The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Orange Mane Discussion > Orange Mane Central Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-14-2010, 06:21 PM   #1
El Minion
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,771
Default Lockout

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
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, 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?

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.

Last edited by El Minion; 07-14-2010 at 06:29 PM..
El Minion is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 07-14-2010, 06:34 PM   #2
tsiguy96
Ring of Famer
 
tsiguy96's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 12,749

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

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?
tsiguy96 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2010, 12:11 PM   #3
MaloCS
Seasoned Veteran
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 344

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

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.
MaloCS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2010, 12:27 PM   #4
oubronco
John Foneco !!
 
oubronco's Avatar
 
Mile High Magic

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sooner Country
Posts: 21,306
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MaloCS View Post
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%
oubronco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2010, 12:30 PM   #5
tsiguy96
Ring of Famer
 
tsiguy96's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 12,749

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

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
tsiguy96 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2010, 12:38 PM   #6
oubronco
John Foneco !!
 
oubronco's Avatar
 
Mile High Magic

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sooner Country
Posts: 21,306
Default

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
oubronco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2010, 12:55 PM   #7
bronco militia
OMG...this is horrible!
 
bronco militia's Avatar
 
THE GREATEST

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: colorado springs, co
Posts: 25,298
Default

this article illustrates why the owners all will never agree to a lockout.
bronco militia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2010, 01:11 PM   #8
Drek
Ring of Famer
 
Drek's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 12,368
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oubronco View Post
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.
Drek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2010, 02:01 PM   #9
Garcia Bronco
Hokie since 1993
 

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 47,082

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Tom Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drek View Post
That is called collusion and is highly illegal.
Why would it be illegal when they do business under one name?
Garcia Bronco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2010, 02:11 PM   #10
Kaylore
I am secretly Chrissy
 
Kaylore's Avatar
 
AND Bob

Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ceti Alpha V
Posts: 47,061

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Pat Bowlen
Default

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.
Kaylore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2010, 02:16 PM   #11
oubronco
John Foneco !!
 
oubronco's Avatar
 
Mile High Magic

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sooner Country
Posts: 21,306
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drek View Post
That is called collusion and is highly illegal.
What makes it illegal
oubronco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2010, 03:44 PM   #12
Lev Vyvanse
Ring of Famer
 
Lev Vyvanse's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Denver
Posts: 3,048
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oubronco View Post
What makes it illegal
Antitrust laws.
Lev Vyvanse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2010, 06:38 PM   #13
Hogan11
Rock-N-Roll Historian
 
Hogan11's Avatar
 
Let's take these SOB's out!!!!!!

Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: W.NY.B.C.
Posts: 21,000

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Floyd Little
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drek View Post
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
Hogan11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2010, 06:52 PM   #14
Kaylore
I am secretly Chrissy
 
Kaylore's Avatar
 
AND Bob

Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ceti Alpha V
Posts: 47,061

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Pat Bowlen
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco View Post
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.
Kaylore is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2010, 07:09 PM   #15
Lev Vyvanse
Ring of Famer
 
Lev Vyvanse's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Denver
Posts: 3,048
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaylore View Post
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.
Lev Vyvanse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2010, 07:20 PM   #16
worm
Great moments are born...
 
worm's Avatar
 
...from great opportunity

Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,902

Adopt-a-Bronco:
#20
Default

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.
worm is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
There Will Not Be a Lockout in the NFL El Minion Orange Mane Central Discussion 12 03-12-2011 05:44 PM
Veterans Bracing For Lockout...not the NFL...NBA HEAV Orange Mane Central Discussion 18 02-11-2010 08:59 AM
Players expect a lockout, told to save their money oubronco Orange Mane Central Discussion 46 02-05-2010 03:47 PM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:39 AM.


Denver Broncos