PDA

View Full Version : Will Bob McNair Kill The 2011 NFL Season?


Double Barrel
08-09-2010, 12:52 PM
I did not see this posted anywhere (if it is, please point me in that direction and I will merge).

Will Bob McNair Kill The 2011 NFL Season? (http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2010/07/will_bob_mcnair_kill_the_2011.php)

As some NFL fans know, the possibility is growing that there will not be a NFL season in 2011. The reason of course is that there is currently no agreed-upon Collective Bargaining Agreement between the NFL and the players, and while they're going to play this season, if the two sides don't come to an agreement, then there will be no season in 2011.

The sticking point, as always, is money. The owners will talk about the greedy players who want too much money and how the current percentage of league-wide revenue going to the players is unsustainable. The players will ask, as they already have, for the owners to open up the books and prove that there are actual, existing, financial problems. The owners will, of course, refuse, and offer to let the players look at highly-suspect, audited revenue numbers that would make Enron's accounting look honest. (The Green Bay Packers, being a publicly-owned team, are the exception to the no-opening-of-the-books rule)

But as much as this will be a PR battle between the owners and the players, the real battle is going to be between the owners.

Specifically, it's going to be a battle between owners like Jerry Jones and Bob McNair against teams like those in Green Bay and Jacksonville. The owners like Jones and McNair want to decrease the amount of revenue sharing between teams, and those teams that are in the small markets want to do everything possible to make sure they continue to financially compete against the big boys.

Being that this is Houston, don't expect to hear too much on the owner versus owner aspect of this story. Especially where the Houston Chronicle and NFL expert John McClain are involved, since the criticism of Bob McNair appears to be forbidden. But McNair is one of the leading forces in the league revenue-sharing battle, and it's his role in this battle that is the primary reason that Houston, despite some superior bids, has been unable to get another Super Bowl.

The owners of the small-market teams, you see, can find no reason to award McNair with this prime money-making event since he's trying to cheat them out of money. So don't expect to see another Super Bowl in Houston for awhile, especially if McNair gets his way and the revenue-sharing plan is changed. (Arlington is getting the game because the NFL promised one if a new stadium was built for the Cowboys. But it's doubtful the Cowboys will be able to pull off getting another one unless Jerry Jones does something about his attitude.)

And as this battle plays out, expect the McNairs, Joneses, et al to forget one of the prime lessons learned by the likes of Pete Rozelle and Lamar Hunt back in the 1960s. The key to the growth of professional football, and what harmed Major League Baseball, was that Rozelle and Hunt realized that without equal revenue sharing - including equal sharing of all network TV and merchandising revenue - the small-market teams would never be able to keep up with the big market teams.

But with the likes of the Packers able to get the same revenue as the Giants and the Cowboys, they were able to stay competitive. And competitive balance meant that all fans in all cities knew that their teams had a chance of making the playoffs most years - nothing could help bad drafts, poor coaching, etc., however - so that kept TV viewership high, and high TV viewership meant that the NFL was able to get more and more money from the networks, and more and more money from the networks meant more and more money for the teams, which meant that teams could spend more on players which meant that the teams could keep competing on an even playing field financially which each other.

So while the story will be about the players and owners trying to come to agreement as to the Collective Bargaining Agreement, the story underlying it all will be the battle between the owners over revenue sharing. And until that battle is settled, don't expect the one between the owners and the players to be settled.

It would be a shame to kill the golden goose, and while it is admirable that Mr. McNair is going to bat for Cushing right now, let's not forget his primary reason for buying an NFL team: profit.

gtexan02
08-09-2010, 12:58 PM
I did not see this posted anywhere (if it is, please point me in that direction and I will merge).



It would be a shame to kill the golden goose, and while it is admirable that Mr. McNair is going to bat for Cushing right now, let's not forget his primary reason for buying an NFL team: profit.

I dont know where I stand on this exactly, but I think 100% revenue sharing sounds like a ridiculous idea.

Edit: Maybe I should explain my position more.

The problem that I see with 100% revenue sharing is that seems to punish the teams in the best markets. Especially teams like Houston, which are still building an identity and fanbase. That extra money may be used to hire better coaches, give better contracts, improve our stadium, etc. All things necessary to building a reputation.

If we're going to have 100% revenue sharing, will it follow that the large market owners get to dictate how the smaller market teams run? If McNair doesnt like the way a team like Jacksonville or Buffalo is operating, those losses will end up costing him and everyone else profit.

Im not trying to say that revenue sharing in general is a bad idea, just that there seems like a middle ground somewhere in there that will allow big markets like Houston and Dallas to reap the benefits of their investments and marketing while also allowing the smaller markets to keep up.

I understand why revenue sharing is necessary to keeping small markets in business. Especially when you compare other teams to Dalls.

But to compare a team like the Packers (small market?) to a team like the Texans gets confusing. They have a huge advantage in terms of history, fanbase, etc. If we want to compete in the NFL, we're going to need some of the advantages that come from being in a successful market like Houston. It could help us build to the point that we can compete on other levels, besides just raw profit margins.

Hervoyel
08-09-2010, 01:02 PM
I agree with you (DB). This is one of those areas where I just don't understand why McNair can't see that he bought into a league that was incredibly strong due to the very same revenue system that he now wants to start taking apart. The minute they kill their system of revenue sharing they start down the path of MLB (albeit with what has almost become a token salary cap system in place).

The "big market" owners are just wrong here.

Hervoyel
08-09-2010, 01:07 PM
I dont know where I stand on this exactly, but I think 100% revenue sharing sounds like a ridiculous idea.

I think this is a situation where 100% revenue sharing is imperative and critical to the quality of the product. Without at least "significant" revenue sharing it becomes a choice between having a strong league of teams or a league with a few strong teams.

Cjeremy635
08-09-2010, 01:09 PM
I'm going to be honest here and admit that I don't fully understand the pros and cons of revenue sharing, but I get what the point is and why it is done. Taking what I've read into consideration......I don't think I agree with it. I think that teams should be able to stand on their own. You are supported by your fan base and that support will grow depending on how well you play in the season. Sure small market teams will struggle, but maybe that's the problem with putting a team in a small market area when there are limited numbers of teams. Having said that, I may feel differently if we weren't in the 4th largest city in the nation with a fairly large market. But, from where I stand, I think teams should be able to spend what they want to on their players with the revenue that they make. If you can't support your teams, then your teams leave.

Double Barrel
08-09-2010, 01:09 PM
I agree with Herv completely. The NFL's success is directly tied to the ideas of revenue sharing as pioneered by Pete Rozelle and Lamar Hunt. There is absolutely no argument to be made otherwise about the history of it. The NFL and NFL Films celebrate this fact all the time.

JB
08-09-2010, 01:18 PM
Totally agree that revenue sharing is a must. All national tv contracts and merchandise sell should be shared equally by all teams at the least. If not, the teams like Jacksonville, Buffalo and others are going to be sold and/or moved every few years.

Texan_Bill
08-09-2010, 01:21 PM
I agree with television revenues being disbursed equally but not individual team generated revenue. Why should bad teams and their fans be rewarded for bad behavior (i.e. poor attendance) *cough* Jaclsonville *cough*??

Let's say Reliant sells 70,000 seats and Jax. sells 50,000 seats. Why should the Texans cut their revenues on ticket sales / food / drink etc...?

JB
08-09-2010, 01:24 PM
I agree with television revenues being disbursed equally but not individual team generated revenue. Why should bad teams and their fans be rewarded for bad behavior (i.e. poor attendance) *cough* Jaclsonville *cough*??

Let's say Reliant sells 70,000 seats and Jax. sells 50,000 seats. Why should the Texans cut their revenues on ticket sales / food / drink etc...?

No, tickets sales and parking and stadium generated revenue should not be shared.

Dutchrudder
08-09-2010, 01:26 PM
So what is the current revenue sharing in the NFL? Is it a percentage of revenue by team? What type(s) of revenue is shared?

How does revenue sharing effect the NFL's competitiveness versus having a salary cap? How would it effect the NFL if they had both?

- It's my understanding that the salary cap is meant to even the playing field so that large market teams can't outspend small market teams regardless. In that case, I don't see how revenue sharing would change the competitiveness of the league unless small market teams don't generate enough money to hire a payroll that meets the salary cap each year.

eriadoc
08-09-2010, 01:27 PM
I dont know where I stand on this exactly, but I think 100% revenue sharing sounds like a ridiculous idea.

Edit: Maybe I should explain my position more.

The problem that I see with 100% revenue sharing is that seems to punish the teams in the best markets. Especially teams like Houston, which are still building an identity and fanbase. That extra money may be used to hire better coaches, give better contracts, improve our stadium, etc. All things necessary to building a reputation.

If we're going to have 100% revenue sharing, will it follow that the large market owners get to dictate how the smaller market teams run? If McNair doesnt like the way a team like Jacksonville or Buffalo is operating, those losses will end up costing him and everyone else profit.

Im not trying to say that revenue sharing in general is a bad idea, just that there seems like a middle ground somewhere in there that will allow big markets like Houston and Dallas to reap the benefits of their investments and marketing while also allowing the smaller markets to keep up.

I understand why revenue sharing is necessary to keeping small markets in business. Especially when you compare other teams to Dalls.

But to compare a team like the Packers (small market?) to a team like the Texans gets confusing. They have a huge advantage in terms of history, fanbase, etc. If we want to compete in the NFL, we're going to need some of the advantages that come from being in a successful market like Houston. It could help us build to the point that we can compete on other levels, besides just raw profit margins.

So you think that those who do things the right way would feel punished or slighted by having to pay for those who just take and take and take?

WWJD
08-09-2010, 01:51 PM
I'm not sure what the solution is but I do think they will have to implement some sort of rookie salary cap.

Double Barrel
08-09-2010, 02:23 PM
So what is the current revenue sharing in the NFL? Is it a percentage of revenue by team? What type(s) of revenue is shared?

Here's a primer on it:

Revenue sharing (http://football.calsci.com/SalaryCap.html)

About 2/3 of the NFL's money comes from the TV deal. The players get about 2/3 of team revenue. So, more or less, the TV contract goes to pay the players. These contracts are typically for about 5 years, and every time they are renegotiated the price goes up. So do player's salaries.

The money from the TV contract is share and share alike - the Redskins, Cowboys, Bills, and Packers get identical checks. This money is key to the success of the smaller franchises. Without the TV contract money, there is simply no way on earth that Green Bay could ever field a competitive team.

There are a lot of other sources for NFL money. NFL licensed jerseys, for example that Randy Moss jersey you put on your kid last Halloween when you dressed him up as a demon, result in license fees going to the NFL. This money is also equally shared.

When the teams play, there is a "gate," the money people pay for seats. This is in the neighborhood of about $2.5M per game. This money is split 60-40, with the visiting team getting 40% of the gate. Because of this teams like Jacksonville and Arizona just love it when the Packers or Cowboys come to play. These are the two or three games each year these teams can count on selling out, and the money they get is very welcome. Sometimes you will find that to buy a ticket to see the Packers on the road you have to buy a package of two or three tickets. This is nothing more or less than a device to get money from Packers fans into the pockets of the other teams owners.

Unshared money

The newer stadiums have large box seats which are leased to corporations. This money is not currently shared, which gives individual teams a big incentive to get a new stadium with fewer normal seats and more corporate seats.

How does revenue sharing effect the NFL's competitiveness versus having a salary cap? How would it effect the NFL if they had both?


The NFL has had both in place for years, and IMO, it has served the league very well. I think ALL fans should feel that their team has a fighting chance before every new season, which is the exact opposite that MLB fans feel every year.

ubecool454
08-10-2010, 04:19 AM
I could be wrong and I hope that I am but maybe the NFL owners already know that there will be no 2011 season due to the country marching to a big war. It seems like the country is marching to war again...probably before the end of this year. Hopefully I'm wrong.

steelbtexan
08-10-2010, 04:55 AM
Go ahead and kill the golden goose.

Looks like no football in 2011, I guess being the 10 richest franchise in all of sports isn't enough. GREED.........

Thanks uncle BoB

FirstTexansFan
08-10-2010, 05:38 AM
So basically the board is split along the lines of for and against free enterprise... who let you guys out of the NSZ? :)

drs23
08-10-2010, 09:35 AM
So basically the board is split along the lines of for and against free enterprise... who let you guys out of the NSZ? :)

Yeah! What FTF said ;^)

gtexan02
08-10-2010, 09:51 AM
So you think that those who do things the right way would feel punished or slighted by having to pay for those who just take and take and take?

I see what you did there.

I said 100% revenue sharing. Some revenue sharing is obviously required to keep the small market teams in play

badboy
08-10-2010, 10:03 AM
But here's the part that is so hard for the players, and quite frankly most fair-minded fans, to swallow: If the owners' claims are true and they need the givebacks to stay healthy, why not give the players as much information as you have to get that done? Based on all the information available to us, all 32 owners appear to be getting very rich off the NFL, and "Joe Fan" continues to pay more and more to line their pockets.

Link http://www.profootballweekly.com/2010/01/31/looming-cba-issues-cloud-nfls-future

A very long but good read imo. The problem I have with small markets is some do nothing to help themselves. For years the Buffalo owner refused to sell name rights for his stadium. Hopefully both owners and players realize they might be allowing something good to get away.

Double Barrel
08-10-2010, 10:11 AM
So basically the board is split along the lines of for and against free enterprise... who let you guys out of the NSZ? :)

The NFL is not "free enterprise". As soon as owners and the league start paying to build their own stadiums and quit public financing, then we can talk free enterprise. :shades:

But here's the part that is so hard for the players, and quite frankly most fair-minded fans, to swallow: If the owners' claims are true and they need the givebacks to stay healthy, why not give the players as much information as you have to get that done? Based on all the information available to us, all 32 owners appear to be getting very rich off the NFL, and "Joe Fan" continues to pay more and more to line their pockets.

Link http://www.profootballweekly.com/2010/01/31/looming-cba-issues-cloud-nfls-future

A very long but good read imo. The problem I have with small markets is some do nothing to help themselves. For years the Buffalo owner refused to sell name rights for his stadium. Hopefully both owners and players realize they might be allowing something good to get away.

Good article, man. Thanks for posting it. And very good point about the plight of some small market teams. It is all to be considered when analyzing the big picture.

Unfortunately, Joe Fan is the one that will end up losing in the end, with the potential of a missed season and rising prices on everything.

WWJD
08-10-2010, 10:31 AM
I'm old enough to remember the last "strike"..I had season tickets to the Cowboys and I remember going to those "scrub" games. They had a few players that actually crossed over the picket line and played and it made for some really bad football. In fact Buddy Ryan got all PO'd cause Coach Landry played Randy White and some other regular players and of course they were killing these "scrubs" who were on the street just a few days before.

It was bad football and just bad all the way around. I'll think positively and hope they can work out their disagreements. That was many years ago and now the stakes are billions higher.

eriadoc
08-10-2010, 10:40 AM
I see what you did there.

;)

:texflag:

Double Barrel
08-10-2010, 12:35 PM
I'm old enough to remember the last "strike"..I had season tickets to the Cowboys and I remember going to those "scrub" games. They had a few players that actually crossed over the picket line and played and it made for some really bad football. In fact Buddy Ryan got all PO'd cause Coach Landry played Randy White and some other regular players and of course they were killing these "scrubs" who were on the street just a few days before.

It was bad football and just bad all the way around. I'll think positively and hope they can work out their disagreements. That was many years ago and now the stakes are billions higher.

As much as I love the NFL, I'd have a serious thought about change of heart if they kill a season because of greed on both sides. They are all getting more than compensated, so if they can't work out the business end of things and end up flushing away a season, I'm not sure if the product is something that I would remain loyal to in the end.

I hate to say it, but disgust over their greed while the rest of the country suffers an economic depression is something that rattles the foundation of my beliefs.

Rey
08-10-2010, 12:49 PM
I'm going to agree with what some others have said. Revenue sharing is a good thing....

I understand why McNair would be upset if a certain team wasn't pulling their own weight..

But the beauty of revenue sharing is that even if your team is having a down year, you will not suffer tremendously. Like lets say the Texans had about six 4-12 seasons in a row (knocks on desk)....They'd still be on a level playing field with other teams spending wise...

As a fan I like the fact that my team has an eaual chance to win big any given year...Thats how a sports leauge should be run IMO...

I really think it's a shame that Bob is trying to destroy soemthign that has made the leauge as astrong as it is today...Not to mention the fact that he has essentially killed our chances of getting another superbowl anytime soon..

OzzO
08-10-2010, 12:51 PM
... I think teams should be able to spend what they want to on their players with the revenue that they make. If you can't support your teams, then your teams leave.

Co-signed by:
Baltimore Colts
Cleveland Browns I
Houston Oilers
Oakland Raiders I


- just messin.

(I would say St Louis Cardinals, but don't recall if they had much support.)

WWJD
08-10-2010, 01:11 PM
As much as I love the NFL, I'd have a serious thought about change of heart if they kill a season because of greed on both sides. They are all getting more than compensated, so if they can't work out the business end of things and end up flushing away a season, I'm not sure if the product is something that I would remain loyal to in the end.

I hate to say it, but disgust over their greed while the rest of the country suffers an economic depression is something that rattles the foundation of my beliefs.

Yea I agree DB..I was naive in those days though and such a football fan that I thought ANY football was better than none. I would hope if they do lockout the players there are no "scrub" teams formed..I hate using that word cause those guys tried to the best of their ability but still..it was hardly NFL caliber talent.

I don't remember now how many players did cross the picket line but there were some here and there..several Cowboys and I think some Redskins as well.

It won't matter though..people/fans will come back no matter what happens or how much of the season is lost. I think the owners know that and the players may be happy to not be getting their brains bashed in for a few extra months.

Errant Hothy
08-10-2010, 02:21 PM
The only part of revenue sharing that needs to be adjusted is the gate sharing. You get 8 home games, you get 8 home gates. It isn't fair to teams like us and the Colts to give J-vile a portion of our home game gates, when the gate a Jackosnville is so pitiful.

badboy
08-10-2010, 02:27 PM
What about teams giving tens of millions of dollars in guaranteed money to a guy who has never played one NFL down? That is not part of the CBA if I am correct. Owners want to control costs? Start here.

SheTexan
08-10-2010, 02:50 PM
I'm old enough to remember the last "strike"..I had season tickets to the Cowboys and I remember going to those "scrub" games. They had a few players that actually crossed over the picket line and played and it made for some really bad football. In fact Buddy Ryan got all PO'd cause Coach Landry played Randy White and some other regular players and of course they were killing these "scrubs" who were on the street just a few days before.

It was bad football and just bad all the way around. I'll think positively and hope they can work out their disagreements. That was many years ago and now the stakes are billions higher.

Same here Terri! A very bad year for football!

hollywood_texan
08-10-2010, 02:58 PM
I agree with Herv completely. The NFL's success is directly tied to the ideas of revenue sharing as pioneered by Pete Rozelle and Lamar Hunt. There is absolutely no argument to be made otherwise about the history of it. The NFL and NFL Films celebrate this fact all the time.

The problem I see between the owners is ROI.

For example, McNair and his investors put in about $1 billion to bring an NFL team back to Houston. McNair paid hunderds of millions of dollars to the league to get the team. Which was split up by all the then current owners. They let the guy in and take his money and then complain?

To further demonstrate the financial issue, a $1 billion 30-year note at 7% would require monthly payments of approximately $6.6 million, or about $80 million a year. These are rich people, so they could have put their money elsewhere.

Now, there are a lot of older teams that do not have this cost structure and purposely stay away from upgrading their franchises but want to continue with revenue sharing. For example, for some time the Bengals refused to the sell the naming rights to the their stadium. Not sure where that issue stands now.

My point is, the teams are not equal financially on their capital investment and cost structure, which leads to this issue. No one should be surprised.

The revenue sharing thing has probably past. Times change and you have to find a new way. I am not sure what that is, but this current system just doesn't work in my opinion.

Maybe McNair and Jones are greedy businessmen, but I don't think things are simple as they seem.

If you want to share revenues equally, then everyone should have the same cost structure as well, but we know they don't. Unfortunately, some teams spend more than others, and therefore the owners that spend more expect more monies to compensate for their investment.

Before anyone comes to any conclusions, hopefully they will consider or ponder this issue.

steelbtexan
08-10-2010, 03:13 PM
The problem I see between the owners is ROI.

For example, McNair and his investors put in about $1 billion to bring an NFL team back to Houston. McNair paid hunderds of millions of dollars to the league to get the team. Which was split up by all the then current owners. They let the guy in and take his money and then complain?

To further demonstrate the financial issue, a $1 billion 30-year note at 7% would require monthly payments of approximately $6.6 million, or about $80 million a year. These are rich people, so they could have put their money elsewhere.

Now, there are a lot of older teams that do not have this cost structure and purposely stay away from upgrading their franchises but want to continue with revenue sharing. For example, for some time the Bengals refused to the sell the naming rights to the their stadium. Not sure where that issue stands now.

My point is, the teams are not equal financially on their capital investment and cost structure, which leads to this issue. No one should be surprised.

The revenue sharing thing has probably past. Times change and you have to find a new way. I am not sure what that is, but this current system just doesn't work in my opinion.

Maybe McNair and Jones are greedy businessmen, but I don't think things are simple as they seem.

If you want to share revenues equally, then everyone should have the same cost structure as well, but we know they don't. Unfortunately, some teams spend more than others, and therefore the owners that spend more expect more monies to compensate for their investment.

Before anyone comes to any conclusions, hopefully they will consider or ponder this issue.

McNair knew what he was getting into when he bought the team. Now he wants to change the rules.

This inspite of the great fans of Houston Texas making his franchise the 10th most profitable franchise in all of sports. Greed.......

Because of this your arguement doesn't hold water. And by the way I hope football fans around this great nation enjoy no football in 2011.

hollywood_texan
08-10-2010, 03:26 PM
McNair knew what he was getting into when he bought the team. Now he wants to change the rules.

And so did all the other owners that voted him in, as stated earlier.


This inspite of the great fans of Houston Texas making his franchise the 10th most profitable franchise in all of sports. Greed.......

You are completely missing my point. Green Bay making $100 net profit is not the same as Houston because their cost structures are not the same. There in lies the rub.

It's like two guys making the same amount of money, but one guy has a house and a car note while the other one doesn't. Obviously, their financial situations are going to be different.

If you are going to equally share revenues, would it seem fair to you that all the franchises equally share in the expenses and capital infrastructure?


Because of this your arguement doesn't hold water. And by the way I hope football fans around this great nation enjoy no football in 2011.

I am not making arguement for or against McNair or Jones. We need more information.

My point is, you need more information before you come to your conclusions.

Please try to understand what I am trying to communicate before attempting to blow an arguement out of the water that I wasn't even trying to make.

Double Barrel
08-10-2010, 04:11 PM
The problem I see between the owners is ROI.

For example, McNair and his investors put in about $1 billion to bring an NFL team back to Houston. McNair paid hunderds of millions of dollars to the league to get the team. Which was split up by all the then current owners. They let the guy in and take his money and then complain?

To further demonstrate the financial issue, a $1 billion 30-year note at 7% would require monthly payments of approximately $6.6 million, or about $80 million a year. These are rich people, so they could have put their money elsewhere.

Now, there are a lot of older teams that do not have this cost structure and purposely stay away from upgrading their franchises but want to continue with revenue sharing. For example, for some time the Bengals refused to the sell the naming rights to the their stadium. Not sure where that issue stands now.

My point is, the teams are not equal financially on their capital investment and cost structure, which leads to this issue. No one should be surprised.

The revenue sharing thing has probably past. Times change and you have to find a new way. I am not sure what that is, but this current system just doesn't work in my opinion.

Maybe McNair and Jones are greedy businessmen, but I don't think things are simple as they seem.

If you want to share revenues equally, then everyone should have the same cost structure as well, but we know they don't. Unfortunately, some teams spend more than others, and therefore the owners that spend more expect more monies to compensate for their investment.

Before anyone comes to any conclusions, hopefully they will consider or ponder this issue.

Good points, HT, and I understand that you are just offering a different perspective and not necessarily arguing for or against any particular position.

I would add, though, that revenue sharing is one of the foundations that made the league as successful as it is today. Just take a look at MLB and you can clearly see the disparities between the big market and small market teams. And this obviously impacts competitiveness.

As far as ROI, there is already a disparity when some teams have new stadiums and lots of luxury boxes bought by big corporations. These teams do not have to share that revenue, so it's not like all profit is subject to the sharing agreement.

And let's not forget that the brand - the NFL - is the key, and each team is a franchise. Just like McDonalds, all franchises receive positive benefits from national advertisement and bulk buying power, but some franchises will just be more profitable due to location and customer traffic. NFL franchises are the same in that bigger markets provide a greater benefit, both in terms of ticket and concession sales, as well as potential to publicly finance new stadium deals.

eriadoc
08-10-2010, 04:17 PM
What about teams giving tens of millions of dollars in guaranteed money to a guy who has never played one NFL down? That is not part of the CBA if I am correct. Owners want to control costs? Start here.

Neither is giving them huge sums of money. No one is making the owners give those outrageous contracts. There's nothing in the CBA that says rookie contracts must equal XYZ percentage of your salary cap or whatever. The escalating salaries of rookies falls squarely on the shoulders of the owners.

It's basic negotiation. If you're a rookie and you demand $1 billion, and the team says no, but agrees to give you $800 million, are you going to say no? I know ideally, some of y'all want the rookies to ask for less and settle for less, but then you don't demand the same of the other side. BOTH sides need to be more reasonable in their demands, but the owners are the only ones who actually control the money.

badboy
08-10-2010, 04:23 PM
Neither is giving them huge sums of money. No one is making the owners give those outrageous contracts. There's nothing in the CBA that says rookie contracts must equal XYZ percentage of your salary cap or whatever. The escalating salaries of rookies falls squarely on the shoulders of the owners.

It's basic negotiation. If you're a rookie and you demand $1 billion, and the team says no, but agrees to give you $800 million, are you going to say no? I know ideally, some of y'all want the rookies to ask for less and settle for less, but then you don't demand the same of the other side. BOTH sides need to be more reasonable in their demands, but the owners are the only ones who actually control the money.Exactly my point, if owners complain of huge cost stop giving $50million contracts with $35m guaranteed. It ain't all on the players.

WWJD
08-10-2010, 04:53 PM
Same here Terri! A very bad year for football!

That's right Sandy! I'm wondering if fans and I mean diehard fans..the ones that schedule their weekends around games..like yourself..would you go to a game that counted in the standing but the team was nothing but guys they signed off the street?

I take myself out of this because I don't attend games anymore but I do wonder if the ones on here that do spend thousands would you still go?

thunderkyss
08-10-2010, 06:03 PM
Neither is giving them huge sums of money. No one is making the owners give those outrageous contracts. There's nothing in the CBA that says rookie contracts must equal XYZ percentage of your salary cap or whatever. The escalating salaries of rookies falls squarely on the shoulders of the owners.

It's basic negotiation. If you're a rookie and you demand $1 billion, and the team says no, but agrees to give you $800 million, are you going to say no? I know ideally, some of y'all want the rookies to ask for less and settle for less, but then you don't demand the same of the other side. BOTH sides need to be more reasonable in their demands, but the owners are the only ones who actually control the money.

The rookie thing is different. The people who think the rookies should settle for less, believe they should settle for less in relationship to what the proven players make, not because of what the owners take in.

Personally, I believe the owners argument that they take a disproportionate share of the risk in relation to the players is preposterous. Some guys leave that field hurt/crippled for life. Troy Aikman won't know the full affect of his multiple concussions for years...

As far as revenue sharing goes, I think they should be able to take the costs to running a franchise, put a little extra juice in it, and cap the revenue sharing to that. That way, all the teams are competing on the same equal playing field, and the Redskins, Cowboys, Texans, etc... can reap the benefits of their hard/successful work.

JB
08-10-2010, 06:09 PM
The rookie thing is different. The people who think the rookies should settle for less, believe they should settle for less in relationship to what the proven players make, not because of what the owners take in.

Personally, I believe the owners argument that they take a disproportionate share of the risk in relation to the players is preposterous. Some guys leave that field hurt/crippled for life. Troy Aikman won't know the full affect of his multiple concussions for years...

As far as revenue sharing goes, I think they should be able to take the costs to running a franchise, put a little extra juice in it, and cap the revenue sharing to that. That way, all the teams are competing on the same equal playing field, and the Redskins, Cowboys, Texans, etc... can reap the benefits of their hard/successful work.

Are you saying something like a cost plus 10%? I think that would work. The actual percentage might work, but there would have to be a cap.

thunderkyss
08-10-2010, 06:13 PM
Exactly my point, if owners complain of huge cost stop giving $50million contracts with $35m guaranteed. It ain't all on the players.

I'm sure this is a complicated issue, but I seriously doubt the cost to you and I will experience any relief. The owners will put that money in their pockets. The money is there to be made, and they are going to make it.

Personally, I would like a Union that would fight for true profit sharing, instead of basing my pay on the local wage scale.

steelbtexan
08-10-2010, 06:17 PM
And so did all the other owners that voted him in, as stated earlier.



You are completely missing my point. Green Bay making $100 net profit is not the same as Houston because their cost structures are not the same. There in lies the rub.

It's like two guys making the same amount of money, but one guy has a house and a car note while the other one doesn't. Obviously, their financial situations are going to be different.

If you are going to equally share revenues, would it seem fair to you that all the franchises equally share in the expenses and capital infrastructure?



I am not making arguement for or against McNair or Jones. We need more information.

My point is, you need more information before you come to your conclusions.

Please try to understand what I am trying to communicate before attempting to blow an arguement out of the water that I wasn't even trying to make.

1.Yeah and all of those owners except Jones,McNair and probably Al Davis are holding their water on this issue.

2.Again McNair knew he was paying 700 mil and entering an unlevel playing field when he bought the team. And putting all of the expenses aside. McNair still has the 10th most profitable franchise in all of sports. I'd say McNair has done quite well on this investment. (Texans)

3. I understood what you were trying to communicate. I was just trying to show the other side and trying to start up a little action on the MB. Sorry if I came off wrong.

Texan_Bill
08-10-2010, 07:58 PM
Co-signed by:
Baltimore Colts
Cleveland Browns I
Houston Oilers
Oakland Raiders I


- just messin.

(I would say St Louis Cardinals, but don't recall if they had much support.)

Co Co-signed,

Chicago / St. Louis / Arizona Cardinals
Cleveland / Los Angeles / St. Louis Rams

hollywood_texan
08-11-2010, 11:48 AM
1.Yeah and all of those owners except Jones,McNair and probably Al Davis are holding their water on this issue.

2.Again McNair knew he was paying 700 mil and entering an unlevel playing field when he bought the team. And putting all of the expenses aside. McNair still has the 10th most profitable franchise in all of sports. I'd say McNair has done quite well on this investment. (Texans)

3. I understood what you were trying to communicate. I was just trying to show the other side and trying to start up a little action on the MB. Sorry if I came off wrong.

I hear you.

The revenue sharing model is going to be moot when the games are shown on the Internet.

Most of the revenue generated by the league is from TV contracts, which are based on advertising contracts. As we already know, the TV advertising model is changing rapidly.

This gets us to the crux of the issue as I see it. The league as a whole and the owners individually are unable to do the long range financial forecasting to lock-in these enormous contracts. Factor in some owners having a lot more capital at risk than others and the personality issues, you end up with some arguing and somebody labeled the bad guy. For example, McNair, Jones, and so forth.

There are probably a lot of financial issues at hand driving McNair on his decision. By the way, I have been very critical of McNair's decision making related to coaching hires and personnel issues.

One other thing, just because the Texans are the 10th profitable business doesn't mean they have a high ROI. The profit number is just one measuring stick. You have to compare it other numbers to get a good gauge.

You could have a business that makes less profit than another but is a better investment because of the return analysis.

My point is, in my experience in finance, taking a just one number and coming to a conclusion is lacking.

Finally, the old way of doing things for the NFL isn't going to work from the past era. It is time to move on. Technology and economics have moved on from what was done in the past. Which is a whole another story but impacts this NFL issue.

Double Barrel
08-11-2010, 12:15 PM
The revenue sharing model is going to be moot when the games are shown on the Internet.

Most of the revenue generated by the league is from TV contracts, which are based on advertising contracts. As we already know, the TV advertising model is changing rapidly.

I think internet viewers will still be stuck watching commercials, and advertisers will have a much more accurate number of viewers with digital technology.

Plus, who says that internet viewing is going to be free to the consumer?

I think some type of revenue sharing is integral to the long-term success of the league in the future. Otherwise, as fans, we need to be prepared for quite a few historic teams to move, perhaps even under corporate sponsorship. Coca-Cola Packers, anyone? They can sign a 5-10 year deal with a city that has the facilities, and then move to another city at the end of the contract cycle. I don't think that would be good for the league, but it's a money-driven entertainment medium, so just about anything is possible when profits are the highest priority.

Texan_Bill
08-11-2010, 12:29 PM
Minute Made Texans? :thinking:



Not so much!!

Hervoyel
08-11-2010, 01:01 PM
I genuinely believe that if you "morph" the league the way you are describing (DB) then you lose everything that makes it worth following. Corporate sponsored teams moving every decade or so playing against a handful of very rich stationary teams (todays "haves") won't lock in fans like the league is used to seeing. Add to that a few international teams that add nothing to the NFL fans experience but increase the cost of doing business for everyone and that will spell the end of the league we know.

At that point I think an opening appears for a handful of men with some money to start another league modeled after the "real" NFL that just vanished in a puff of greedy corporate sponsored smoke. It's smaller, it's cheaper, and it fills a void.

I loved the Oilers but I got over it. I adopted the Texans and I'm about settled into things as they are now. Fans aren't inflexible. They can adapt but if you break the league then they'll be looking for something that feels right. 16 to 20 moderately wealthy men in cities with stadiums the NFL used to call home, but eventually will turn their nose up at will form a league that makes sense with a hard salary cap. Players will be employees and tickets will cost, well "a lot" but not "too much" and the fans will think "this feels right".

With every change the NFL makes they become more susceptible to one very drastic change breaking their magic formula. If the big teams decide to go all out for themselves that would do it. That might set off the landslide so to speak.

Double Barrel
08-11-2010, 02:10 PM
I agree completely, Herv. The essential part of this entire equation that continuously seems to be overlooked and under-appreciated is the customer/fan. Perhaps I'm 'old-school' that way, but complete corporate sponsorship of teams would lose my interest in the sport that I love.

I'm not predicting that this will happen the way I described, but I'm also realistic enough to not be surprised if that trend develops.

SheTexan
08-11-2010, 02:50 PM
That's right Sandy! I'm wondering if fans and I mean diehard fans..the ones that schedule their weekends around games..like yourself..would you go to a game that counted in the standing but the team was nothing but guys they signed off the street?

I take myself out of this because I don't attend games anymore but I do wonder if the ones on here that do spend thousands would you still go?

Nope!! I would be done. In my younger day I LOVED baseball, followed the Dodgers with a passion. After all the insane garbage that went with MLB's strike, I was DONE with baseball. BUT, football is part of my core, a huge part of who I am and where I came from. I won't lie and say I would never watch another football game, because I would. BUT, I would not secrifice the way I have in the past to compensate for a few owners greed. I enjoy LIVE football and pay a bundle to indulge myself each year. If there is a strike and subpar football in 2011, I will buy myself a huge TV and become a permanent couch potato!!:zzz:

hollywood_texan
08-11-2010, 03:17 PM
I think internet viewers will still be stuck watching commercials, and advertisers will have a much more accurate number of viewers with digital technology.

Plus, who says that internet viewing is going to be free to the consumer?

I think some type of revenue sharing is integral to the long-term success of the league in the future. Otherwise, as fans, we need to be prepared for quite a few historic teams to move, perhaps even under corporate sponsorship. Coca-Cola Packers, anyone? They can sign a 5-10 year deal with a city that has the facilities, and then move to another city at the end of the contract cycle. I don't think that would be good for the league, but it's a money-driven entertainment medium, so just about anything is possible when profits are the highest priority.

I agree there will be payments on the viewing of the games. But, how will the games be viewed, monitored, and paid will be the key components of the pricing model?

Wrapped up in this whole issue is the current state of U.S. economics.

I believe we are on a course of a deflationary cycle. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing for the individual, but is difficult for governments to handle. For the last 100 years or so, the U.S. has been on an inflationary cycle from the perspective based of fiat money. What runs counter to that is the development technology that should make things easier to make and cheaper to the consumer.

We are at a cross roads right now economically, meanwhile NFL owners are trying to hammer out long-term contracts while attempting to anticipate these economic scenarios and consequences.

It appears to me that times have changed, and a lot probably has to be rethinked and designed related to how the NFL collects it's revenues and disburses it monies to players and owners.

We'll see...

Having said all that, I don't know or really care if McNair is greedy or not and has nothing to do with my analysis. For whatever that is worth if you have continued reading through this post.

Thanks. I enjoyed thinking about this and has led to some other thoughts I have on economic issues I am writing about.

WWJD
08-11-2010, 06:54 PM
Nope!! I would be done. In my younger day I LOVED baseball, followed the Dodgers with a passion. After all the insane garbage that went with MLB's strike, I was DONE with baseball. BUT, football is part of my core, a huge part of who I am and where I came from. I won't lie and say I would never watch another football game, because I would. BUT, I would not secrifice the way I have in the past to compensate for a few owners greed. I enjoy LIVE football and pay a bundle to indulge myself each year. If there is a strike and subpar football in 2011, I will buy myself a huge TV and become a permanent couch potato!!:zzz:

I wonder if the owners are considering having a season anyway with "scrubs"..you know I don't go to the games but I think I'd do as you are saying and just skip it if I had the tickets. Problem is there would be no scalper market for tickets so the real fans wouldn't get their money on their tickets if they didn't want to go watch that.

thanks for answering..was wondering what a real diehard like yourself would do!

DexmanC
08-12-2010, 05:44 PM
Plus, who says that internet viewing is going to be free to the consumer?



Heh. They can't even keep PPV from being *free* to the consumer,
but I get your point. Digitalization of media has made the copy,
rebroadcast, and redistribution off ALL media much easier.

I don't think security was the main reason for the switch from analog
to digital.

Dan B.
08-13-2010, 11:47 AM
I am fine with limited revenue sharing, but do not see the need for a salary cap. This article explains why.
(http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=1345)
The NFL was more competitive before they instituted a cap (pdf link here) (http://community.middlebury.edu/~econ/RePec/papers/04-02.pdf), and factors like weighted scheduling and expansion affect competitive balance far more than a cap does.

The NBA has a salary cap. How's the competitive balance looking there? BTW just like the NFL, the NBA was more competitive before they instituted a cap.