hondo in seattle Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 An interesting note from PFT: There will be a tax on the higher revenue teams. Lower revenue teams like Buffalo will receive proceeds from this tax. "When the NFL approved a labor deal to which the NFLPA* hadn’t, and still hasn’t, agreed, the league surprisingly announced a new supplemental revenue sharing plan... Per a source with knowledge of the details of the arrangement, the new supplemental revenue sharing plan includes a 10-percent tax on the “local revenue” of the highest-revenue teams. The money will be distributed to the lowest-revenue teams." http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/23/report-nflpa-expected-to-meet-monday-recommend-ratification-of-deal/related Is this part of the final deal? Anyone know any details? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 Hey Hondo. Here's the permalink for that story you posted. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/23/new-revenue-sharing-plan-features-tax-on-highest-earning-teams/ Two questions come up in my mind. First of all, how does this supplemental revenue sharing differ from the one in the last CBA? None of us know yet of course. There is a term they use "local revenue" which is not explained. Bottom line though is that the Bills and Bengals voted for the CBA whereas they voted against the last one. In spite of the Raiders abstaining, I think this is probably a sign that when they ran the numbers through different scenarios, the Bills liked what they saw. As to you question, there was this quote and also previous reports that the supplemental revenue sharing issue was part of what the owners approved and also one of the things that the players were unaware would be in the summary proposal: "The NFLPA* has objected, sort of, to the decision of the NFL to include revenue sharing in the approved deal. However, the NFLPA* had every opportunity to focus on this issue during negotiations, and the NFLPA* chose not to do so." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo Barbarian Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 An interesting note from PFT: There will be a tax on the higher revenue teams. Lower revenue teams like Buffalo will receive proceeds from this tax. "When the NFL approved a labor deal to which the NFLPA* hadn’t, and still hasn’t, agreed, the league surprisingly announced a new supplemental revenue sharing plan... Per a source with knowledge of the details of the arrangement, the new supplemental revenue sharing plan includes a 10-percent tax on the “local revenue” of the highest-revenue teams. The money will be distributed to the lowest-revenue teams." http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/23/report-nflpa-expected-to-meet-monday-recommend-ratification-of-deal/related Is this part of the final deal? Anyone know any details? For teams to be competitive they all need to be on equal footing. It's not the capitalist way of doing things and I would be against it in the regular market but sports aren't regular business and are here only for our entertainment thus robin hood needs to steal from the rich and give to the poor to keep the league strong throughout its markets big or small. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hondo in seattle Posted July 24, 2011 Author Share Posted July 24, 2011 Hey Hondo. Here's the permalink for that story you posted. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/23/new-revenue-sharing-plan-features-tax-on-highest-earning-teams/ Two questions come up in my mind. First of all, how does this supplemental revenue sharing differ from the one in the last CBA? None of us know yet of course. There is a term they use "local revenue" which is not explained. Bottom line though is that the Bills and Bengals voted for the CBA whereas they voted against the last one. In spite of the Raiders abstaining, I think this is probably a sign that when they ran the numbers through different scenarios, the Bills liked what they saw. As to you question, there was this quote and also previous reports that the supplemental revenue sharing issue was part of what the owners approved and also one of the things that the players were unaware would be in the summary proposal: "The NFLPA* has objected, sort of, to the decision of the NFL to include revenue sharing in the approved deal. However, the NFLPA* had every opportunity to focus on this issue during negotiations, and the NFLPA* chose not to do so." SJ Bills Fan, thanks for the response. Yeah, I also noticed that Cinci and Buffalo voted to approve this CBA, unlike last time. Wondering if this deal makes the Bills' likelihood of staying in Buffalo any greater. Btw, I lived in the Bay Area for many years - in San Ramon. Wish I had your weather here in Seattle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilsner Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 For teams to be competitive they all need to be on equal footing. It's not the capitalist way of doing things and I would be against it in the regular market but sports aren't regular business and are here only for our entertainment thus robin hood needs to steal from the rich and give to the poor to keep the league strong throughout its markets big or small. You said it better than I could have. It's def not the capitalist way. But it will keep the lower revenue teams relevant and therefor supply the league with a good number of teams to sustain it's existence. Overall I'm not a fan of propping up a business long term if it can't stay above water on it's own merits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 You said it better than I could have. It's def not the capitalist way. But it will keep the lower revenue teams relevant and therefor supply the league with a good number of teams to sustain it's existence. Overall I'm not a fan of propping up a business long term if it can't stay above water on it's own merits. In this day and age, it seems like our priorities are kind fugged up... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilsner Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 In this day and age, it seems like our priorities are kind fugged up... Yeppers, fugged up indeed. Common sense isn't as common anymore. Soon to be uncommon sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hondo in seattle Posted July 24, 2011 Author Share Posted July 24, 2011 For teams to be competitive they all need to be on equal footing. It's not the capitalist way of doing things and I would be against it in the regular market but sports aren't regular business and are here only for our entertainment thus robin hood needs to steal from the rich and give to the poor to keep the league strong throughout its markets big or small. Actually this is quite capitalistic. It's not unusual for a big company to maintain a presence in a market even when that presence costs them money. For example, NFL Europe survived for several years, despite huge losses, because the NFL hoped to build a fan base in Europe that would eventually create another revenue stream. Jerry Jones supports helping smaller market teams simply because it's in his best financial interest to do so. By maintaining franchises in a selection of cities (and not only in mega-cities), the NFL maintains itself as a national brand with widespread relevance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
May Day 10 Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 I am shocked. small markets are vastly outnumbered now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobChalmers Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 (edited) Actually this is quite capitalistic. It's not unusual for a big company to maintain a presence in a market even when that presence costs them money. For example, NFL Europe survived for several years, despite huge losses, because the NFL hoped to build a fan base in Europe that would eventually create another revenue stream. Jerry Jones supports helping smaller market teams simply because it's in his best financial interest to do so. By maintaining franchises in a selection of cities (and not only in mega-cities), the NFL maintains itself as a national brand with widespread relevance. BINGO Don't think of the NFL as 32 different companies. That's how people confuse themselves thinking there should be a free market between teams. The NFL is one big company with 32 franchises. Edited July 24, 2011 by BobChalmers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shibuya Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 could be the saving grace for keeping the Bills in Buffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 (edited) Revenue sharing has been in existence for many years. It was present in the last CBA--at the insistence of the union. Edited July 24, 2011 by Mr. WEO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Offside Number 76 Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 (edited) BINGO Don't think of the NFL as 32 different companies. That's how people confuse themselves thinking there should be a free market between teams. The NFL is one big company with 32 franchises. You said it before I could. I know what the recent Supreme Court ruling said, and I also know that the reality is that it's one business, albeit one with franchises that compete against one another. Also, anyone who is against revenue sharing should take a serious look at MLB and the English Premier League. Is that what we want? Edited July 24, 2011 by Offsides Number 76 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BADOLBILZ Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 An interesting note from PFT: There will be a tax on the higher revenue teams. Lower revenue teams like Buffalo will receive proceeds from this tax. "When the NFL approved a labor deal to which the NFLPA* hadn’t, and still hasn’t, agreed, the league surprisingly announced a new supplemental revenue sharing plan... Per a source with knowledge of the details of the arrangement, the new supplemental revenue sharing plan includes a 10-percent tax on the “local revenue” of the highest-revenue teams. The money will be distributed to the lowest-revenue teams." http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/23/report-nflpa-expected-to-meet-monday-recommend-ratification-of-deal/related Is this part of the final deal? Anyone know any details? Sharing 10% seems like a concession, but I have a feeling that the floodgates are about to open on the local revenue. I think that guys like JJ and Kraft have been holding back a bit on some of their local revenue potential in anticipation of the moment when they could get a hard and fast number in place of how much they would need to share to keep the other owners quiet. What I mean is that they may have been intentionally underproducing to get the small market owners to bite on 10% instead of demanding closer to half. This kind of crooked dealing is consistent with how JJ and Kraft have done business. Additionally, a team like the Giants, who have traditionally "done the right thing" for the league now no longer has to stand up for the cause of small markets, and in fact will be hurting themselves by NOT maximizing local revenue. In short, 10% is better than nothing but keep in mind that 50% would STILL give the big market teams a huge advantage because that other 50% would have to be split evenly among the bottom feeders while the big market would keep half of their local pie to themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 Revenue sharing has been in existence for many years. It was present in the last CBA--at the insistence of the union. The NFLPA insisted on it in 2006, but this time around didn't care. And revenue sharing wasn't defined when they initially voted on the 2006 CBA. This revenue sharing plan is far more generous to the lowest revenue teams, which the Bills weren't the past 5 years. Sharing 10% seems like a concession, but I have a feeling that the floodgates are about to open on the local revenue. I think that guys like JJ and Kraft have been holding back a bit on some of their local revenue potential in anticipation of the moment when they could get a hard and fast number in place of how much they would need to share to keep the other owners quiet. What I mean is that they may have been intentionally underproducing to get the small market owners to bite on 10% instead of demanding closer to half. This kind of crooked dealing is consistent with how JJ and Kraft have done business. Additionally, a team like the Giants, who have traditionally "done the right thing" for the league now no longer has to stand up for the cause of small markets, and in fact will be hurting themselves by NOT maximizing local revenue. In short, 10% is better than nothing but keep in mind that 50% would STILL give the big market teams a huge advantage because that other 50% would have to be split evenly among the bottom feeders while the big market would keep half of their local pie to themselves. Doesn't make sense. If they were holding back on "local revenue" streams, they were denying themselves 100% of that money up until now. And if they DO tap into those streams, the lowest revenue teams get 10% of a bigger pie. 10% is a decent amount and greater than what they got last time around. Going above that just makes getting a deal done that much harder. And 50% was never ever going to happen. BTW, we can all thank Ralph for this, as it helps the Bills' long-term (i.e. post-Ralph) viability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillnutinHouston Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 I guess the OP and several others of you never saw this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilsner Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 (edited) Don't think of the NFL as 32 different companies. That's how people confuse themselves thinking there should be a free market between teams. The NFL is one big company with 32 franchises. This is a good clarification along with what Hondo said. Now it makes more sense to me. I think in my drunken stupor last night when I posted things were a bit hazey. Edited July 24, 2011 by Pilsner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 I think in my drunken stupor last night when I posted things were a bit hazey. Hazy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilsner Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 Hazy? lol apparently I'm still a bit hazy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BADOLBILZ Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 The NFLPA insisted on it in 2006, but this time around didn't care. And revenue sharing wasn't defined when they initially voted on the 2006 CBA. This revenue sharing plan is far more generous to the lowest revenue teams, which the Bills weren't the past 5 years. Doesn't make sense. If they were holding back on "local revenue" streams, they were denying themselves 100% of that money up until now. And if they DO tap into those streams, the lowest revenue teams get 10% of a bigger pie. 10% is a decent amount and greater than what they got last time around. Going above that just makes getting a deal done that much harder. And 50% was never ever going to happen. BTW, we can all thank Ralph for this, as it helps the Bills' long-term (i.e. post-Ralph) viability. If you have a biz partner, and you pick up some side business that is the direct result of your partnership, and you know that partner thinks he should get a cut of that biz, do you max out your profit making potential and then settle it with him later, or do you keep it modest for a while to get yourself a cheap 10% deal agreed to and THEN max your profits. I do business with people everyday who IF THEY THINK YOU ARE MAKING A LOT OF MONEY will want to be paid more for the same good or service they are providing. Whether they are doing anything to earn it or not. That is just human nature. Guys like JJ and Kraft have shown disdain for revenue sharing for years. Don't think for a minute that they don't see the other owners as people they do business with rather than partners in the same company. If they did, they would have been sharing that revenue in the past. I hate to break it to you, but 10% isn't jack sh*t when it has to be split between 20 other clubs. Let's say the Cowboys generate $100M from local revenue. That leaves $10M to be split among 20 teams. So the Bills would get a 500k cut while the Cowboys have access to an additional $90M. If there are 10 teams like the Cowboys that number improves to $90M to $5M. Better than nothing? Yes. Again, this is all speculation and I don't know the details but on the surface the idea of taxing should raise a red flag. It is not any kind of substitute for revenue sharing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts