So Should Ralph be happy?

[K-9]

RW's concern in 2006 was that the revenue qualifiers were never defined in the new CBA. He was right to vote against it without those definitions in place and the majority of owners agreed once they had a chance to digest an agreement that was largely rammed through by Tagliabue and a small cadre of big market owners (Jones, Kraft, Snyder, et al).

 

When the qualifiers finally WERE defined in March 2007, RW had no problem voting FOR the agreement. The only two votes against were the Bengals and Jags.

 

Once last item: TV revenue. Unlike in the past it no longer covers player salaries and benefits on it's own. Thats really tilted the playing field. That golden goose is about tapped out, regardless of the record-setting ad prices for the SB this year. And it's not a simple question of relocating teams to larger TV markets like LA for example. TV ratings for the Rams and Raiders were historically bad for their Sunday time slots and that caused great consternation among the local affiliates.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Mr. WEO]

RW's concern in 2006 was that the revenue qualifiers were never defined in the new CBA. He was right to vote against it without those definitions in place and the majority of owners agreed once they had a chance to digest an agreement that was largely rammed through by Tagliabue and a small cadre of big market owners (Jones, Kraft, Snyder, et al).

 

When the qualifiers finally WERE defined in March 2007, RW had no problem voting FOR the agreement. The only two votes against were the Bengals and Jags.

 

Once last item: TV revenue. Unlike in the past it no longer covers player salaries and benefits on it's own. Thats really tilted the playing field. That golden goose is about tapped out, regardless of the record-setting ad prices for the SB this year. And it's not a simple question of relocating teams to larger TV markets like LA for example. TV ratings for the Rams and Raiders were historically bad for their Sunday time slots and that caused great consternation among the local affiliates.

 

GO BILLS!!!

I don't recall Ralph stating that concern before the vote. Still, it made no sense for him to vota gainst a CBA that included revenue sharing---as opposed to one that left no revenue sharing.

 

He knew he would never be amongst the owners would would be contributing to the supplimental revenue pool, but he no doubt was aware that every owner in the room knew he pocketed $96 million in the three seasons leading up to the CBA vote. Jones in particular had a problem with giving more money to a guy who, despite low revenue, was making a ton of money with no financial risk. It is possible that Ralph thought a "needs formula" would exclude owners like him from getting on the dole.

 

Jones was brought around to agreement by Kraft, Johnson and others---this was key in getting approval.

 

And please stop the "anti trust threat" stuff, it's just nonsense.

[Doc]

I don't recall Ralph stating that concern before the vote.

That's interesting. I didn't hear the owners say they were looking for labor peace (the ONLY halfway positive thing that could have been said for that POS CBA, in as much as getting robbed is a "peaceful" solution to being faced with burglars) for just the next 4 years. Versus having had labor peace for 13 years prior to that.

[K-9]

I don't recall Ralph stating that concern before the vote. Still, it made no sense for him to vota gainst a CBA that included revenue sharing---as opposed to one that left no revenue sharing.

 

He knew he would never be amongst the owners would would be contributing to the supplimental revenue pool, but he no doubt was aware that every owner in the room knew he pocketed $96 million in the three seasons leading up to the CBA vote. Jones in particular had a problem with giving more money to a guy who, despite low revenue, was making a ton of money with no financial risk. It is possible that Ralph thought a "needs formula" would exclude owners like him from getting on the dole.

 

Jones was brought around to agreement by Kraft, Johnson and others---this was key in getting approval.

 

And please stop the "anti trust threat" stuff, it's just nonsense.

 

Don't know who mentioned "anti trust threat" so take it up with them.

 

As for the original balking against the CBA in 2006 there is plenty of material available where RW states his opinion regarding the revenue sharing qualifiers. They were NOT defined until 3/2007 and, again, once they were, RW had no trouble getting on board.

 

That's beside the point. If you make $30m in supplemental revenue and the other guy makes $80m and the salary cap is the same for both owners, who is at a competitive disadvantage? RW was right then and as the majority of other owners (read non UBER owners) learned to understand, the CBA was a bad deal and should NOT have been ratified and it wouldn't have been had the owners understood it at the time.

 

Enjoy the NFL when it resembles MLB. I'm sure your Patriots and their deep pockets will never disappoint.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Doc]

[JohnC]

A plan like this is good for the overall league. At the end of the day the big teams benefit from having teams like the Bills, Colts, etc. It makes the league more popular and relevant in areas that might not be able to support a team with a new stadium, and debt.

 

It is interesting that you bring up the Colts and the Bills as benefiting the league because the additional subsidy allows them to be more relevant to the league. With the Colts you have a very good example of your claim. With the Bills you undercut your argument because the Bills are not and have not been for a very long time a competitive or relevant team in the league.

 

Ralph Wilson has taken a good chunk of the league subsidy and pocketed it. While the Colts have taken a larger chunk of the subsidy (compared to the lowly Bills) and invested it in their roster. The richer clubs realize what the cunning aged owner of the Bills is doing and they are not happy about it. Ralph is to a large extent subverting the intention of the subsidy. The old guard owner may not know a lot about how to field a winning team (or car about doing so) but he certainly knows how to hustle his younger brethren.

 

I very much understand why owners such as Jerry Jones and Daniel Snyder resent the fact that they work hard to generate additional streams of revenue while a dinasaur owner such as Ralph complains about the size and composition of his market yet is in the middle of the pack for profitability.

[Doc]

Ralph has spent a ton of money on players. And as the recent coaching search has proven, he can offer top coaches what they want, but they won't come. So let's end the "Ralph is cheap" stuff, shall we?

 

As for Jones and Snyder, they're hardly "working," unless you mean "gouging the fans." While the prices for the Bills are the lowest in the NFL. Jones and Snyder are just pissed that they got to the party later, had to pony up more cash to buy their teams, and can't outspend everyone else. Poor babies.

[GrudginglyPessimistic]

And please stop the "anti trust threat" stuff, it's just nonsense.

Even a quick search revealed articles as recent as a Wall Street Journal piece from October 2009 which cited a Congressional threat of exploring eliminating the antitrust exemption as a key to forcing the NFL to turn over medical records in regard to concussions,

 

Also tell Chuck Schumer that this is nonsense since he rattled this Sabre to force his way into the NFL Bills location debate in the early 00s and he has been there ever since.

 

Tell this to fans of the Cleveland Browns at one of their home games when this was a cudgel they used to force the NFL to give them back their franchise after Art Modell skipped town.

 

Agreed this likely would never happen but the threat is the thing since if it gets into play it becomes a little uncertain what would happen and the networks who are the market because they are the real money get a bit nervous about shipping billions to the NFL.

 

The threat is something which cannot be ignored and believe if the only team which plays in NYS decides to leave one of the biggest Congressional delegations of any state will suddenly get very interested in this issue and Senators like Schumer and Gillebrand who give WNY far more leverage than its small population merits because NYC and it richer suburbs can cancel each other out will be swinging the antitrust ax for all they are worth.

 

And actually since the NFL and the NFL conspire to not only limit employment options for all players with the NFL draft, but unlike all other sports flat out ban the ability of adults to follow the good old American capitalistic way of selling their services to the highest bidder, though eliminating the antitrust exemption is unlikely it is a serious threat to offer and arguably the right way to treat an adult.

[JohnC]

Ralph has spent a ton of money on players. And as the recent coaching search has proven, he can offer top coaches what they want, but they won't come. So let's end the "Ralph is cheap" stuff, shall we?

 

Well if money is not the reason for a generation of futility then why is the team he owns so bad for so long? Could it be that he is an incompetent?

[Mr. WEO]

That's interesting. I didn't hear the owners say they were looking for labor peace (the ONLY halfway positive thing that could have been said for that POS CBA, in as much as getting robbed is a "peaceful" solution to being faced with burglars) for just the next 4 years. Versus having had labor peace for 13 years prior to that.

 

Still sticking with that "5% raise" stuff, huh? It never happened.

 

Yes, doc, you've made it abundantly clear for quite some time that you don't understand the context of the 2006 CBA and the way the recent collapse of the economy has changed things for owners with actual skin in the game since that CBA was signed. Ralph was right, everyone else was wrong. No need to restate your understanding of the situation.

 

 

Don't know who mentioned "anti trust threat" so take it up with them.

 

As for the original balking against the CBA in 2006 there is plenty of material available where RW states his opinion regarding the revenue sharing qualifiers. They were NOT defined until 3/2007 and, again, once they were, RW had no trouble getting on board.

 

That's beside the point. If you make $30m in supplemental revenue and the other guy makes $80m and the salary cap is the same for both owners, who is at a competitive disadvantage? RW was right then and as the majority of other owners (read non UBER owners) learned to understand, the CBA was a bad deal and should NOT have been ratified and it wouldn't have been had the owners understood it at the time.

 

Enjoy the NFL when it resembles MLB. I'm sure your Patriots and their deep pockets will never disappoint.

 

GO BILLS!!!

Again, I don't recall Ralph commenting on the specifics of the revenue sharing portion of the CBA until well after the agreement was signed. Regardless, it still makes no sense for a guy looking for a handout to reject a deal that would significantly increase his handout.

 

Also, no one is going to make "$80 m" in supplimental revenue sharing---the entire pool is $220 million for 8-10 teams to split. But let's use your example anyway: the guy who pockets the $30 million in free money instead of spending to the cap every year (not cash to cap) is placing himself at a disadvantage--willingly.

 

If the "uber owners" had not gotten together and significantly increased the supplilmental shared revenue pot (it was only $40 million before the CBA), Ralph would still be crying. So, in the end, Ralph voted against an agreement that would significantly (and has since) increase the money in his pocket ---for nothing.

 

The fact that the vast majority of the shared revenue comes from TV contracts, there is no danger that the NFL will ever resemble MLB, your dimwitted "you're a pats fan" nonsense aside.....

 

 

Even a quick search revealed articles as recent as a Wall Street Journal piece from October 2009 which cited a Congressional threat of exploring eliminating the antitrust exemption as a key to forcing the NFL to turn over medical records in regard to concussions,

 

Also tell Chuck Schumer that this is nonsense since he rattled this Sabre to force his way into the NFL Bills location debate in the early 00s and he has been there ever since.

 

Tell this to fans of the Cleveland Browns at one of their home games when this was a cudgel they used to force the NFL to give them back their franchise after Art Modell skipped town.

 

Agreed this likely would never happen but the threat is the thing since if it gets into play it becomes a little uncertain what would happen and the networks who are the market because they are the real money get a bit nervous about shipping billions to the NFL.

 

The threat is something which cannot be ignored and believe if the only team which plays in NYS decides to leave one of the biggest Congressional delegations of any state will suddenly get very interested in this issue and Senators like Schumer and Gillebrand who give WNY far more leverage than its small population merits because NYC and it richer suburbs can cancel each other out will be swinging the antitrust ax for all they are worth.

 

And actually since the NFL and the NFL conspire to not only limit employment options for all players with the NFL draft, but unlike all other sports flat out ban the ability of adults to follow the good old American capitalistic way of selling their services to the highest bidder, though eliminating the antitrust exemption is unlikely it is a serious threat to offer and arguably the right way to treat an adult.

 

 

Chuck Shumer would force himself into the nuclues of a hydrogen atom if he thought there was a vote inside.

 

Look, the "threat" of losing antitrust status is never taken seriously by the League because they know that it would never have support in the Senate. If you thought for a minute about the ramifications of the dissolution of the NFL's antitrust exemption, you would understand why. You would also would do everything in your power as a Bills fan to make sure this never, ever happened.

 

Schumer knows he is just blowing smoke---he understands that he will never have to back up his threat in Congress.

[Doc]

Still sticking with that "5% raise" stuff, huh? It never happened.

Still sticking with defending that CBA? You are now the only one. Even the owners would tell you it was a bad deal.

 

Yes, doc, you've made it abundantly clear for quite some time that you don't understand the context of the 2006 CBA and the way the recent collapse of the economy has changed things for owners with actual skin in the game since that CBA was signed. Ralph was right, everyone else was wrong. No need to restate your understanding of the situation.

The economy? Bahahahahahaha! For starters, the owners have ALL been making money hand over fist in this economy. Second of all, that CBA was a POS in ANY economy, because giving a 4.5% raise (potential or otherwise) when you didn't have to is a bad deal. Last of all, the owners opted-out of it in May of 2008, well before the economy tanked, and had been talking about opting-out of it since 2007.

 

The only person who doesn't understand how bad a deal this was for the NFL is you, and that's because you've entrenched yourself with the idiots who crafted it and now have to defend it because you can't bear to admit you were wrong. But hey, what else is new?

[K-9]

quote name='Mr. WEO' date='Feb 3 2010, 09:57 AM' post='1745003'

Again, I don't recall Ralph commenting on the specifics of the revenue sharing portion of the CBA until well after the agreement was signed. Regardless, it still makes no sense for a guy looking for a handout to reject a deal that would significantly increase his handout.

 

Also, no one is going to make "$80 m" in supplimental revenue sharing---the entire pool is $220 million for 8-10 teams to split. But let's use your example anyway: the guy who pockets the $30 million in free money instead of spending to the cap every year (not cash to cap) is placing himself at a disadvantage--willingly.

 

If the "uber owners" had not gotten together and significantly increased the supplilmental shared revenue pot (it was only $40 million before the CBA), Ralph would still be crying. So, in the end, Ralph voted against an agreement that would significantly (and has since) increase the money in his pocket ---for nothing.

 

The fact that the vast majority of the shared revenue comes from TV contracts, there is no danger that the NFL will ever resemble MLB, your dimwitted "you're a pats fan" nonsense aside.....

 

If you don't recall RW's concerns then you need to reacquaint yourself with the circumstances. The qualifiers for the handouts were NEVER spelled out in the '06 agreement so it is ludicrous to continue to say RW thumbed his nose at a deal that would have significantly raised is handout. Nobody knew who QUALIFIED for those handouts and how. THAT was RW's major bone of contention. Once the qualifiers WERE defined a YEAR LATER, RW readily signed on with only the Jags and Bengals voting against. Why is that so hard to understand?

 

You entirely missed my point on the revenue sharing. Forget the total pool. That has nothing to do with what I'm saying. My point is that if team A spends 60% of their total revenue on salaries and benefits and the other spends 85% then one team is at a big disadvantage. The cap rose in direct accordance with the huge rise in non-shared uber owner revenues. The players wanted a bigger slice of that non-shared pie. The owners gave away the farm in 2006 and isn't it funny how a couple years later EVERYONE agreed with RW on the issues presented.

 

I agree in general that since shared TV revenue is the biggest reason why the NFL will remain in competitive balance unlike MLB, I am not as comfortable with it as I used to be simply because unlike years past, TV revenue in and of itself doesn't fully cover player salaries and benefits like it used to. Player costs will continue to escalate, the price to televise games will not. It stands to reason that only those handful of teams located in lucrative markets more readily able to support other revenue streams will flourish while others won't. It's easy to see a scenario of 6-8 utlra rich teams in rich markets will rule the roost like in MLB.

 

I could have just as easily said "I'm sure you and your Cowboys, Redskins, Eagles, Giants, Jets and their deep pockets will never disappoint." I used the Patriots as my example. Dimwitted as that was.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Mr. WEO]

Still sticking with defending that CBA? You are now the only one. Even the owners would tell you it was a bad deal.

 

 

The economy? Bahahahahahaha! For starters, the owners have ALL been making money hand over fist in this economy. Second of all, that CBA was a POS in ANY economy, because giving a 4.5% raise (potential or otherwise) when you didn't have to is a bad deal. Last of all, the owners opted-out of it in May of 2008, well before the economy tanked, and had been talking about opting-out of it since 2007.

 

The only person who doesn't understand how bad a deal this was for the NFL is you, and that's because you've entrenched yourself with the idiots who crafted it and now have to defend it because you can't bear to admit you were wrong. But hey, what else is new?

I'm actually explaining why I think the owners voted nearly unanimously (small, mid and large market owners) for the CBA at the time. It was clearly in their best interests to do so at the time (you have yet to dedscribe why it was so "bad"---oh, wait, there was the "potential" 5% raise that the owners may have to give--if they wanted to) and to claim that they were not interested in avoiding a stoppage in football back then is a clear revision of history (but tht is your signature move, so, cheers!).

 

The economy was well on its way to "tanking" when the CBA was signed. The dollar was sliding, national debt was at record levels and others had been discussing the coming meltdown back in 2006. Sure enough, within months of the signing of the CBA, the DJI had lost 35% of its value.

 

Why did they dump the CBA, ultimately? My guess is that the teams with the newest stadiums coming on line (Cowboys, Jets/Giants) were forced to sell PSL's to finance their part of the stadium costs. This is counted, I am assuming, as revenue and this huge bolus of income made the current model impractical.

 

If you don't recall RW's concerns then you need to reacquaint yourself with the circumstances. The qualifiers for the handouts were NEVER spelled out in the '06 agreement so it is ludicrous to continue to say RW thumbed his nose at a deal that would have significantly raised is handout. Nobody knew who QUALIFIED for those handouts and how. THAT was RW's major bone of contention. Once the qualifiers WERE defined a YEAR LATER, RW readily signed on with only the Jags and Bengals voting against. Why is that so hard to understand?

 

You don't get credit for voting against free money by signing up for it a year later.

 

If the deal in essence was that low revenue teams would, with a new CBA, get significantly more in supplimental shared revenue, there is absolutley no logic for any low revenue team to vote against it. It doesn't matter what the details are initially--the "uber-rich" owners were offering more free money. The pool of money was going to grow by 500%! Somebody's gonna get that money---most likely it's gonna be Ralph--he KNOWS he is the bottom 10. Are you saying Ralph was afraid, because of all the profit he tucks away , that the rules would be written to exclude guys like him (I have already suggested this)? So if he felt HE might be excluded, he should screw over the other low income tenants and vote against the CBA?

 

You entirely missed my point on the revenue sharing. Forget the total pool. That has nothing to do with what I'm saying. My point is that if team A spends 60% of their total revenue on salaries and benefits and the other spends 85% then one team is at a big disadvantage. The cap rose in direct accordance with the huge rise in non-shared uber owner revenues. The players wanted a bigger slice of that non-shared pie. The owners gave away the farm in 2006 and isn't it funny how a couple years later EVERYONE agreed with RW on the issues presented.

 

All teams are certainly allowed to spend to the cap every year (the fact that they don't means that there simply was no "farm giveaway"). Given Ralph's operating margin, he could easily have spent to the cap annually if he was willing to bury less money in his backyard in the state where he lives.

 

 

I agree in general that since shared TV revenue is the biggest reason why the NFL will remain in competitive balance unlike MLB, I am not as comfortable with it as I used to be simply because unlike years past, TV revenue in and of itself doesn't fully cover player salaries and benefits like it used to. Player costs will continue to escalate, the price to televise games will not. It stands to reason that only those handful of teams located in lucrative markets more readily able to support other revenue streams will flourish while others won't. It's easy to see a scenario of 6-8 utlra rich teams in rich markets will rule the roost like in MLB.

 

Players costs will escalate based on the market for them. They each negotiate their own deals separately. They get what an owner thinks they are worth. There is no across the board pay raise when the cap goes up. The cap was $128 m this year. $120m of that is covered by TV contracts. The lowest revenue team (Lions) grossed $208m. Your concerns about "competitive balance" are unsubstantiated. Look at MLB---3 of the highest spending teams the past 10 years (Mets, Yanks, Sox) have how many WS rings between them? Yet in a capped league it's all Steelers, Indy and NE the past 10 years.

 

In fact, the "low revenue" teams in the NFL, under this very CBA, are doing just fine. Of the 8 teams leaft in the playoffs at the Div level, 5 were in the bottom half of the revenue earners. 3 of them were within $3m of the Bills. Speaking of the Bills, in the 3 years of the current CBA, Ralph has seen his revenue jump 26% ($46m) while the cap has increased only 20% ($26m) so it's hard to make the argument that the CBA, with its increased cap has hurt Ralph, or the "low revenue" teams in the least. There are really only 3 (not 6-8) high revenue outliers in 2009.

 

 

 

I could have just as easily said "I'm sure you and your Cowboys, Redskins, Eagles, Giants, Jets and their deep pockets will never disappoint." I used the Patriots as my example. Dimwitted as that was.

 

No, your intent by mentioning the pats was clear--when there is nothing else to say, lob the old "you're a pats fan" waterballoon. You would not have mentioned the Jets and the Giants---since they were two teams in the lower half of revenue earners last year (and two teams with huge new debt)---as "deep pockets" if you had meant anything other than what you did. Hoping that I am a pats fan and not a Bills fan doesn't really bolster your arguments, friend.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[K-9]

I'm actually explaining why I think the owners voted nearly unanimously (small, mid and large market owners) for the CBA at the time. It was clearly in their best interests to do so at the time (you have yet to dedscribe why it was so "bad"---oh, wait, there was the "potential" 5% raise that the owners may have to give--if they wanted to) and to claim that they were not interested in avoiding a stoppage in football back then is a clear revision of history (but tht is your signature move, so, cheers!).

 

The economy was well on its way to "tanking" when the CBA was signed. The dollar was sliding, national debt was at record levels and others had been discussing the coming meltdown back in 2006. Sure enough, within months of the signing of the CBA, the DJI had lost 35% of its value.

 

Why did they dump the CBA, ultimately? My guess is that the teams with the newest stadiums coming on line (Cowboys, Jets/Giants) were forced to sell PSL's to finance their part of the stadium costs. This is counted, I am assuming, as revenue and this huge bolus of income made the current model impractical.

 

 

 

You don't get credit for voting against free money by signing up for it a year later.

 

If the deal in essence was that low revenue teams would, with a new CBA, get significantly more in supplimental shared revenue, there is absolutley no logic for any low revenue team to vote against it. It doesn't matter what the details are initially--the "uber-rich" owners were offering more free money. The pool of money was going to grow by 500%! Somebody's gonna get that money---most likely it's gonna be Ralph--he KNOWS he is the bottom 10. Are you saying Ralph was afraid, because of all the profit he tucks away , that the rules would be written to exclude guys like him (I have already suggested this)? So if he felt HE might be excluded, he should screw over the other low income tenants and vote against the CBA?

 

 

 

All teams are certainly allowed to spend to the cap every year (the fact that they don't means that there simply was no "farm giveaway"). Given Ralph's operating margin, he could easily have spent to the cap annually if he was willing to bury less money in his backyard in the state where he lives.

 

 

 

 

Players costs will escalate based on the market for them. They each negotiate their own deals separately. They get what an owner thinks they are worth. There is no across the board pay raise when the cap goes up. The cap was $128 m this year. $120m of that is covered by TV contracts. The lowest revenue team (Lions) grossed $208m. Your concerns about "competitive balance" are unsubstantiated. Look at MLB---3 of the highest spending teams the past 10 years (Mets, Yanks, Sox) have how many WS rings between them? Yet in a capped league it's all Steelers, Indy and NE the past 10 years.

 

In fact, the "low revenue" teams in the NFL, under this very CBA, are doing just fine. Of the 8 teams leaft in the playoffs at the Div level, 5 were in the bottom half of the revenue earners. 3 of them were within $3m of the Bills. Speaking of the Bills, in the 3 years of the current CBA, Ralph has seen his revenue jump 26% ($46m) while the cap has increased only 20% ($26m) so it's hard to make the argument that the CBA, with its increased cap has hurt Ralph, or the "low revenue" teams in the least. There are really only 3 (not 6-8) high revenue outliers in 2009.

 

No, my INTENT was just to use the Patriots as an example. You insist on taking it personally for some reason. Perhaps you're confusing me with another poster.

 

At any rate, your ignorance of the CBA agreement of 2006, RW's concerns about UNDEFINED QUALIFIERS, subsequent revelations by the owners that voted for it that they were mistaken, and a general lack of understanding of the economics of the league in general and small market teams in particular leads me to believe that I'm just wasting my time.

 

It's just easier to say RW is a cheap bastard who just pockets the 'dole' and that's that. While the Jones', Krafts, and Snyders of the league are paragons of virtue. IMO, they're just envious they didn't get in at a better time. Well, too fu*kin' bad for them. My heart bleeds. They tried to pull a fast one in 2006 and they are intent on destructing the league as it is now because they are so heavily leveraged.

 

Out.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[dave mcbride]

I'm actually explaining why I think the owners voted nearly unanimously (small, mid and large market owners) for the CBA at the time. It was clearly in their best interests to do so at the time (you have yet to dedscribe why it was so "bad"---oh, wait, there was the "potential" 5% raise that the owners may have to give--if they wanted to) and to claim that they were not interested in avoiding a stoppage in football back then is a clear revision of history (but tht is your signature move, so, cheers!).

 

The economy was well on its way to "tanking" when the CBA was signed. The dollar was sliding, national debt was at record levels and others had been discussing the coming meltdown back in 2006. Sure enough, within months of the signing of the CBA, the DJI had lost 35% of its value.

 

Why did they dump the CBA, ultimately? My guess is that the teams with the newest stadiums coming on line (Cowboys, Jets/Giants) were forced to sell PSL's to finance their part of the stadium costs. This is counted, I am assuming, as revenue and this huge bolus of income made the current model impractical.

 

 

 

You don't get credit for voting against free money by signing up for it a year later.

 

If the deal in essence was that low revenue teams would, with a new CBA, get significantly more in supplimental shared revenue, there is absolutley no logic for any low revenue team to vote against it. It doesn't matter what the details are initially--the "uber-rich" owners were offering more free money. The pool of money was going to grow by 500%! Somebody's gonna get that money---most likely it's gonna be Ralph--he KNOWS he is the bottom 10. Are you saying Ralph was afraid, because of all the profit he tucks away , that the rules would be written to exclude guys like him (I have already suggested this)? So if he felt HE might be excluded, he should screw over the other low income tenants and vote against the CBA?

 

 

 

All teams are certainly allowed to spend to the cap every year (the fact that they don't means that there simply was no "farm giveaway"). Given Ralph's operating margin, he could easily have spent to the cap annually if he was willing to bury less money in his backyard in the state where he lives.

 

 

 

 

Players costs will escalate based on the market for them. They each negotiate their own deals separately. They get what an owner thinks they are worth. There is no across the board pay raise when the cap goes up. The cap was $128 m this year. $120m of that is covered by TV contracts. The lowest revenue team (Lions) grossed $208m. Your concerns about "competitive balance" are unsubstantiated. Look at MLB---3 of the highest spending teams the past 10 years (Mets, Yanks, Sox) have how many WS rings between them? Yet in a capped league it's all Steelers, Indy and NE the past 10 years.

 

In fact, the "low revenue" teams in the NFL, under this very CBA, are doing just fine. Of the 8 teams leaft in the playoffs at the Div level, 5 were in the bottom half of the revenue earners. 3 of them were within $3m of the Bills. Speaking of the Bills, in the 3 years of the current CBA, Ralph has seen his revenue jump 26% ($46m) while the cap has increased only 20% ($26m) so it's hard to make the argument that the CBA, with its increased cap has hurt Ralph, or the "low revenue" teams in the least. There are really only 3 (not 6-8) high revenue outliers in 2009.

 

Couple of things: I think you're mostly convincing (on balance), mostly because I'm willing to take Wilson on his word that he didn't actually read the CBA and was therefore clueless about it. In other words, I'm not about to give him credit for his willful ignorance. But your comparisons with baseball don't make any sense. With regard to FA, baseball players peak later and are therefore more likely to be in line for the big money into their 30s. In the NFL, while some are great players into their late 20s, they're the exception, not the rule. The attrition rate is ridiculously high, and the team that drafted you has you locked up for five years. I mean heck, Ed Reed may well retire, and we're not even surprised by that because we think he's an old timer (hello, Aaron Schobel!). Is he even 31??? Moreover, comparing baseball and football championships is a false one. For a slew of reasons, the best NFL teams win or reach the SB more often than not. In baseball, the best teams almost always make the playoffs, but once you get into a short series, all bets are off. The 2001 Mariners were one of the greatest teams in modern sports history, and they didn't even make it to the series. There are countless other examples of great teams folding in a five game series. It's apples and oranges, really. And let's not forget that the Yankees have made the playoffs 14 out of the past 15 seasons, won five world series, and have reached the series seven times.

[Doc]

I'm actually explaining why I think the owners voted nearly unanimously (small, mid and large market owners) for the CBA at the time. It was clearly in their best interests to do so at the time (you have yet to dedscribe why it was so "bad"---oh, wait, there was the "potential" 5% raise that the owners may have to give--if they wanted to) and to claim that they were not interested in avoiding a stoppage in football back then is a clear revision of history (but tht is your signature move, so, cheers!).

 

The economy was well on its way to "tanking" when the CBA was signed. The dollar was sliding, national debt was at record levels and others had been discussing the coming meltdown back in 2006. Sure enough, within months of the signing of the CBA, the DJI had lost 35% of its value.

 

Why did they dump the CBA, ultimately? My guess is that the teams with the newest stadiums coming on line (Cowboys, Jets/Giants) were forced to sell PSL's to finance their part of the stadium costs. This is counted, I am assuming, as revenue and this huge bolus of income made the current model impractical.

There were few signs when the owners opted-out (i.e. May of 2008), much less spring of 2006, or even spring of 2007 when talk first surfaced of them planning on opting-out at the earliest possible chance, that the economy was tanking. The DJIA was between 12,000-13,000 in the first half of 2008, only starting to tank in July. So there goes that theory. And even if there were signs way back in 2006, giving players a 4.5% raise would have been pretty stupid, no?

 

The excuse that it preserved "labor peace" was one of the biggest jokes, and ESPN showed it being uttered out of the mouth of Al Davis, if that tells you anything.

 

Look, it's pretty well-established that the owners should have gotten their act together WELL before the start of FA back in 2006, and told the NFLPA that if they didn't accept what they were proposing (which was just a 1.4% increase), then they could strike. There was no reason to play for 4 years under a bad CBA. And the "war chest" idea is silly. That's what the uncapped year is for, because while there is no ceiling, there is also no floor, and teams can spend as little as they want, saving money for the impending lockout.

[GrudginglyPessimistic]

Chuck Shumer would force himself into the nuclues of a hydrogen atom if he thought there was a vote inside.

 

Look, the "threat" of losing antitrust status is never taken seriously by the League because they know that it would never have support in the Senate. If you thought for a minute about the ramifications of the dissolution of the NFL's antitrust exemption, you would understand why. You would also would do everything in your power as a Bills fan to make sure this never, ever happened.

 

Schumer knows he is just blowing smoke---he understands that he will never have to back up his threat in Congress.

I think the thing that you may want to change in your thinking is that the important thing here is not simply the outcome (like you I agree that it is extremely unlikely that Congress would actually have a Senate that voted to curtail the limited exemption) but the key factor to the thing that the NFL cares about (aka the money) is likely very much influenced by not only the outcome of legislating (again I agree a negative outcome for the limited exemption is unlikely)

 

but the thing that will make a difference is merely the uncertainty caused by consideration of the idea.

 

The suits at the networks manage to put up billions of dollars for the NFL based on the virtual guarantee of labor peace and a lack of threats to the basic market. The NFL is not worried that politicians will actually change the exemption. However, the NFL would be stupid not to worry about what the suits at the networks worry about.

 

The networks are committing billions of dollars on the NFL continuing to deliver a viable product which actually depends right now on the NFL being able to use the antitrust exemption to collaborate with their alleged competitor teams to restrain the rights of the individual player to sell his services whatever price he can get to the highest bidder.

 

Quite frankly the current NFL model is pretty unAmerican in the way it stops an American citizen from offering his god-given football playing talent on a free market to the highest bidder, Instead, the government not only says it is legal for these allegedly competing businesses to restrain individual rights by divying up ownership in the draft, but itgives fukk legal force to a set of workers to conspire with these owners in the CBA to control individual trade.

 

Even double double worse these conspirators have taken this legalized abridgement of individual rights and unlike baseball, hockey, tennis, the X-Games or whatever and made it illegal for a team to purchase the rights of an adult before his college year of his birth graduates,

 

Outside of the fact that the non-capitalistic system works, delivers a better product as a whole and actually makes far more money for the owners than the a true capitalist system would the socialist compact called the NFL is just a wrong cutting of individual rights.

[Mr. WEO]

There were few signs when the owners opted-out (i.e. May of 2008), much less spring of 2006, or even spring of 2007 when talk first surfaced of them planning on opting-out at the earliest possible chance, that the economy was tanking. The DJIA was between 12,000-13,000 in the first half of 2008, only starting to tank in July. So there goes that theory. And even if there were signs way back in 2006, giving players a 4.5% raise would have been pretty stupid, no?

 

The excuse that it preserved "labor peace" was one of the biggest jokes, and ESPN showed it being uttered out of the mouth of Al Davis, if that tells you anything.

 

Look, it's pretty well-established that the owners should have gotten their act together WELL before the start of FA back in 2006, and told the NFLPA that if they didn't accept what they were proposing (which was just a 1.4% increase), then they could strike. There was no reason to play for 4 years under a bad CBA. And the "war chest" idea is silly. That's what the uncapped year is for, because while there is no ceiling, there is also no floor, and teams can spend as little as they want, saving money for the impending lockout.

It has already been established that the "bad" CBA did not the harm the owners in any way --at least you haven't yet provided any argument to the opposite---unless calling it "bad" IS your argument. In fact, you haven't put forth any rason as to why they signed that agreement--other than this group of savvy businessmen and veteran owners suddenly became "stupid". And then got "unstupid" a couple of years later? Strong argument--pretty much explains everything!

 

Having just inked record TV contracts, they didn't want to go right to a lockout or strike. That's not a tough concept for me to grasp. Davis's concern, perhaps far-fetched, was of a rival League enticing striking players away.

 

How is a team, next year, suddenly going to "spend as little as they want"? They are bound to the current players' contracts. Will they just dump all expensive players this off season and replacement them with cheap one year contract journeymen? Also--if Ralph is so worried about revenue and "competing", why would he voted for an uncapped NFL?

 

Labor peace exists in the NFL because of a CBA---you are the only person who disagrees with this obvious truth. The last CBA was set to expire in 07. Circumstances (disproportionate new income) changed. The owners opted out.

 

And, by the way, getting the players to agree to a deal that turns on a "4.5% raise" that the vast majority of them will never see is actually pretty smart. The owners obviously realize (you and the players do not) that most of any increase in the cap is going to be spent (only if an owner wishes) on a couple of FAs and few draft picks.

 

 

At any rate, your ignorance of the CBA agreement of 2006, RW's concerns about UNDEFINED QUALIFIERS, subsequent revelations by the owners that voted for it that they were mistaken, and a general lack of understanding of the economics of the league in general and small market teams in particular leads me to believe that I'm just wasting my time.

Out.

 

GO BILLS!!!

All I asked was for you to explain why it is logical or wise for a man would vote against unprecedented free money coming his way simply because he didn't know how much he was going to get (those "undefined qualifiers")---or at least describe what Ralph was worried about before he was told what those qualifiers were. You couldn't do this.

 

Anyway, I think I've put forward some details of the League's financial shape since the CBA went into effect and described in particular how the "low revenue" teams have faired finacially and, more importantly, on the field. Your responding argument consists wholly of .........."you don't understand". Your are wasting your time.

 

Couple of things: I think you're mostly convincing (on balance), mostly because I'm willing to take Wilson on his word that he didn't actually read the CBA and was therefore clueless about it. In other words, I'm not about to give him credit for his willful ignorance. But your comparisons with baseball don't make any sense. With regard to FA, baseball players peak later and are therefore more likely to be in line for the big money into their 30s. In the NFL, while some are great players into their late 20s, they're the exception, not the rule. The attrition rate is ridiculously high, and the team that drafted you has you locked up for five years. I mean heck, Ed Reed may well retire, and we're not even surprised by that because we think he's an old timer (hello, Aaron Schobel!). Is he even 31??? Moreover, comparing baseball and football championships is a false one. For a slew of reasons, the best NFL teams win or reach the SB more often than not. In baseball, the best teams almost always make the playoffs, but once you get into a short series, all bets are off. The 2001 Mariners were one of the greatest teams in modern sports history, and they didn't even make it to the series. There are countless other examples of great teams folding in a five game series. It's apples and oranges, really. And let's not forget that the Yankees have made the playoffs 14 out of the past 15 seasons, won five world series, and have reached the series seven times.

 

I agree that NFL and MLB are very different. The rosters are tiny in BB and there is little or no real physical wear and tear on most BB players--they spent nearly the entire game not moving at all. But I disagree that series play makes it less likely for the best team to win a WS. The opposite should be true--the better team should win a "best of" series, allowing for a bad game or two. In the NFL, a mediocre team can get hot in the playoffs and advance, eliminating better teams in a single "any given Sunday" game. Single elimination makes an upset more likely. See the Cards last year.

 

I think the thing that you may want to change in your thinking is that the important thing here is not simply the outcome (like you I agree that it is extremely unlikely that Congress would actually have a Senate that voted to curtail the limited exemption) but the key factor to the thing that the NFL cares about (aka the money) is likely very much influenced by not only the outcome of legislating (again I agree a negative outcome for the limited exemption is unlikely)

 

but the thing that will make a difference is merely the uncertainty caused by consideration of the idea.

 

The suits at the networks manage to put up billions of dollars for the NFL based on the virtual guarantee of labor peace and a lack of threats to the basic market. The NFL is not worried that politicians will actually change the exemption. However, the NFL would be stupid not to worry about what the suits at the networks worry about.

 

The networks are committing billions of dollars on the NFL continuing to deliver a viable product which actually depends right now on the NFL being able to use the antitrust exemption to collaborate with their alleged competitor teams to restrain the rights of the individual player to sell his services whatever price he can get to the highest bidder.

 

 

I agree that the leadership of the NFL owners is very concerned about preserving the most, by far, important source of revenue---the networks. The value to the network goes down when players are on strike or there is a lockout. This concept is so intuitive it should go without saying, but, for some, it requires repeating.....

 

I also agree that the NFL has unprecedented power over its players that no other major pro sports organization/ownership has. No NFL player is guaranteed a contract. They have only a portion of their contract guaranteed, if that. That's why it is so laughable to see some of these guys claim that the owners "got robbed" or "got bent over" by the players on the CBA. They have an incredibly disproportionally favorable situation vs. their players that is the envy of every owner of every other sport. If their owners took away guaranteeed contracts there would be no NBA or MLB.

 

I still disagree about the antitrust threat. Without that exemption, there would be no revenue to share because the League TV contracts would disappear as each team, as in MLB, would be free to make its own deal with networks--or just start their own ("JerryVision"?). This would be the quickest way to eliminate the small market teams. It just can't happen.

[Doc]

It has already been established that the "bad" CBA did not the harm the owners in any way --at least you haven't yet provided any argument to the opposite---unless calling it "bad" IS your argument. In fact, you haven't put forth any rason as to why they signed that agreement--other than this group of savvy businessmen and veteran owners suddenly became "stupid". And then got "unstupid" a couple of years later? Strong argument--pretty much explains everything!

 

Having just inked record TV contracts, they didn't want to go right to a lockout or strike. That's not a tough concept for me to grasp. Davis's concern, perhaps far-fetched, was of a rival League enticing striking players away.

 

How is a team, next year, suddenly going to "spend as little as they want"? They are bound to the current players' contracts. Will they just dump all expensive players this off season and replacement them with cheap one year contract journeymen? Also--if Ralph is so worried about revenue and "competing", why would he voted for an uncapped NFL?

 

Labor peace exists in the NFL because of a CBA---you are the only person who disagrees with this obvious truth. The last CBA was set to expire in 07. Circumstances (disproportionate new income) changed. The owners opted out.

 

And, by the way, getting the players to agree to a deal that turns on a "4.5% raise" that the vast majority of them will never see is actually pretty smart. The owners obviously realize (you and the players do not) that most of any increase in the cap is going to be spent (only if an owner wishes) on a couple of FAs and few draft picks.

"Pretty smart?" LOL! Yeah, that potential lockout in 2011 looks REAL smart. In face of the 13 years of true "labor peace" prior to 2006.

 

I already told you that they agreed to the CBA because the big 3 didn't want to have to cut players after the NFLPA refused to move the FA period back a 3rd time. What was actually "smart" was the players getting a 4.5% raise AND telling the larger markets to subsidize the smaller ones.

 

Speaking of which, take a look at NFL team payrolls pre-2006 to those over the past 4 years (http://content.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/salaries/totalpayroll.aspx?year=2005). Even if you factor-in the increase in revenue from the TV contracts, it's not even debatable that they saw a raise in pay.

 

You're a one man band here, doc. I'd dare you to find someone, ANYONE, who makes the absurd claim that that 2006 CBA was even a fair deal...for the owners.

[dave mcbride]

I agree that NFL and MLB are very different. The rosters are tiny in BB and there is little or no real physical wear and tear on most BB players--they spent nearly the entire game not moving at all. But I disagree that series play makes it less likely for the best team to win a WS. The opposite should be true--the better team should win a "best of" series, allowing for a bad game or two. In the NFL, a mediocre team can get hot in the playoffs and advance, eliminating better teams in a single "any given Sunday" game. Single elimination makes an upset more likely. See the Cards last year.

You're arguing by anecdote (cherry picking, as it were). Look at the SB participants over the past 20 years.

 

1989 - best team (14-2 SF) wins it; top two seeds make it

 

1990 - 2 of the three best teams (both 13-3 teams) make the bowl, one wins it.

 

1991 - two best teams make it; best team wins (Skins)

 

1992 - one of the two best teams wins against AFC team that was tied for the best conference record (11-5 Bills); (Cowboys were the great team that won; the other great team was SF)

 

1993 - best team wins again (Cowboys)

 

1994 - best team wins again (SF)

 

1995 - best team wins again (Dallas)

 

1996 - best team wins again (GB)

 

1997 - best team (GB) gets to SB; loses to probably the third best team (Denver; 12-4; had been 13-3 the year before)

 

1998 - best team wins (Denver)

 

1999 - 2 of the 3 best teams make it; best NFC team (Rams) wins it against 13-3 Titans

 

2000 - 2 of the 3 best teams make it (NYG - best record in NFC; 12-4 Ravens, who are one game behind 13-3 Titans)

 

2001 - top NFC seed makes it (14-2 Rams); second AFC seed (Pats) win it

 

2002 - two top seeds make it; best team wins it (Bucs)

 

2003 - best team wins (14-2 Pats)

 

2004 - best team (14-2 Pats) wins against top NFC team (13-3 Eagles)

 

2005 - WC (11-5 Steelers; had been 15-1 the year before) beats top NFC seed (13-3 Seahawks)

 

2006 - great team that happens to be a 4th seed (Indy - 12-4) beats the top NFC seed (13-3 Bears)

 

2007 - top seed (16-0 Pats) loses to WC team

 

2008 - second best team (12-4 Pitt; TN was 13-3) beats weak team (Cardinals)