BillnutinHouston Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Albert Breer reported that he had just spoken to the Jags' owner (Wayne Weaver?) off camera. Breer reported that the Jags owner told him that while he was very unhappy with the last revenue sharing plan (from 2006), he was "very happy" with the one that the owners just approved today. If this perception is accurate and we extrapolate this news to the Bills, it could very well mean that the Bills as a business entity have the potential to remain financially strong and viable in WNY through the duration of the 10-year agreement. Good news as I see it - possibly the big news of the day for Buffalo fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Let's hope. And again, this could all have been done back in 2006. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corp000085 Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Let's hope. And again, this could all have been done back in 2006. Too bad there were 30 owners and 3000 media talking heads who ignored Ralph Wilson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clancynut Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 (edited) Mark Gaughan is reporting that Ralph Wilson worked very hard to make sure revenue sharing was part of the agreement. Is the improved revenue sharing agreement a nod towards Ralph for having the foresight about the 2006 agreement? Edited July 22, 2011 by clancynut Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Avenger Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Overall I think what's going to make the small market teams like Buffalo and Jacksonville happy is a lower cap floor number that will allow them to spend less on payroll. That may make small market team owners happy, but it has the potential to divide the league between the teams who have money and spend it (Dallas, NE) and teams who don't (Buffalo, Jax, Cle) - hard to see how we would become competitive in a system like that - just look at baseball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattM Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Overall I think what's going to make the small market teams like Buffalo and Jacksonville happy is a lower cap floor number that will allow them to spend less on payroll. That may make small market team owners happy, but it has the potential to divide the league between the teams who have money and spend it (Dallas, NE) and teams who don't (Buffalo, Jax, Cle) - hard to see how we would become competitive in a system like that - just look at baseball. Actually it's the opposite. The new CBA has a higher floor (90%) than the prior deal.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scrappy Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 If they all agree, then it's bad for the players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillnutinHouston Posted July 22, 2011 Author Share Posted July 22, 2011 (edited) Overall I think what's going to make the small market teams like Buffalo and Jacksonville happy is a lower cap floor number that will allow them to spend less on payroll. That may make small market team owners happy, but it has the potential to divide the league between the teams who have money and spend it (Dallas, NE) and teams who don't (Buffalo, Jax, Cle) - hard to see how we would become competitive in a system like that - just look at baseball. Neither of us know the plan details yet, but I have 2 counterpoints for you: 1) The higher cap floor that you fear MAY very well be offset on the revenue side by the more favorable revenue sharing arrangement: with (relatively) more money shifting to the smaller market teams than had been the case before, it offsets the higher cap floor - thus putting the smaller market teams in a better position relative to their larger market rivals. 2) The establishment of a cap floor prevents any team from significantly underspending relative to other teams - thus NARROWING the competitive gap among the teams, not widening it. Mark Gaughan is reporting that Ralph Wilson worked very hard to make sure revenue sharing was part of the agreement. Is the improved revenue sharing agreement a nod towards Ralph for having the foresight about the 2006 agreement? Good point. I'm sure THIS TIME the Bills were like EF Hutton. When they talked, people listened. Edited July 22, 2011 by BillnutinHouston Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sllib olaffub Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 As far as the smaller market teams not being able to compete - I offer the Tampa Bay Bucs as a good example of why that is not always the case. They finished with a 10-6 record, had a pretty decent team that is young and is expected to be as good if not better this year. I think people assume too quickly that money can buy success in football, when that has more often than not proven to be innaccurate. Look at Washington. I believe that football is such a team sport, more so than baseball and basketball, and that the actual measurable difference between great and average players is almost always almost zero - I mean, the great players are usually great because they want it more, not because they are so much faster or stronger than anyone else in the leaugue. These factors make football the type of sport where discipline, good coaching, smart playcalling, team play, all have a bigger impact than most high profile rosters. There are exceptions - where one or a few players are so dominant at their positions that they impact a team, like Manning, Brady, (I believe Suh and Fairley will have that effect, too) but, any team under the conditions of the new CBA can pay for a few superstars. I believe the NFL is changing, and that it has more to do with rookies, with getting the most out of young players, and knowing when to get rid of aging players - New England, unfortunately, has a good grasp on that - anyway, I bet teams that stick to the rigid discipline and smart coaching/teaching of players will be able to compete and probably beat teams that rely too much on buying talent - which often times only worked or was "talented" because of the system they were in (Heynsworth). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Let's hope. And again, this could all have been done back in 2006. Only if D Smith was union president then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Only if D Smith was union president then. Nope. If only they had the balls to stand up to Upshaw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Let's hope. And again, this could all have been done back in 2006. Yeah but Tagliabue was intent on getting CBA approval as the final significant act of his tenure (he retired later that year). Tags thought labor peace and avoiding a work stoppage would help secure his legacy. Ironically he's come under heavy criticism for railroading the 2006 deal through and it has put a little tarnish on his legacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Neither of us know the plan details yet, but I have 2 counterpoints for you: 1) The higher cap floor that you fear MAY very well be offset on the revenue side by the more favorable revenue sharing arrangement: with (relatively) more money shifting to the smaller market teams than had been the case before, it offsets the higher cap floor - thus putting the smaller market teams in a better position relative to their larger market rivals. 2) The establishment of a cap floor prevents any team from significantly underspending relative to other teams - thus NARROWING the competitive gap among the teams, not widening it. Good point. I'm sure THIS TIME the Bills were like EF Hutton. When they talked, people listened. The 2006 CBA was, by far, the most generous revenue sharing deal amongst the owners in the history of the league and Ralph voted against that. Nope. If only they had the balls to stand up to Upshaw. Upshaw wasn't budging from 60% doc, No matter how desperately you want to rewrite history, this fact remains unchanged. Any player with a calculator will realize that D Smith gave up a ton of cash with his accepting only 48% of total revenues. There would never had been a rookie pay scale with Upshaw. There would never have been a 10 year deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Hammersticks Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Overall I think what's going to make the small market teams like Buffalo and Jacksonville happy is a lower cap floor number that will allow them to spend less on payroll. That may make small market team owners happy, but it has the potential to divide the league between the teams who have money and spend it (Dallas, NE) and teams who don't (Buffalo, Jax, Cle) - hard to see how we would become competitive in a system like that - just look at baseball. Actually it's the opposite. The new CBA has a higher floor (90%) than the prior deal.... I may be mistaken...but I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that the cap floor is only being raised like 1.5 percent. Not really all that significant when you think about it. I believe ghost of Rob Johnson cited something about this in another thread....I'll look for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo Barbarian Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Albert Breer reported that he had just spoken to the Jags' owner (Wayne Weaver?) off camera. Breer reported that the Jags owner told him that while he was very unhappy with the last revenue sharing plan (from 2006), he was "very happy" with the one that the owners just approved today. If this perception is accurate and we extrapolate this news to the Bills, it could very well mean that the Bills as a business entity have the potential to remain financially strong and viable in WNY through the duration of the 10-year agreement. Good news as I see it - possibly the big news of the day for Buffalo fans. 0:) Overall I think what's going to make the small market teams like Buffalo and Jacksonville happy is a lower cap floor number that will allow them to spend less on payroll. That may make small market team owners happy, but it has the potential to divide the league between the teams who have money and spend it (Dallas, NE) and teams who don't (Buffalo, Jax, Cle) - hard to see how we would become competitive in a system like that - just look at baseball. What that really means is we need a new owner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 The 2006 CBA was, by far, the most generous revenue sharing deal amongst the owners in the history of the league and Ralph voted against that. Your point being? If the pending 2011 deal is more generous, what's wrong with giving Ralph a little bit of credit for influencing what happened? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Your point being? If the pending 2011 deal is more generous, what's wrong with giving Ralph a little bit of credit for influencing what happened? Credit for what? voting against the last revenue sharing deal? He did so because he was worried it he wouldn't qualify due to the revenue threshold the Bills might be above to receive this charity. There is no indication Ralph had any involvement in the 2011 negotiations. How can you attribute any influence to him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Credit for what? voting against the last revenue sharing deal? He did so because he was worried it he wouldn't qualify due to the revenue threshold the Bills might be above to receive this charity. There is no indication Ralph had any involvement in the 2011 negotiations. How can you attribute any influence to him? Did you read post #4 in this thread? I'd call that "some" indication. But I understand it's not en vogue to do anything other than lambast the Bills owner. Carry on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 (edited) Upshaw wasn't budging from 60% doc, No matter how desperately you want to rewrite history, this fact remains unchanged. Any player with a calculator will realize that D Smith gave up a ton of cash with his accepting only 48% of total revenues. There would never had been a rookie pay scale with Upshaw. There would never have been a 10 year deal. The actual percentage the players were getting under the Upshaw/Tag deal is 49-50%. After you slice off the top $1B of revenue going to the owners for expenses and then factor in bottom feeding owners (think Ralph Wilson) who didn't spend close to the cap the percentages for the players in this new deal (from a percentage standpoint)is basically the same. Under the current deal the players get better health and retirement benefits for the lower percentage and shyster owners like Ralph will have to increase their payrolls. The players will not be making less money. The money under the rookie pay scale that the top tier draft pick lose goes directly to the veteran players. Both the players and owners are in a accord with that particular salary restructuring. It was never fair for a high first round qb draft pick to get more $$$ than Brady and Manning get. Although you might think you know what a Upshaw deal would look like in today's world you don't. Times change and labor and financial environments' change. You make the best deal you can make from an owner/labor perspective and when the deal expires you negotiate a new deal within the context of the current times and circumstances. There would never had been a rookie pay scale with Upshaw. There would never have been a 10 year deal. How do you know that? Do you communicate with him in a seance? Edited July 22, 2011 by JohnC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 (edited) I have always been confused over the notion that teams with more money can win more consistently given the presence of a salary cap. The cap is the same for everyone, you can't spend over it even if you have it. Spreading signing bonuses out over the life of the contract can result in more actual money being spent in a given year than the cap allows but over time and I guess some teams might not be have that kind of money. But eventually the signing bonus money has to be accounted for and teams that didn't spend big bucks on those would have more cap room than teams that did. The cap is determined based on actual revenues divided by the number of teams so its not as if any teams don't have enough money to spend as much as the cap is.<div><br></div><div> So what is the problem as far as competition is concerned? How does having more money allow a team to spend more on players than others given the salary cap? Do we just need a harder cap? </div> Edited July 22, 2011 by Mickey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts