PDA

View Full Version : Lockout


El Minion
07-14-2010, 05:21 PM
NFL's lockout real reason? Uneven non-shared local revenue cutting into smaller markets teams bottom line so instead take it from the players, possibly the cause.

––––––––––––––––––
Packers financials raise specter of unshared revenues (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/07/14/packers-financials-raise-specter-of-unshared-revenues/)
Posted by Mike Florio on July 14, 2010 2:26 PM ET
In response to our item regarding the Packers' claim that increases in player costs are outpacing revenue by a 2-to-1 rate (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/07/14/packers-say-player-costs-are-rising-at-twice-the-rate-of-revenue/), Ross Tucker of SI.com and Sirius NFL Radio and probably some other outlets we can't think of at the moment raised a great point on Twitter.

If the salary cap (which applied during the term of the Packers' most recent fiscal year) arises from a fixed percentage of revenue, how can player costs be growing at twice the speed of revenues? (http://twitter.com/SI_RossTucker/status/18534070538)

Here's the answer. Packers CEO Mark Murphy said that the team's "local revenues" have been flat since 2007. So the growth has come from revenues shared by all teams. And because the salary cap and floor were determined by total revenues, shared and unshared, the small-market Packers are experiencing the pinch of other teams' revenues driving up every team's player costs.

So when Murphy says that the current system creates a "non-sustainable model," the real problem from the Packers' standpoint arises from the fact that other teams are experiencing enough of a rise in local, unshared revenues to chew more deeply into the Packers' total profits, since player costs are determined by the combined revenues of all teams.

Thus, instead of taking money back from the players, the league should perhaps be revisiting supplemental revenue sharing, the current needs-based strategy for redistributing unshared money.

Then again, that's far easier said than done.

Four years ago, owners squabbled loudly and repeatedly about revenue sharing, with guys like Cowboys owner Jerry Jones calling out Bengals president Mike Brown for failing to sell the naming rights to the stadium named after Brown's father. The final combined labor/supplemental revenue sharing deal that was jammed through over the objection of only Brown and Bills owner Ralph Wilson gave players 59 cents of every dollar earned, and created the Band-Aid system for funneling money to the haves from the have mores.

In the months leading up to the next new labor deal, the owners have managed to keep a lid on the deep differences regarding the ongoing problem of unshared revenues. And they'll keep trying to do so, in the hopes of demonstrating a united front to the NFLPA. But the Packers' situation points to a big part of the problem being not the money paid to players but the revenues shared -- and not shared -- by the 32 franchises.

tsiguy96
07-14-2010, 05:34 PM
salaries have been increasing at an exponential rate, and the NFL income is increasing the same as inflation. and people wonder why teams dont want to pay these contracts?

MaloCS
07-15-2010, 11:11 AM
Stop paying unproven rookies ungodly amounts of money. All rookies, regardless of where they were drafted should be making the league minimum with some incentives thrown in. With the money saved, teams could compensate players like Marshall and Doom based upon production and performance; players that have clearly outplayed their contracts.

If I was a player I would favor this type of monetary compensation plan. It pays the players that produce and doesn't play the players that sit on the bench.

Enough with giving unproven talent tens of millions of dollars.

oubronco
07-15-2010, 11:27 AM
Stop paying unproven rookies ungodly amounts of money. All rookies, regardless of where they were drafted should be making the league minimum with some incentives thrown in. With the money saved, teams could compensate players like Marshall and Doom based upon production and performance; players that have clearly outplayed their contracts.

If I was a player I would favor this type of monetary compensation plan. It pays the players that produce and doesn't play the players that sit on the bench.

Enough with giving unproven talent tens of millions of dollars.

I agree 10000%

tsiguy96
07-15-2010, 11:30 AM
problem is, rookie contracts become reasonable after about the 9th pick. its ALL salaries, regardless of position or player. guys wanting to redo their deal with 3-5 years left on it because salaries are going up so fast, the league is absolutely not making an equal level of inflating profit

oubronco
07-15-2010, 11:38 AM
The owners need to all get together and set a pay scale and stick to it and when the players bitch the owners just need to stand there ground and simply say: either play or go find a job like the rest of us do

bronco militia
07-15-2010, 11:55 AM
this article illustrates why the owners all will never agree to a lockout.

Drek
07-15-2010, 12:11 PM
The owners need to all get together and set a pay scale and stick to it and when the players b**** the owners just need to stand there ground and simply say: either play or go find a job like the rest of us do

That is called collusion and is highly illegal.

Garcia Bronco
07-15-2010, 01:01 PM
That is called collusion and is highly illegal.

Why would it be illegal when they do business under one name?

Kaylore
07-15-2010, 01:11 PM
It's not the rookies that are the problem causing the financial strain (though those top 15 make little sense and definitely are bloated.) It's that the cap increase (and therefore floor) is a flat number and year to year it's been going up whether the revenue was there or not. This put the cap ceiling so high that no one was hitting free agency anymore because everyone had enough room. It's a bloated system that out-priced roster amounts from what they can afford. It needs to be fixed.

oubronco
07-15-2010, 01:16 PM
That is called collusion and is highly illegal.

What makes it illegal

Lev Vyvanse
07-15-2010, 02:44 PM
What makes it illegal

Antitrust laws.

Hogan11
07-15-2010, 05:38 PM
That is called collusion and is highly illegal.

Get ready to hear "collusion" thrown around a lot in the upcoming months. T.O. is already saying it as the reason no one's picked him up yet Ha!

Kaylore
07-15-2010, 05:52 PM
Why would it be illegal when they do business under one name?

They could have (and likely looked to that as an ancillary benefit) when they lost their law suit trying to argue they were one collective company. The judge (fortunately) ruled they were in fact a group of 32 businesses.

Lev Vyvanse
07-15-2010, 06:09 PM
They could have (and likely looked to that as an ancillary benefit) when they lost their law suit trying to argue they were one collective company. The judge (fortunately) ruled they were in fact a group of 32 businesses.

Somebody knows what’s going on. After the American needle ruling, I'm just hoping the union doesn't decide decertify.

worm
07-15-2010, 06:20 PM
Regardless of how the money given to the players (59% of the revenue) is split among veterans and rookies, the bigger issue is that the owners want to reduce the overall player % down to 41%. The concession that they made for 59% was solely due to Pete Rozelle's persuasion.

The owners may be able to complain about the opex issues and why they think they need more of the revenue pie...but that is a hard point to argue when they won't open their books and the value of their teams have been going up regardless of any opex problems they claim to have.

With a new NFL TV rights deal on the horizon in 2012...the players want their % to stay the same...and the owners want more. I really can't see the owners backing down from this point.