurie, Jones and gang are just being a bunch of money grubbing pricks.

clarker
02-21-2006, 12:13 PM
Way to change the topic. The point is, arguing that lower revenue teams are just being "cheap" is flawed. 3 of the 7 lowest revenue generating teams have outspent the Broncos (who are 2nd highest I believe)My point is that is not always how much you spend it is how you spend it. You say the Raiders out spent the Broncos, well how got more for their dollar.

We could give that grease ball Al Davis even more money to spend and he would still f.ck it up. I bet the Broncos could give Al all their local profits and Davis would still find a way to put out a 4-12 football teams more times than not. He would give it all to sign some one hit wonder Super Bowl MVP like Larry Brown.

The reason your team has sucked more or less since 1983 is not because the greedy big markert teams are sharing less and less. It is cause your owner lost his mind 20 years ago.

The NFL already shares the biggest cash cow they have, the TV money.

Mediator12
02-21-2006, 12:34 PM
Not as inept an analogy as some offered on this thread (for example, equating revenue sharing to socialism), but still largely inapplicable. McDonald's franchises are not in direct competition with each other. The Clown is not going to allow two restaurants in the same shopping center, for example. Their corporate management understands that having weak or poorly managed franchises is a poor reflection on the overall quality of the product.

Almost 3/4 of the McDonalds in this country are independently operated, but those owners had to agree to run their restaurants per corporate guidelines before they were granted franchising rights. Too much deviation from those restrictions can get your license pulled.

I agree with most of this slap, so do not get me wrong. I was using McDonalds as a loose "more Like" analogy. The problems are simple though. Mcdonald's is publically held, the NFL is privately Held by the 32 franchise owners.

Each Franchise does compete with others geographically too. The Jets and Giants play in the same stadium, even though New York is large enough to withstand this Competition. There is no way OHIO needs two teams four hours from each other, or SF needs two teams across the bay, or Tampa Bay and JAX, heck INDY and CIN could be better off if they were more than two hours away.

As for the second paragraph, the NFL places the exact same restrictions on its franchises. Unfortunately, no stupid owner has deviated outside those guidelines (allegedly) to test the mandatory ownership loss. I think Benson was dangerously close a few months ago, but wisened up his PR for the immediate fervor.

If this were different divisions of the same company, they would produce different products not different variations of the exact same thing. There would be a mortgage division, credit Cards division, mutual funds division, Brokerage, insurance division, etc. In short, there would not be 32 competing products but 32 seperate streams of revenue that would not compete directly with each other but could cross brand and share information to bring in new customers ;D

The biggest difference is that the Franchise owners also run and manage the league. They select and change the rules and approve who can start a new franchise. There are no businesses outside of Professional sports and the SBC/AT&T/BELL's/Cable companies that is anywhere near this type of operation and the Bells' are publicly traded.

yavoon
02-21-2006, 01:44 PM
I love how no one has criticized the players for asking for even more than 57% of the pie that they already command. Here is the one point that pisses me off. The owners actually have business expenses to incur and the players ask for more per diem on road trips every year, expect every meal to be offered by their employer during training camp, have no out of pocket travel expenses to be reimbursed etc. The owners support the infrastructure that allows them to do their jobs, pay the immense staffs and provide benefits to them, incur every penny of capital expenditure in their names etc.

As for different branches of the same company, I disagree. These are Franchises slap. This is more like McDonalds than Citibank. Sure McDonalds Franchises would not be worth as much without the name, but they are just as important as the name itself.

IMHO, the players need to do more with investing and Keeping their money than they do expending it over a three year period. There is way too much variance in the Worth of players for a team game where the grunts who only last an average of three years make an average of 350k so Peyton Manning can have a 20 million signing bonus to go with 12 million in endorsements a year. However, the players union has sought to battle the owners over total DGR instead of better taking care of their own and former players. Players union is all about getting more and not servicing the interests of the players.

peyton manning is worth that much more. I'm not even sure what ur suggesting? a cap on max salaries?

yavoon
02-21-2006, 01:47 PM
Slap is the only one being reasonable here.


Why divide ANY revenues then.. screw the Cardinals, if they don't sell any gear then why should they benefit from the Raiders?

Same principle applies here IMO.

Bowlen, Laurie, Jones and gang are just being a bunch of money grubbing pricks.

I'm not sure how much apparel sales is but I just doubt its really all that important, incomparison to say tv revenue.

obviously tho since the raiders are good at selling jersey's this is a sore spot for u:)

baja
02-21-2006, 01:47 PM
<b>Revenue sharing is the pro labor/pro union stance. </b>

So essentially you have 23/32nds of "management" agreeing with "labor"

Then you have 9 greedy pricks trying to gum up the works.

What a load.... I'ts revenue sharing between team ownerships

Kaylore
02-21-2006, 01:47 PM
Slap is the only one being reasonable here.


Why divide ANY revenues then.. screw the Cardinals, if they don't sell any gear then why should they benefit from the Raiders?

Same principle applies here IMO.

Bowlen, Laurie, Jones and gang are just being a bunch of money grubbing pricks.
There are things to consider. First of all, the way the Nine want it is how it is now. They aren't trying to change things to give them more money, they already have more money and want to keep it. It's not like they are holding out to get more. And wanting to keep what you are making through your own efforsts hardly makes them "money grubbing pricks." In fact you could argue that the other franchises that are poorly run are the "money grubbing pricks" because they want a chunk of something that they can't make themselves. Woul you want to cut some of your check to Bill Bidwell, the royal a-hole of the league?

The problem is that if they don't, the rest of the league suffers. And for every Bill Bidwell there will be a Rooney who is in a small market but is a keystone to the league and boon to the game.

As I said before, if these revenues allow the teams to use more money on signing bonuses upfront, then that whole point of a salary cap and whatnot is being circumvented. That's what makes the league better than the other sports venues.

They need (and will have to) compromise in some way. I would wager it will be something like all ticket sales, including the coveted Box seats, with some split of the local TV contracts will be added to the shared revenue.

The Bonus is (if I'm mistaken correct me) The Salary cap will be raised. :) Frankly I like that a lot better than whatever signing bonus advantage we get in the current system.

yavoon
02-21-2006, 01:48 PM
Revenue sharing is the pro labor/pro union stance.

So essentially you have 23/32nds of "management" agreeing with "labor"

Then you have 9 greedy pricks trying to gum up the works.

most of those teams stand to benefit off more revenue sharing. so in essence they are voting themselves a pay raise.

Kaylore
02-21-2006, 01:49 PM
most of those teams stand to benefit off more revenue sharing. so in essence they are voting themselves a pay raise.
Exactly. This isn't a big guy Vs. Little guy thing. This is a Rich guys Vs. Richer guys thing.

baja
02-21-2006, 01:52 PM
Slap is the only one being reasonable here.


Why divide ANY revenues then.. screw the Cardinals, if they don't sell any gear then why should they benefit from the Raiders?

Same principle applies here IMO.

Bowlen, Laurie, Jones and gang are just being a bunch of money grubbing pricks.

You absolutely got a point here so why are you arguing for even more revenue sharing if you think it is wrong? huh? Could it be that you think your crap mismanaged team could benefit from the hand out to somehow (and in spite of Al) improve?

yavoon
02-21-2006, 01:55 PM
Exactly. This isn't a big guy Vs. Little guy thing. This is a Rich guys Vs. Richer guys thing.

I think whats somewhat at the heart of this issue is the competitiveness of the small market vs the need to have talented ownership.

I guess in the end I wouldn't care too much if they shared some local tv revenue. but there has to continue to be ways that owners can be smart and aggressive and actually profit from it(that is besides getting cities to build stadiums for them).

Raider Bill
02-21-2006, 01:57 PM
My point is that is not always how much you spend it is how you spend it. You say the Raiders out spent the Broncos, well how got more for their dollar.

We could give that grease ball Al Davis even more money to spend and he would still f.ck it up. I bet the Broncos could give Al all their local profits and Davis would still find a way to put out a 4-12 football teams more times than not. He would give it all to sign some one hit wonder Super Bowl MVP like Larry Brown.

The reason your team has sucked more or less since 1983 is not because the greedy big markert teams are sharing less and less. It is cause your owner lost his mind 20 years ago.

The NFL already shares the biggest cash cow they have, the TV money.

This is nothing but a bunch of anti Raider rhetoric wrapped in a hypothetical that had nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Those totals are for the past 3 seasons. So I'd argue that 2002 trumps anything the donkeys have done in this milenium.

Your bias is showing, you cannot argue that greater revenues do not provide a competitive advantage.

Kaylore
02-21-2006, 02:02 PM
I think whats somewhat at the heart of this issue is the competitiveness of the small market vs the need to have talented ownership.

I guess in the end I wouldn't care too much if they shared some local tv revenue. but there has to continue to be ways that owners can be smart and aggressive and actually profit from it(that is besides getting cities to build stadiums for them). I agree. I want to see teams that have good owners but not the hottest market like the Steelers do well, but another part of me doesn't want to reward bad behavior vis-a-vis the Lions or Cardinals. There needs to be some kind of incentive so that owners are motivated to excell in their respective markets. These guys are capitalists and the "common good" doesn't work on all of them.

I guess you have to look at the big picture and determine that you aren't always going to be able to have a Wellington Mara come along and run every franchise, so you have assume that the majority of the owners know what they're doing and accept that some bad apples will emerge.

It's not like the other 23 are total douche bags or anything. A lot of their economic possitioning is a result of the their town's circumstances. In fact there are some real tools on the nine. While some of the nine might be able to make a buck, they certainly can't field a competitive team to save their lives.

Raider Bill
02-21-2006, 02:22 PM
why are you arguing for even more revenue sharing if you think it is wrong?

I don't think it's wrong. It's the main thing preventing a MLB type situation.

You're arguing that partial revenue sharing is OK.

clarker
02-21-2006, 02:28 PM
This is nothing but a bunch of anti Raider rhetoric wrapped in a hypothetical that had nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Those totals are for the past 3 seasons. So I'd argue that 2002 trumps anything the donkeys have done in this milenium.

Your bias is showing, you cannot argue that greater revenues do not provide a competitive advantage.The past three seasons? 2005, 2004, and 2003. Nice math, Raider Fan. And in those three season the Broncos were in the play offs spending less than the Raiders, who have sucked out load since their one Super Bowl since 1983.

As for 2002 even a blind man can hit a dart board once every 23 years.

Spending money in sports doesn't give you a competitive edge. Spending money wisely does.

yavoon
02-21-2006, 02:29 PM
The past three seasons? 2005, 2004, and 2003. Nice math, Raider Fan. And in those three season the Broncos were in the play offs spending less than the Raiders, who have sucked out load since their one Super Bowl since 1983.

As for 2002 even a blind man can hit a dart board once every 23 years.

Spending money in sports doesn't give you a competitive edge. Spending money wisely does.

yah I dont think ur really even on topic:(

clarker
02-21-2006, 02:43 PM
yah I dont think ur really even on topic:(I am on topic. He is saying they have to share all revenues or the big market teams have an advantage. I say it has more to do with how you spend your money not how much money you have.

Because what the "gang of 9" want to do is share the TV money, share the T-Shirts, Jersey, ect. money but keep what they make on a local level.

I say that Bowlen could give an owner as stupid as Al Davis every dime he makes on the local level and said owner would screw it up.

The competive advantage they have over teams like the Raiders and Cardinals is better managment not money. I mean the 32 teams split billions every year in TV money alone. So it is not like the small market teams are just barely making it.

elsid13
02-21-2006, 02:50 PM
I guess I really am torn about this. As a fan I want the gang of nine to agree with rest of the owners so there is a season and FA thing get taking care of. As bottom line kind of guy, I understand that the 9 have worked very hard to expanded their business base, and provided a quality product that people want. Why should other profit from their labor. I guess the questions of why haven't the other owners been as aggressive marketing and expanding their business base??? And if they get the additional revenue what are they going to do with it??? Are they going to reinvest or cash out?

yavoon
02-21-2006, 02:50 PM
I am on topic. He is saying they have to share all revenues or the big market teams have an advantage. I say it has more to do with how you spend your money not how much money you have.

Because what the "gang of 9" want to do is share the TV money, share the T-Shirts, Jersey, ect. money but keep what they make on a local level.

I say that Bowlen could give an owner as stupid as Al Davis every dime he makes on the local level and said owner would screw it up.

The competive advantage they have over teams like the Raiders and Cardinals is better managment not money. I mean the 32 teams split billions every year in TV money alone. So it is not like the small market teams are just barely making it.

money is always an advantage, even if the advantage is squandered it is still an advantage to begin w/.

and we're really talking about profit and money not about wins and losses.

Kaylore
02-21-2006, 03:03 PM
Here's picture of the Nine together. Bowlen is third from the left.

baja
02-21-2006, 03:20 PM
I don't think it's wrong. It's the main thing preventing a MLB type situation.

You're arguing that partial revenue sharing is OK.

No I'm not read my posts I agreed with you about the team merchandise

i think the only revenue that should be pooled is TV revenues.

clarker
02-21-2006, 03:25 PM
money is always an advantage, even if the advantage is squandered it is still an advantage to begin w/.

and we're really talking about profit and money not about wins and losses.The reason they share profits at all is to make sure teams in small markets can keep up with the big market teams. They more than do this with TV and T-Shirt, jersey ect. money alone. They shouldn't have to share the money they make locally.

I mean it is not Bowlen's fault that Al Davis signed such a crappy stadium deal.

The only people Bowlen should have to share the money he makes from the stadium is the people who helped him pay for it. The tax payer. Which I believe they do get their share.

I think they should share the TV and T-shirt money and have a cap. That should keep the teams pretty even.

clarker
02-21-2006, 03:27 PM
No I'm not read my posts I agreed with you about the team merchandise

i think the only revenue that should be pooled is TV revenues.I would go let Al Davis have his advantage in merchandise sales.

Raider Bill
02-21-2006, 03:53 PM
I'm not sure how much apparel sales is but I just doubt its really all that important, incomparison to say tv revenue.

obviously tho since the raiders are good at selling jersey's this is a sore spot for u:)

It totaled nearly 3 billion dollars in 2001 according to this article.


http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2001/12/10/story2.html

It's not a sore spot, merely pointing out hypocrisy where I see it.

Raider Bill
02-21-2006, 03:56 PM
What a load.... I'ts revenue sharing between team ownerships


But it's ultimately the UNION that wants this stuff included in the DGR equation. The salary cap is based on how exactly the revenues are calculated.


I'm pretty familiar with Jeff Laurie, and he's done little to increase the value of that franchise except bend over the local populace to foot the bill for a new stadium.

Garcia Bronco
02-21-2006, 03:59 PM
Then why divide anything?

Why shouldnt the Raiders get the lions share of the merchandising loot? They've sold the most merchandise for years now.


No they haven't...that hasn't happened consistently since 95

baja
02-21-2006, 04:03 PM
But it's ultimately the UNION that wants this stuff included in the DGR equation. The salary cap is based on how exactly the revenues are calculated.


I'm pretty familiar with Jeff Laurie, and he's done little to increase the value of that franchise except bend over the local populace to foot the bill for a new stadium.

of course the union wants it, it's a means to an end. doesn't make it right.

yavoon
02-21-2006, 04:08 PM
The reason they share profits at all is to make sure teams in small markets can keep up with the big market teams. They more than do this with TV and T-Shirt, jersey ect. money alone. They shouldn't have to share the money they make locally.

I mean it is not Bowlen's fault that Al Davis signed such a crappy stadium deal.

The only people Bowlen should have to share the money he makes from the stadium is the people who helped him pay for it. The tax payer. Which I believe they do get their share.

I think they should share the TV and T-shirt money and have a cap. That should keep the teams pretty even.

u sound like its a bunch of second graders sharing candy:)

clarker
02-21-2006, 04:20 PM
u sound like its a bunch of second graders sharing candy:)It is not that much more too it than that. I mean were talking about billions, but the issues themselves are not that complex. It all comes down to what revenues are shared and which are not.

Raider Bill
02-21-2006, 04:43 PM
No they haven't...that hasn't happened consistently since 95

.
Wrong

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2004-07-21-merchandising-sales_x.htm

Raider Bill
02-21-2006, 04:46 PM
Here's something for 2005. Moss was the #1 jersey I believe, according to this survey we ranked 7th this particular week .


Evidence that when the Bengals win, fans go shopping: In a list of the top NFL teams for merchandise sales last week, based on SportScanInfo's survey of 12,000 retailers nationally, the Bengals moved from 10th to sixth in percentage of total sales.

Here are the top 10:

1. Pittsburgh Steelers

2. Philadelphia Eagles

3. Indianapolis Colts

4. New York Giants

5. New England Patriots

6. Cincinnati Bengals

7. Oakland Raiders

8. Chicago Bears

9. Atlanta Falcons

10. Dallas Cowboys

Raider Bill
02-21-2006, 04:50 PM
of course the union wants it, it's a means to an end. doesn't make it right.


So you have 70% of the "board of directors" taking a pro labor stance.

baja
02-21-2006, 05:00 PM
So you have 70% of the "board of directors" taking a pro labor stance.

No it just happens to coinside with what labor wants both stand to gain.

Raider Bill
02-21-2006, 05:50 PM
I just think it's a flaw in logic to make a blanket statement that local revenues follow from a well run franchise and not a myriad of other factors.

SoCalBronco
02-21-2006, 10:47 PM
As an update to this story, PFT is now reporting that it is this revenue sharing dispute among the owners that is basically the sole holdup on the CBA, it appears that the League and the NFLPA have pretty much figured everything else out.

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

POSTED 11:45 p.m. EST, February 21, 2006; UPDATED 12:36 a.m. EST, February 22, 2006

REVENUE SHARING IS THE BATTLE GROUND



Word around the league is that the NFL and the NFLPA essentially are in position to get a deal done on an extension of the CBA, but that the factor keeping the two sides from finalizing the agreement is the inability of owners to agree upon the extent to which currently unshared revenues will be split up among the 32 franchises.



The problem is that the NFLPA intends to include some of the millions in unshared revenues within the calculation that determines player salaries. The NFL is willing to do so, but this will stick the teams earning less unshared revenues with lower profit margins, since their cap amounts will be driven up by the larger revenues earned by other franchises.



The issue has been bubbling for months, and there are indications that it soon could explode, especially with talk of some of the big-money franchises suing their brethren if revenue sharing is expanded.



The teams already share millions in revenue, pursuant to an agreement made decades ago. But now the teams who -- due to market size, ingenuity, and/or hard work -- are making more money from local sources that aren't shared don't want to continue to divide the wealth, thereby subsidizing other owners who, for whatever reason, can't make the same amount of money with their own franchises.



Last year, we proposed a system that would divert a set percentage of each team's unshared revenue into a fund that would pay all players extra money, based on factors such as cap number, total snaps, and/or objective performance indicators. This would preserve the incentive for teams like the Redskins to earn as much as possible, and it would not reward teams like the Bengals, who opt not to sell the naming rights to their stadium.



It's too late for this approach to work, since the union already has its sights set on expanding the Defined Gross Revenue calculation to include unshared revenues. Regardless, the impasse among the owners won't be resolved without a method that doesn't discourage the rich from getting richer, and that doesn't encourage the less-rich to sit on their hands, thumbs pointing up.

Kaylore
02-21-2006, 10:50 PM
That's very interesting.

SoCalBronco
02-22-2006, 06:39 PM
from www.profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm today.


BRONCOS ADDRESS OUR "GANG OF NINE" REPORT



Bill Williamson of The Denver Post writes that Broncos executive V.P. of business operations Joe Ellis emphatically denied "a Profootballtalk.com report" that owner Pat Bowlen is a member of the nine owners considering legal action if expanded revenue sharing is forced onto the high-earning teams.



"Pat Bowlen has no intentions -- and underline the no -- or interest in a lawsuit," Ellis said. "He is interested in a solution to revenue sharing that serves the best interest of the National Football League."



Allow us to clarify, a bit. (We were going to say "a tad" until we realized how gay that sounds.) The Broncos are one of the nine teams opposed to expanded revenue sharing. We identified the nine teams in the context of a story regarding statements from NFLPA chief Gene Upshaw suggesting that there is a group of nine owners who will sue to block expanded revenue sharing. We were confused by Upshaw's comments, since the nine nay votes from those teams will be enough to block such a dramatic change in the way that the league currently does business.



As we now understand it, the lawsuit option arises if one or two of the teams currently leaning against enhanced revenue sharing pulls a John Kerry and votes in favor of the plan before they vote against it -- and if the 23 other teams vote for more revenue sharing as well. Then, the remaining eight or less will have to decide whether to go nuclear on the Billionaire Boys Club.



So what Ellis is saying is that, if it come down to litigation, Bowlen won't go that route.



But what Ellis didn't answer is whether Bowlen currently is one of the nine guys who, banded together, have the votes to protect their currently unshared revenues.

RhymesayersDU
03-29-2010, 07:51 PM
Gang up on em