syhuang Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 Assuming 9.2 billion revenues last year, under the old CBA, players got (at most) 60% of 8.2 billion, or 4.92 billion. Under the new contract (assuming this report is accurate) they would have gotten 4.42 billion---a 1/2 billion less. Even if you say the players only got 53% under the old CBA, that's 4.35 billion. If the owners use the same accounting that turned 60% into 53% on the old CBA, in the new CBA they will likely knock 48% to 46% or 4.23 billion (102 million less). Just one small correction, what Smith said about 53% was of all revenues, not after owners took 1 billion. Basically it's the same thing, (9.2 - 1) * 59% ~= 9.2 * 53%. I think he just tried to make it clear that players didn't take 59% or 60% of all revenues since they took 59% after owners took 1 billion first, which is equivalent to 53% of all revenues last year. "NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith has stated that players were actually receiving around 53 percent of all revenues instead of the much advertised 60 percent. " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hplarrm Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 Surprised that nobody yet has commented on this paragraph from the article: "The higher floor proposal could cause some problems for the lower revenue teams such as the Cincinnati Bengals and the Buffalo Bills. Along with the salary cap, teams have to pay an average of about $27 million a year in benefits." I think in part its because Mr. Ralph really lacks credibility among even us Bills supporters. No one knows for sure what the strategy is (move in part or in whole to Toronto, do not move but re-emphasize its part of Bills territory to extort some cash for invading our territory from Rogers or whoever owns the Toronto team, move elsewhere, stay here, whatever. Despite the bleatings of legends in their own mind like Sully mo one know for sure so it is hard to comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted June 21, 2011 Author Share Posted June 21, 2011 Who has the Thursday games? NFLN? Hope not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockinon Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 Surprised that nobody yet has commented on this paragraph from the article: "The higher floor proposal could cause some problems for the lower revenue teams such as the Cincinnati Bengals and the Buffalo Bills. Along with the salary cap, teams have to pay an average of about $27 million a year in benefits." I guess I just don't get the reason why the Bills are always mentioned as a small market team. Our stadium is one of the largest in the league and we pack it more than most teams do, first. The other thing is that we all ready spend very close to the cap every year. So when journalist hem & haw about Buffalo's small market year in and year out, and worry over how teams can cope, I tend to think it's more a matter of regurgitating the same old common misconception. Is the area less populated, yes. But when people think that the Bills organization doesn't prosper due to insignificant sales, they are off the mark. I live in Potsdam, NY now, a 5-6 hour drive and still manage to make it to a game now and then. I know Ralph likes Buffalo to be portrayed as a small market so he can argue for revenue sharing, but I have seen the stadium sold out too many times to believe it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted June 21, 2011 Author Share Posted June 21, 2011 Just one small correction, what Smith said about 53% was of all revenues, not after owners took 1 billion. Basically it's the same thing, (9.2 - 1) * 59% ~= 9.2 * 53%. I think he just tried to make it clear that players didn't take 59% or 60% of all revenues since they took 59% after owners took 1 billion first, which is equivalent to 53% of all revenues last year. "NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith has stated that players were actually receiving around 53 percent of all revenues instead of the much advertised 60 percent. " I don't know---even the "much advertised 60%" was always meant to mean "after the billion exemption" in the 2006 CBA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 I guess I just don't get the reason why the Bills are always mentioned as a small market team. Our stadium is one of the largest in the league and we pack it more than most teams do, first. The other thing is that we all ready spend very close to the cap every year. So when journalist hem & haw about Buffalo's small market year in and year out, and worry over how teams can cope, I tend to think it's more a matter of regurgitating the same old common misconception. Is the area less populated, yes. But when people think that the Bills organization doesn't prosper due to insignificant sales, they are off the mark. I live in Potsdam, NY now, a 5-6 hour drive and still manage to make it to a game now and then. I know Ralph likes Buffalo to be portrayed as a small market so he can argue for revenue sharing, but I have seen the stadium sold out too many times to believe it. Yes, except we don't really fill the stadium. We haven't sold out late season games for a while. (And this year we have 3 December games.) Plus everything from the cheap seats to the luxury boxes go for about 1/3 less than the rest of the NFL. I think it's pretty obvious our revenues are considerably lower. PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 My overarching concern in all this is how the end result is going to affect the ability of the Buffalo Bills to remain in Buffalo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syhuang Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 I don't know---even the "much advertised 60%" was always meant to mean "after the billion exemption" in the 2006 CBA. My take is that there are lots of fans out there aren't familiar with the detail and just see the 59% or 60% numbers while they aren't aware of the 1 billion exemption in last CBA. It probably prompts Smith to make a clarification like his statement as following. Besides, he does say 53% of all revenues and it matches what they got last year, ie. 59% of the share pool (total revenues minus 1 billion). "NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith has stated that players were actually receiving around 53 percent of all revenues instead of the much advertised 60 percent. " This is just my take though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 Yeah that stood out to me as well. So they want to have a Thursday game every week of the season? If so that seems a bit much. Also, won't that cut into college football's weeknight games? I watch about 2 college games every year. On the other hand, I'm an NFL junkie so having a full slate of Thursday Night games wouldn't bother me in the least. I remain against expanding the schedule to anything more than 16 games per team though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 Article says minimum 90-93% of the cap. The Bills' cash to cap approach will need to be adjusted upwards. It is going to be interesting to see if Ralph Wilson votes against the eventual deal because of this required 90-93% cap expenditure clause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 The Bills have been in the top-20 of total payroll for most the past decade, save for 2006 (right after the new CBA was signed) and for the first couple years of the decade, as TD tried to fix the cap mess left by Butler. IOW, there are a lot of other teams who will (also) have a problem with the 90% cap floor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvermike Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 Does anyone know what the actual league payroll was in 2010? Regardless of the cap, and how it was calculated (and whether or not there was one), how much compensation did the players get in 2010 versus how much will they get in 2011? The salary floor might capture more dollars than the cap-drop gives up. Anyway, it's sounding like a fair deal for both sides. And really, if they get it done soon, the fans really didn't suffer for all that. We'll have free agency in July instead of March. No harm done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CowgirlsFan Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 Yeah that stood out to me as well. So they want to have a Thursday game every week of the season? If so that seems a bit much. Also, won't that cut into college football's weeknight games? September 1 would cut in college football the worst. There are quite a few that night. As it stands now the season isn't starting until the Thursday September 8th game. That night there is a college game or two but going forward for the most part there is only one or two games each Thursday until the middle of December. There is something else to consider choosing to play NFL games on every Thursday. Many high schools play their games on that night too and ratings would suffer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jumbalaya Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 According to the article, Smith estimates players were really getting 53% of "all revenue" under the old deal, so dropping to 48% is significant. The players are accepting a simpler formula and banking on the league's growth potential. The more interesting discussions, in my opinion, are in the owners meetings. I envision the cliques of owners recruiting/persuading/strong-arming others to either sign on or fight the proposal. I'd love to be a fly on the wall in those meetings. The players get 48% but rookies are locked in low end contracts for 4 years, with the average player lasting about 3.5 years this will create very rich top end players and leave many more players... those that get hurt with very limited earning potential; while Average players will get cut after four years and be replaced by low cost rookies. Seems to me that teams like Dallas, WAshington, etc will extravagantly overpay for top end talent, even more so than today. September 1 would cut in college football the worst. There are quite a few that night. As it stands now the season isn't starting until the Thursday September 8th game. That night there is a college game or two but going forward for the most part there is only one or two games each Thursday until the middle of December. There is something else to consider choosing to play NFL games on every Thursday. Many high schools play their games on that night too and ratings would suffer. Football will be over-exposed and the season will last way too long, just like baseball, basketball and hockey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 The players get 48% but rookies are locked in low end contracts for 4 years, with the average player lasting about 3.5 years this will create very rich top end players and leave many more players... those that get hurt with very limited earning potential; while Average players will get cut after four years and be replaced by low cost rookies. Seems to me that teams like Dallas, WAshington, etc will extravagantly overpay for top end talent, even more so than today. Football will be over-exposed and the season will last way too long, just like baseball, basketball and hockey. No chance of that happening IMHO. Football's charm is that EVERY game is important since there are so few of them. The other major sports leagues don't capture everyone's attention until the post season. Football OTOH, rivets fans from the opening kickoff and it just keeps building from there until it culminates in a ratings bonanza SB. Now, if the NFL EVER players an 82 game schedule then, yeah, people will tune out. Then again, there won't be any healthy players by the end of the year. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsrcursed Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 September 1 would cut in college football the worst. There are quite a few that night. As it stands now the season isn't starting until the Thursday September 8th game. That night there is a college game or two but going forward for the most part there is only one or two games each Thursday until the middle of December. There is something else to consider choosing to play NFL games on every Thursday. Many high schools play their games on that night too and ratings would suffer. I thought only Freshman/JV teams played on Thursdays, with Varsity playing Friday Nights?? WRT College Football, most games played on Thursday nights aren't going to compete with NFL games, so moving forward I'm sure College Football would simply move those games to other nights.... hell they moved their bowl games on Jan. 1st for the NFL this upcoming season... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CowgirlsFan Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 I thought only Freshman/JV teams played on Thursdays, with Varsity playing Friday Nights?? WRT College Football, most games played on Thursday nights aren't going to compete with NFL games, so moving forward I'm sure College Football would simply move those games to other nights.... hell they moved their bowl games on Jan. 1st for the NFL this upcoming season... I am from Arlington Texas midway between Dallas and Fort Worth. Varsity games are played here on Thursday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yungmack Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 I guess I just don't get the reason why the Bills are always mentioned as a small market team. Our stadium is one of the largest in the league and we pack it more than most teams do, first. The other thing is that we all ready spend very close to the cap every year. So when journalist hem & haw about Buffalo's small market year in and year out, and worry over how teams can cope, I tend to think it's more a matter of regurgitating the same old common misconception. Is the area less populated, yes. But when people think that the Bills organization doesn't prosper due to insignificant sales, they are off the mark. I live in Potsdam, NY now, a 5-6 hour drive and still manage to make it to a game now and then. I know Ralph likes Buffalo to be portrayed as a small market so he can argue for revenue sharing, but I have seen the stadium sold out too many times to believe it. The league also pretends that the Bills fan base and potential for an enthusiastic following somehow peters out and dies right in the middle of the Peace Bridge, as if Canada really didn't exist. If you consider the Toronto/lower Ontario area as capable of receiving broadcasts, and possibly having an interest in football, as a rational person or business would do, then the Bills actually are in one of the bigger markets in North America. The league cannot be unaware of that mass of humanity that begins as soon as you cross the bridge, yet it goes on acting as if it doesn't exist. I find that weird, and worthy of a conspiracy theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsrcursed Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 I am from Arlington Texas midway between Dallas and Fort Worth. Varsity games are played here on Thursday. Hmmm, I thought the movie (and show) Friday Night Lights was based on a High School team from Texas? I wonder why they'd play games on Thursday nights instead of Fridays... that would indeed suck for those kids who'd have to miss NFL games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted June 22, 2011 Author Share Posted June 22, 2011 No chance of that happening IMHO. Football's charm is that EVERY game is important since there are so few of them. The other major sports leagues don't capture everyone's attention until the post season. Football OTOH, rivets fans from the opening kickoff and it just keeps building from there until it culminates in a ratings bonanza SB. Now, if the NFL EVER players an 82 game schedule then, yeah, people will tune out. Then again, there won't be any healthy players by the end of the year. GO BILLS!!! Absolutely! Football fans will watch any and all games on TV--even buy the NFL Ticket. Not true for any other sport--except for gambling addicts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts