Eagles a member of "The Gang of Nine"---

bobbyinlondon · February 20, 2006, 10:39:45 PM

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.

Tomahawk · February 20, 2006, 11:06:12 PM

Can you provide a link? I'm not sure what you're talking aboot.

Sgt PSN · 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.

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.

Rome · February 20, 2006, 11:15:29 PM

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.

PhillyPhanInDC · February 20, 2006, 11:18:31 PM

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.

MDS · February 20, 2006, 11:23:45 PM

Shut up and hail Gibbs. Do it. Do it.

NGM · February 20, 2006, 11:30:42 PM

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."

rjs246 · February 20, 2006, 11:47:16 PM

farg Pittsburgh and farg sharing money with zesty franchises.

PhillyPhreak54 · February 20, 2006, 11:47:52 PM

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.

rjs246 · February 20, 2006, 11:50:11 PM

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.

LBIggle · February 21, 2006, 12:21:30 AM

i can't say i'm overly interested in how the hundreds of millions of dollars gets distributed amongst the millionaires.

ice grillin you · 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...

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

Sgt PSN · February 21, 2006, 08:05:13 PM

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.

rjs246 · 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.

Sgt PSN · February 21, 2006, 08:14:19 PM

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.