Along with the rest of the NFC East, the Pats, Broncos, Texans, Panthers, and Jets. These are the nine teams that don't want to throw in their separate revenue into the total pot to be shared by the whole league. I can't say I blame them much. If teams like the Chiefs, Benglas, and Saints can't be bothered to get up off their butts and aggressively market their teams, why should the richer teams help prop them up? Cincy is a perfect example. They built their new stadium, but instead of selling the naming rights, which could have brought them a bundle of cash, they named it after Paul Brown.
Can you provide a link? I'm not sure what you're talking aboot.
I'm against revenue sharing in the NFL even more so than MLB. I don't even want to hear about small market teams not being able to compete in the NFL. Not when you've got a team in GB that's been able to field one of the more competetive teams over the course of the last 10 years, including 2 trips to the SB.
Because the NFL is so popular, individual teams don't need to rely on marketing to put fans in the stands. In order to be successful in terms of attendance in the NFL you need one of 2 things:
1. A solid owner. Someone who will bring in the right people to run the organization. This includes FO personnel, coaching, scouts and players. See Pats and Eagles for how to run an organization from top to bottom.
or
2. A fanbase so blind and stupid that they'll show up every week dispite the fact that their owner's incompetance has brought them exactly 1 winning season in 7 years. See taterskins on how to not run your organization but still sucker the fans into spending their money on your product.
Quote from: Tomahawk on February 20, 2006, 11:06:12 PM
Can you provide a link? I'm not sure what you're talking aboot.
From John Clayton's piece today:
QuoteThe biggest problem is the lack of cohesion among the owners. The players have to settle on a negotiated percentage of total gross revenues, and Upshaw said that percentage must be in the 60s. They currently get 64 percent of designated gross revenues, but the sport has grown so much that the formula must change. Starting with an extension, the percentage will be based on total revenues. The NFL has grown into a $6 billion business and is expected to be a $10 billion business by 2010. Upshaw and commissioner Paul Tagliabue should be able to work out the number but not if there isn't improved revenue sharing among the owners, and that's what has been holding up a settlement.
Teams with new stadiums at the top of the revenue list don't want to share their profits with the lower revenue teams. Heading the list of high-revenue teams are the Dallas Cowboys, Washington taterskins, New England Patriots, Houston Texans and Philadelphia Eagles. Because eight votes can block any deal such as a CBA, they prevent a deal from getting done and it could cost the league the salary cap. Their position is strong.
The revenue differences in a league that made its success by sharing has grown apart. A top team such as the taterskins can make between $200 million and $240 million in gross revenues and that number should grow to $300 million. The lower-revenue teams are in the low $100-million range. What the high revenuers are hoping is that the union would do a deal without revenue sharing. Upshaw says that won't happen because he can't have a top revenue team pay 35-40 percent of its revenues on payroll while a low revenue team pays 70 percent. Conference calls over the past couple of days are moving the process but the negotiations are complicated. At some point, the owners have to settle their differences and take the best deal or they will lose the salary cap.
Quote from: Sgt PSN on February 20, 2006, 11:13:31 PM
2. A fanbase so blind and stupid that they'll show up every week dispite the fact that their owner's incompetance has brought them exactly 1 winning season in 7 years. See taterskins on how to not run your organization but still sucker the fans into spending their money on your SEVERELY OVERPRICED product.
^-^
Snyder is the master at feeding the taterskins fans just enough to make them thing it will be enough to get them over the hump, and I seriously believe the dude is snickering somewhere when the season starts and the game sells out.
Shut up and hail Gibbs. Do it. Do it.
QuoteBecause the NFL is so popular, individual teams don't need to rely on marketing to put fans in the stands. In order to be successful in terms of attendance in the NFL you need one of 2 things:
That pretty much sums it up. Look at Pittsburgh and how awful all of their other franchises are doing as another example. If a team isn't making money it is because of the management not location or so-called "small markets."
farg Pittsburgh and farg sharing money with zesty franchises.
Just get a deal done.
The poorest sumbitch in the NFL is still filthy rich.
Want to really see some bellyachin about losing money? Farg up this good thing you got goin and see how it is after a nasty work stoppage.
Players should get their due.
Owners should get a deal done.
Yeah, those players sure are hurting. They deserve some more money. Maybe while we're at it, they can get some more camera time. Or maybe some sponsorship opportunities for once. I mean seriously, how can they feed their families on the pittance that they're paid now?
OK I'm drunk, but for real, get a new CBA done so that football won't go away. Now.
i can't say i'm overly interested in how the hundreds of millions of dollars gets distributed amongst the millionaires.
players should get more guaranteed money...both in their contracts and especially in their pension...its a travesty what players in that sport go thru in their retirement years...
im not against revenue sharing because it makes the nfl what it is...but if it is a big stumbling block in getting a new deal....then get rid of it and instead of revenue sharing implement a hard minimum cap...if the owner of a small market team cant at least hit that then sell your team to the unending line of people who want to own an nfl franchise
Quote from: ice grillin you on February 21, 2006, 08:02:10 PM
implement a hard minimum cap...if the owner of a small market team cant at least hit that then sell your team to the unending line of people who want to own an nfl franchise
I agree with this completely. MLB did it and I'm glad they did. It still isn't going to make the owners spend the money wisely but if if they're forced to spend it then at least they can't pocket it.
Quote from: ice grillin you on February 21, 2006, 08:02:10 PM
players should get more guaranteed money...both in their contracts and especially in their pension...its a travesty what players in that sport go thru in their retirement years...
farg no. Maybe players from years past deserve to be compensated in hindsight, but if you think these people making a minimum of several hundreds of thousands and at the most several tens of millions, need MORE money after they retire you must assume they're even bigger idiots than I do. They know what they're getting into. They know the toll it will take on their body and they are compensated accordingly. They don't need any more money. Give me a farging break.
Quote from: rjs246 on February 21, 2006, 08:06:02 PM
Quote from: ice grillin you on February 21, 2006, 08:02:10 PM
players should get more guaranteed money...both in their contracts and especially in their pension...its a travesty what players in that sport go thru in their retirement years...
farg no. Maybe players from years past deserve to be compensated in hindsight, but if you think these people making a minimum of several hundreds of thousands and at the most several tens of millions, need MORE money after they retire you must assume they're even bigger idiots than I do. They know what they're getting into. They know the toll it will take on their body and they are compensated accordingly. They don't need any more money. Give me a farging break.
Ditto. The old timers are the ones who are suffering. I think a bunch of them even held jobs in addition to being football players. Also, with the advancements in medical technology, today's football player is going to retire much healthier than he would have even just 20 years ago.
Players make so much money today and since most of them aren't smart enough to manage their money on their own (I doub't many of us could either) then they need to use a few dollars and hire someone to manage their finances for them to ensure they don't blow all of it and actually set something up for retirement.
They don't need guaranteed money either. They get their signing bonus which is more than all of us combined will ever see.
Maybe players from years past deserve to be compensated in hindsight
"especially in their pension"
people making a minimum of several hundreds of thousands and at the most several tens of millions, need MORE money after they retire you must assume they're even bigger idiots than I do. They know what they're getting into. They know the toll it will take on their body and they are compensated accordingly
tell that to the players who cant lift their kids up much less get out of bed many days because of degenerated knees arthritic shoulders and/or malfunctioning vertabrae
there is ungodly sums of money being thrown around the nfl...espn dropped over a billion (with a B) on monday nite football alone...i think a few extra % pts of the league revenue could go towards players and we would all still wake up tomorrow
today's football player is going to retire much healthier than he would have even just 20 years ago
negative on that chief...medical advancements actually hurt the players in the long run...it keeps them in the game longer...now you have cats getting 10 knee surgeries to keep a career going that back in the day would have ended far earlier...see mark schlereth....dook has trouble getting out of bed everyday
people are caking off hard in the league...id rather see the players get it than the slave driving fat cat owners
If you're simply trying to choose the lesser of two evils, then fine. But if these massively overpaid athletes don't want to have creaky bodies they should go to class, get a real education and get a job like the rest of us. If they want to be millionaires and retire when they're 35, they can suck it up and play football. Life sure is rough for them.
Life sure is rough for them
many times it is...far rougher than you or i will ever experience
Providing for your family for generations to come, being in peak physical shape for decades longer than most people, the talent and opportunity to play a game for a living and to retire long before old age and infirmity take their minds. All of those things are far more important than physical pain and most people would gladly trade pain for the sake of their family.
Quote from: ice grillin you on February 21, 2006, 08:34:20 PM
Life sure is rough for them
many times it is...far rougher than you or i will ever experience
Dumbest thing I've read on this board. Tell what you just said to your average roofer, coal miner, or auto mechanic. An NFL player's life is rougher than we will ever experience? Not only are a lot of these guys making more money in a four year span then some (most) of us will make in our entire lives, but up until that point, that have had
everything given to them. Including a free ride at the premier schools in the country, and once at said school, they are given more support and guidance than are most of the students
paying to go to the school. Once they are in the NFL, they play the game half of the year, and after have mostly free time to pursue whatever it is that they want to do. Go look at what the average NFL players has around his "house". Do they spend the money? Invest it? With even a smaller signing bonus or an average year's salary properly invested, can and should last for years and years.
I will say that the old timers got screwed for the most part. That part is a shame, they are the history of the game, made it what it is today, and they deserve better. But to say this current breed has a rough deal....that's just retarded.
Couldn't find anything more current that '03, but you get the idea:
Quote
The average NFL salary in 2003 was a whopping $1.2 million and the base salary for rookies was around $225,000.
Linkage.
(http://www.the-daily-record.com/article.php?pathToFile=/archive/01102005/sports/&file=_sports1.txt&article=1&tD=01102005)
If the owners talked as much as the players do, it would be easier to place the hate where it belongs.
Tell what you just said to your average roofer, coal miner, or auto mechanic
i wish more money on those professions as well but this thread isnt about roofers coal miners and auto mechanics so why even bring it up...take that thread to the general board and im sure heads would be more than happy to discuss it with you
to me the players and owners should split profits 50/50...but right now the players get far less than the owners even tho they are ten times more important
I don't see the connection between the amount of money these guys are making and the fact that the game of football is ruinous to the body. Even if Schlereth made ten times the money he would still have the same problems. Does the money make the problems go away? No. The fact is, these guys for the most part love to play this highly violent sport and choose to do so. They get paid very well for it, and have enough time to get a second career after that is all done. I changed careers in my mid thirty's - all is good.
The fat cat's have always been there - Pharoah's, Empirors. Tsars, Nobles, Plantation Owners. It doesn't seem fair, but that's life. I don't think many of them were terribly happy being wealthy, although I haven't spoken to a Pharoah recently.
Also, I do agree that the old timers need to be taken better care of. Dick "Night Train" Lane tried to buy a $70,000 house next to my friend's in Austin several years back - couldn't afford it. My friend met Night Train - said he was a really funny guy.
and the fat cats will still be there...they should just give up a little more to the many players who only ever play special teams and play for three four five years that cant afford houses either...and get farged up playing...nfl players have a salary cap AND non guaranteed contracts...only sport that can say that...they deserve more...period
i laugh when i here the lower tier owners complaining about revenue sharing and that they need more of it...how about share some more revenue with the heart and soul of your league rather than a fellow billionaire owner...its ridiculous
I don't see the connection between the amount of money these guys are making and the fact that the game of football is ruinous to the body
you dont think an occupation that has serious long term health effects should be compensated more...designated hitters have a better pension plan than running backs and thats not right
all rookies go through a symposium when signed or drafted warning them of the risks they are taking.
they all get compensated very fairly. and some get obsenely compensated. to me, it is NOT the nfl resposibility to take care of these people after their playing days are over other than the pension, do you ask for a former employer to take care of you now?
the player chose to go to no classes, or take a major in something retarded like home-ec, or PE. thats their own faults for not taking college seriously. they chose bad managers/agents looking for the big pay day rather than someone who will help protect them.
they know that artificially extending their careers for just a few million more could lead to permanent damage...and then they want someone to feel sorry for them? not me.
even if a rookie only makes it 3 seasons in the nfl. they still have the money made to finish their education and do something with their lives. it is not my fault that these people have no other plans, nothing to fall back on, it's their own damn fault for just assuming that the nfl will just be there for them.
fair enough...youd rather the owners sitting in heated stadium suites get the majority of the money...i personally feel the people putting their long term health on the line everyday and carrying the league should get more of the pie whether it be in more guaranteed money better or a better pension plan...its not like there isnt gazillions going around to do it....if im the players i dont go near a negotiating table unless im sure i am getting a higher % of the pie
Quote from: ice grillin you on February 22, 2006, 10:03:24 AM
fair enough...youd rather the owners sitting in heated stadium suites get the majority of the money...i personally feel the people putting their long term health on the line everyday and carrying the league should get more of the pie whether it be in more guaranteed money better or a better pension plan...its not like there isnt gazillions going around to do it....if im the players i dont near a negotiating table unless im sure i am getting a higher % of the pie
(http://www.radicalhippie.com/images/Power/powerPEOPLE_med.gif)
Quote from: ice grillin you on February 22, 2006, 10:03:24 AM
fair enough...youd rather the owners sitting in heated stadium suites get the majority of the money...i personally feel the people putting their long term health on the line everyday and carrying the league should get more of the pie whether it be in more guaranteed money better or a better pension plan...its not like there isnt gazillions going around to do it....if im the players i dont near a negotiating table unless im sure i am getting a higher % of the pie
i don't shed a tear for the players or the owners.
Look at Troy Vincent and Darwin Walker. They play, make good money, and have a plan for the future.
Hell, even Trotter, about as dumb as they come, has a car wash and other things to do after his career's over. They know the risks, and should plan for them. I pay into Social Security, knowing I'll never see any of that money. I just hope I can save enough ON MY OWN to retire. No one's looking out for me but me.
I'm with wiggy on this one.
When I started paying for my family's Eagles tickets in the late 1980's they were 10 bucks a ticket.
They're 65 now.
My income hasn't increased 650% since then, so no, I don't feel the least bit of sympathy for the players any more than I feel it for the owners.
They're all greedy fargheads and none of them gives a shtein about you, me or any other fan. If you honestly think they do, you're delusional.
The Eagles, like every other person or organization, absofarginglutely LOVE me. If you don't think so, you're dead wrong.
I make a sizable donation every year to the NFLPA, just in case any of those football players are having money troubles.
I want whatever is going to help the Eagles become more competitive. Since the Eagles are one of the more profitable franchises, I don't want them to have to give money to other, less-profitable franchises. Also, since they manage the salary cap well, I don't want the cap removed or increased to the point of irrelevance.
Quote from: Tomahawk on February 22, 2006, 01:21:57 PM
The Eagles, like every other person or organization, absofarginglutely LOVE me. If you don't think so, you're dead wrong.
$20 hookers & stilloncrack's Mom don't count.
They have $20 hookers now?! Jackpot.
They had gloryholes in the cheerleaders locker room and they charge $8 for a beer.
Is it really so difficult to believe they have $20 blowwhores available too?
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on February 22, 2006, 01:17:23 PM
When I started paying for my family's Eagles tickets in the late 1980's they were 10 bucks a ticket.
They're 65 now.
My income hasn't increased 650% since then
Of course it hasn't. The popularity of the NFL has grown so much fueling a huge increase in demand for tickets. Since the 80's they've added only 4 teams and kept the 16 gam schedule, so the supply of tickets hasn't gone up all that much. Maybe you need to learn a specialized skill that is in short supply, but great demand so you can keep pace.
Quote from: Sgt PSN on February 20, 2006, 11:13:31 PM
I'm against revenue sharing in the NFL even more so than MLB. I don't even want to hear about small market teams not being able to compete in the NFL. Not when you've got a team in GB that's been able to field one of the more competetive teams over the course of the last 10 years, including 2 trips to the SB.
I wonder if there's any chance that GB was competitve because the NFL has been sharing most of the revenue and had a salary cap in place since 1994. Take that away and maybe you'd have seen a different result.
Quote from: PhillyFan on February 22, 2006, 02:55:41 PM
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on February 22, 2006, 01:17:23 PM
When I started paying for my family's Eagles tickets in the late 1980's they were 10 bucks a ticket.
They're 65 now.
My income hasn't increased 650% since then
Of course it hasn't. The popularity of the NFL has grown so much fueling a huge increase in demand for tickets. Since the 80's they've added only 4 teams and kept the 16 gam schedule, so the supply of tickets hasn't gone up all that much. Maybe you need to learn a specialized skill that is in short supply, but great demand so you can keep pace.
Demand for tickets doesn't cause them to rise as dramatically as they have.
650% increase.
How many other products have increased 650% in price over that time span? Has a gallon of milk? How about a gallon of gas? There's more demand for those items now than there was 20 years ago, yet prices remain relatively stable. How about housing? Has the median cost of a residential property increased 650% over that same time period? How about automobiles or any other commodity you can think of?
No. Ticket prices have increased because of gluttonous greed on the owners/players part and the abject stupidity of season ticket holders like myself. We've allowed this to happen because we love the game. I don't have a problem with them making market value for their talents but I also don't feel the least bit of sympathy for them when their careers end either.
Dude, in 1988 I could get regular unleaded for $0.79 a gallon. It's now around $2.19. That's up nearly 3 fold. And gas isn't as popular, and less scarce, than football tickets.
Gas isn't as popular as football? I bet more people use gas than watch football.
More people have gas than footballs.
Labor talks break down again - impasse over revenue sharing, etc. (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2348417)
The greed and stupidity of millionaires and billionaires never ceases to amaze me.
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on February 28, 2006, 07:46:33 PM
Labor talks break down again - impasse over revenue sharing, etc. (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2348417)
The greed and stupidity of millionaires and billionaires never ceases to amaze me.
Please ban me, I have nothing to contribute. (http://www.concretefield.com/forum/index.php?topic=17851.msg384629#msg384629)
Quote from: FFatPatt on February 28, 2006, 07:56:55 PM
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on February 28, 2006, 07:46:33 PM
Labor talks break down again - impasse over revenue sharing, etc. (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2348417)
The greed and stupidity of millionaires and billionaires never ceases to amaze me.
Please ban me, I have nothing to contribute. (http://www.concretefield.com/forum/index.php?topic=17851.msg384629#msg384629)
This thread was started first, you farghead, so I posted the update in the correct forum.
:)
PS: Feel free to cram your internet jibberish up your surgically repaired nose, bish.
No. Does your update specifically mention the Eagles or the "gang of nine"? The update is decidedly an NFL-wide issue, not an Eagles issue, so had you simply checked that board, you would have seen we'd known what you now know for the better part of the afternoon already.
Nice try, though, old timer. Thanks for the update.
From PG's favorite site:
QuoteGANG OF NINE DRIVEN BY FIVE
An industry source has explained to us that, despite reports of nine teams who are adamantly opposed to expanded revenue sharing, five guys are driving the bus.
They are, we're told, Jerry Jones of the Cowboys, Dan Snyder of the taterskins, Malcolm Glazer of the Buccaneers, Joe Banner of the Eagles, and Jonathan Kraft of the Patriots.
The Bucs previously had not been pegged as one of the teams fighting against expanded revenue sharing.
With five of 32 teams pushing hard against a move to divide local revenues that currently aren't shared, it means that 27 teams could vote for it on Thursday. With only 24 votes necessary to impose the will of the most on the all, it's still possible that Commisioner Paul Tagliabue can work out a plan on Thursday morning for the ultra-rich to share some of their booty with the mere super-rich.
Banner, Jones, and Snyder all working together to keep the rich rich and the poor poor. Ha.
Quote from: FFatPatt on March 02, 2006, 03:23:13 PM
the poor poor.
that's all relative of course, because what the "poor" make in one year in the NFL could keep my family comfortable for 30 years.
Joe Banner really loves money.
Quote from: Sun_Mo on March 02, 2006, 03:24:58 PM
Quote from: FFatPatt on March 02, 2006, 03:23:13 PM
the poor poor.
that's all relative of course, because what the "poor" make in one year in the NFL could keep my family comfortable for 30 years.
I was talking about a "poor" NFL franchise, so it's probably more like 300 years.
actually, we're used to quite a comfortable lifestyle
You'll have to scale back to a medium sized hot tub.
Don't you live in NEPA? You could earn $3 an hour and live comfortably there.
Quote from: rjs246 on March 02, 2006, 03:31:56 PM
Don't you live in NEPA? You could earn $3 an hour and live comfortably there.
SEPA
Liar. SWPA = between WV and Pissburgh
The whole CBA centers around what percentage of the designated revenue gets allocated to the players for salary cap purposes. Union wants 60, owners want 56.
If the player's union gets its way you'll see the cap increase substantially from year to year, considering that the designated revenue now takes into account addition streams (such as merchandise), and not just simply shared ticket sales and TV contracts. So you factor in that the revenue pool will be bigger, and that the players want a bigger share, and you can just imagine that the salary cap will skyrocket.
A lot of small market teams don't like this because it is cutting into their revenues. If the cap increases substantially every year and more gets siphoned off to the players, their team revenue stream dramatically decreases. They will see a much smaller revenue stream when player salaries are factored in.
Its no big deal for the larger franchises because there revenues high enough that subsquent spikes in the salary cap from year to year won't have a great impact on their bottom line. So, in essence, the size and percentage of the revenue stream that is allocated to the cap and player salaries are the crux of what these negotiations are hung up on.
I think they will settle by the start of the draft. Although it seems like Upshaw is pretty adament about staying at the 60% level, which is a huge increase from the 52% number from the last CBA.
You can't think of professional sports in terms of competitive markets, either. They are glorified monopolies for the most part, and their ticket prices are simply predicated on your demand to purchase the tickets.
When a team signs a free agent and subsequently raises ticket prices, its not to go pay for the new player, but instead they raise the prices because they know there is a greater demand for watching the team than before.
Monopolies aren't efficent either, and leave a lot of dead weight loss behind. That is why many sports teams are instituting a 2 part pricing scheme, like PSL's. They try and extract the consumer surplus and squeeze out every last penny which you are willing to give them.
The only way you can hurt their monopoly power is to stop buying their tickets or other products, or introduce competition.
who are you talking to?
You, IGY. You need an economics lesson.