PDA

View Full Version : Way To Go Bob!


cuppacoffee
02-24-2006, 10:14 AM
Washington Times News Article:

NFL owners are in a squabble about revenue sharing. :crying:

"However, like the NFLPA, lower-revenue teams have been chafing at their wealthier brethren for not sharing profits from such sources as permanent seat licenses, luxury suites and local advertising. McNair and Co. don't believe they should be penalized for their aggressive marketing efforts.
"I don't see that happening," McNair said of a lawsuit involving owners on opposite sides. "There's really not any opposition to revenue sharing. Nor is there any opposition to helping small-market clubs that might need help on a temporary basis. Everyone in the league wants all of the clubs to be competitive. When it goes beyond any requirement to be competitive, and it's just a redistribution of profits, that's a different issue."

Hang in there Bob! These are the same guys who held you up for an unprecedented franchise fee.

The Entire Article (http://www.washtimes.com/sports/20060224-123756-4354r.htm)

WWJD
02-24-2006, 11:33 AM
McLain has talked about this issue on the 610 segment he does. He said owners like McNair, Jerry, Dan Snyder, etc. don't want to give the lower earning teams much grace......I don't know much about how it all works really but I know it's got to be compromised on or the league will have major problems. I'm sure they'll get it worked out.

Double Barrel
02-24-2006, 12:02 PM
"I don't see that happening," McNair said of a lawsuit involving owners on opposite sides. "There's really not any opposition to revenue sharing. Nor is there any opposition to helping small-market clubs that might need help on a temporary basis. Everyone in the league wants all of the clubs to be competitive. When it goes beyond any requirement to be competitive, and it's just a redistribution of profits, that's a different issue."

Number one reason why Houston has been overlooked for another Superbowl. The owners are a spiteful bunch (clearly evident by their ringing endorsements of Capers and Casserly in the beginning), and they will probably hold a grudge for awhile. So Reliant Stadium gets its one Superbowl, and that's that.

Hang in there, Mr. McNair! I'd rather our Texans have the revenue for building a winning franchise instead of splitting the money and maybe getting a Superbowl in the future.

Hervoyel
02-24-2006, 12:28 PM
I'm a big fan of the NFL teams sharing the money and keeping everyone on a level playing field but really, this is just getting stupid. They share the TV money already and nobody in the NFL is in danger of not being able to compete except for those teams that make stupid moves.

Owners in towns that don't have enough luxury suites should do something about it and what they should do isn't "go try to rob the guys who's city did spring for the excellent stadium". If the town isn't big enough to support enough large companies to occupy those suites then they're in the wrong town just like they would be if the town wasn't able to fill the stadium regularly when the team was winning. That's another issue entirely though. As far as the so-called "have-not" owners go they're just wrong.

SESupergenius
02-24-2006, 12:44 PM
Hang in there Bob! These are the same guys who held you up for an unprecedented franchise fee.

The Entire Article (http://www.washtimes.com/sports/20060224-123756-4354r.htm)
And this is a good thing somehow? Ever see the books on the teams ownerships?

nunusguy
02-24-2006, 12:53 PM
If the town isn't big enough to support enough large companies to occupy those suites then they're in the wrong town
For anyone whos traveled our great country much, you've probably discovered that just about everybody and anybody has their own Post Office. Well I'm sorry, but everybody and anybody can't have their own NFL franchise. More and more, cities that don't have the presence of many large public companies may simply not have what it takes to compete with other metro areas that do. The Buffaloes, Jacksonvilles, etc. that are at a competitive disadvantage and adopting a socialistic mentality to "get their fair share" is not a positive thing for the league over the long-term. There's other places, most notably LA, that can step up and take the competitive heat that the smaller places can't and at the same time make the whole league stronger.

WWJD
02-24-2006, 01:15 PM
I don't know how exactly but the McNair's, JJ's and Snyder's are hanging together on this issue....the teams that have huge profits shouldn't be punished for that I don't think but at the same time there has to be some way to help out the others.

Jerry bucked the league some years ago with Nike and a Pepsi deal. I don't remember what happened to him but I do remember drinking Pepsi at Texas Stadium so he got his way....I think Coke was an NFL sponsor or something.

cap1
02-24-2006, 01:56 PM
Hang in there Bob! These are the same guys who held you up for an unprecedented franchise fee.

The Entire Article (http://www.washtimes.com/sports/20060224-123756-4354r.htm)

I agree with most on here. The NFL already splits it money from TV, Merchandise and other areas. I don't see why the more profitable organizations need to support the less profitable. I could see if there were organizations that weren't profitable. I could see the NFL helping them out, but only temporaly.

cuppacoffee
02-24-2006, 03:19 PM
And this is a good thing somehow? Ever see the books on the teams ownerships?

Yep, this is a good thing.

All teams have the same salary cap. All the extra $ just goes in the fat cats pockets. Why should the owners who work to earn extra $ share with the owners who would rather sit back and have it given to them.

These fat cats shared in the exhorbitant franchise fee forced on McNair. Now he owes them nothing except what is agreed upon.

If your town ( speaking to the owners now) can't support your team to the level desired, move. Its been done before.

In answer to your question...no I have never seen the books on the teams ownerships?

Have you?

:coffee:

Maddict5
02-24-2006, 04:48 PM
who cares? they all make good money- all i want to do is keep it the way it is now-competitive and fair

Corrosion
02-24-2006, 08:49 PM
who cares? they all make good money- all i want to do is keep it the way it is now-competitive and fair


Exactly ..... I'd rather not have another league with teams like the Yank's and Sox on top then the Royals and Brewers on the bottom . They need to come to some sort of compramise here so each team remains at the least competitive .

cuppacoffee
02-25-2006, 10:57 AM
Exactly ..... I'd rather not have another league with teams like the Yank's and Sox on top then the Royals and Brewers on the bottom . They need to come to some sort of compramise here so each team remains at the least competitive .

The NFL salary cap gives each team a level playing field.

Your organization determines whether or not you are competitive. What's happening here is just plain greed and jealousy. Mr. McNair paid a ton of his own money to these greedy fat cats to acquire his franchise. Now that he is being successful at it they are coming around with their hands out again. That's just BS.

Why should Houstons' fans, who have spent their tax dollars to build a world class stadium, be forced to subsidize the owner or the fans of the Jaguars, or any other team, that hasn't made the same investment.

Baseball is like comparing apples to oranges.

Baseball has no salary cap to help level the playing field. The Yanks are allowed to sign any player available and the only consequence is having to pay a "luxury tax". When you have GS money, this is not a deterrent from signing other teams best players.

This does nothing to equalize competition, all it does is put more money in all the owners pockets.

This is why I do not watch MLB.

Imagine an NFL where Jerruh could buy all the best players as they become available:

Peyton at QB
L T at RB
Moss and TO at WR
Gonzalez at TE...You get the picture. Cowboy fans would love it, but what about the rest of us?

Hell, Jerruh might even win another SB :trophy: if he was allowed to do this..:pigfly:

:coffee:

tulexan
02-25-2006, 01:13 PM
I think the Redskins would become the Yankees of the NFL before the Cowboys. Snyder is a spending machine.

Corrosion
02-25-2006, 02:26 PM
The NFL salary cap gives each team a level playing field.

Your organization determines whether or not you are competitive. What's happening here is just plain greed and jealousy. Mr. McNair paid a ton of his own money to these greedy fat cats to acquire his franchise. Now that he is being successful at it they are coming around with their hands out again. That's just BS.

Why should Houstons' fans, who have spent their tax dollars to build a world class stadium, be forced to subsidize the owner or the fans of the Jaguars, or any other team, that hasn't made the same investment.

Baseball is like comparing apples to oranges.

Baseball has no salary cap to help level the playing field. The Yanks are allowed to sign any player available and the only consequence is having to pay a "luxury tax". When you have GS money, this is not a deterrent from signing other teams best players.

This does nothing to equalize competition, all it does is put more money in all the owners pockets.

This is why I do not watch MLB.

Imagine an NFL where Jerruh could buy all the best players as they become available:

Peyton at QB
L T at RB
Moss and TO at WR
Gonzalez at TE...You get the picture. Cowboy fans would love it, but what about the rest of us?

Hell, Jerruh might even win another SB :trophy: if he was allowed to do this..:pigfly:

:coffee:


I agree the salary cap helps provide SOMEWHAT equal competition and in general the smaller market teams have just as good a shot as the big markets . In fact I'd be willing to bet that the NFL is one of the few leagues where EVERY TEAM turns a profit because of the revenue sharing from the TV deal and other resources . (Lets hope it stays this way.)

The salary cap and revenue sharing as it is now works pretty well ..... If a team like Greenbay can compete with a market as small as theirs (Around 100k) .... everyone should be fine.

What I was refering to was the late 80's early 90's NFL where there was no salary cap and teams such as the 49'ers and Cowpies were always trying to one up the other .....Teams of that time period didnt start the season with a shot at winning it all like they do now . Kinda like baseball today .... Yanks / Sox (maybe not this season , but those teams will still have the highest pay-rolls .... favored to win it all or not)..... This I dont care to see again in the NFL.


As for Sharing all income .... thats crazy .... some teams are going to be more profitable than others simply by how they are managed ....has nothing to do with spending on players .... just simple marketing . You want a bigger piece of the pie ... do a better job marketing your product.


I think the Redskins would become the Yankees of the NFL before the Cowboys. Snyder is a spending machine.


It was the Cowpies and 49'ers who out-spent every other team in the final few seasons played without a salary cap .... Not sure if Snyder was the majority owner of the Skins at the time ..... But I would assume that those same teams along with a handful of others would be in the same position today with-out a cap.

HOOK'EM
02-28-2006, 09:07 PM
get rid of tha cap, and lets play some football!:redtowel: