papazoid Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 When the salary cap jumped from $123 million to $133 million last week, some suggested it could move to $140 million in 2015 and $150 million in 2016. Think higher. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/03/07/cap-could-hit-160-million-in-2016/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 This is a bad thing for the Bills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrags Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 This is a bad thing for the Bills. how so??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 how so??? There is a conversation in the Byrd thread 20 or so pages in with k-9 & I that goes into a little more detail but I will try to briefly explain. The non shared revenues are driving the cap higher and higher but while someone like SF with their new stadium may be getting $50M a year for suite rev (for example) Buffalo makes $7M. The cap is determined as a % of the sum. While the SF, NY, Dallas', etc... are raising these large numbers that drive the cap not everyone is seeing an equal share. You are starting to see it with these large jumps in the cap. There will come a point where the cap is driven past the revenues that these small market teams with older stadiums can compete with. This in short is why Mr. Wilson voted against that CBA. This also is the major reason that the Toronto series existed (to find a creative way to offset the revenue gaps). Make sense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 how so??? The Bills already spend approx. 65% of their revenues on player costs, of which salary is only a part of. Compared to teams that spend only 35% of revenues on player costs, that's quite a stark contrast.That will increase as salary cap goes up. It remains to be seen how much offset will be realized with new media deals. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 The Bills already spend approx. 65% of their revenues on player costs, of which salary is only a part of. Compared to teams that spend only 35% of revenues on player costs, that's quite a stark contrast.That will increase as salary cap goes up. It remains to be seen how much offset will be realized with new media deals. GO BILLS!!! You make it so much simpler than me, ha ha. Nice work K-9. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nucci Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 (edited) how so??? The cap increases based on revenues that are not shared. When Jets/Giants report revenue from their new stadium from luxury suites, the cap goes up but this money is not split among the owners. edit: Sorry Kirby. missed your explanation Edited March 7, 2014 by nucci Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 The cap increases based on revenues that are not shared. When Jets/Giants report revenue from their new stadium from luxury suites, the cap goes up but this money is not split among the owners. edit: Sorry Kirby. missed your explanation Huge issue for many lower revenue teams and the crux of Mr. Wilson's entire stance against the previous CBA. Of course all those that vilified him at the time soon came around to understand where he was coming from. When the Jets sell a luxury box, the Bills' player costs went up because the overall players' share of revenues went up as a result. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Huge issue for many lower revenue teams and the crux of Mr. Wilson's entire stance against the previous CBA. Of course all those that vilified him at the time soon came around to understand where he was coming from. When the Jets sell a luxury box, the Bills' player costs went up because the overall players' share of revenues went up as a result. GO BILLS!!! Yup. The big owners -- Jones, Kraft, Johnson, etc. are playing the long game here. Continue to raise the cap to the point where essentially it's close to meaningless. Lower revenue teams like the Bills will find it harder and harder to attract FA talent, making them a permanent doormat a la second division teams in baseball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrags Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 http://youtu.be/CbvVhVwfKig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CodeMonkey Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 (edited) So for a 16 game regular season, that's 10 million dollars per team per game in player salaries. No wonder Roger is feeling the pressure to create revenue streams outside the US. When will the insanity end. Edited March 7, 2014 by CodeMonkey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 So for a 16 game regular season, that's 10 million dollars per team per game in player salaries. No wonder Roger is feeling the pressure to create revenue streams outside the US. When will the insanity end. Its all based on the total revenue of the league too to K-9's point. As these teams make more and more the cap goes higher and higher. How do the Bills go about raising revenue? They need to raise non shared revenues not ticket revenues. What do you do? PSLs? Stadium naming rights? Sell the rights of a game to Toronto? This is the quandary that the Bills are currently in and part of the reason that a new stadium is essential IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrags Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 I understand your arguments. But at the end of the day, the shared TV contract provides millions and millions above and beyond what is needed to run an NFL team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 I understand your arguments. But at the end of the day, the shared TV contract provides millions and millions above and beyond what is needed to run an NFL team. At this point but this goes back to the relocation conversation. If an owner in Buffalo has to spend 65% of his revenue on the salaries and one in say LA has to spend only 35% of his revenues on player's salaries where would a new owner prefer to run his team? That's the scary part and why that gap needs to be closed (especially with an owner in his 90's). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrags Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 At this point but this goes back to the relocation conversation. If an owner in Buffalo has to spend 65% of his revenue on the salaries and one in say LA has to spend only 35% of his revenues on player's salaries where would a new owner prefer to run his team? That's the scary part and why that gap needs to be closed (especially with an owner in his 90's). thay all depends on who the new owner is and what toes they may or not have with the city of Buffalo. If they deem a new stadium needed or if reasonable upgrades can be made for a minimum. The city's of Toronto and LA may want a team all day long but history has shown that they cannot support an NFL team from a fan perspective. They have had many issues selling out games and losing teams to other cities. So there is no argument at this point that supports them having another team. Then we cannot speculate that the NFL even wants to tap into these markets on a full scale. What does the NFL gain by introducing another team in LA? Sore it's a city of approximately 10million but do we really think that the people of LA care about a team in their home town? How about merchandise sales? Do we really believe that all the sudden the NFL sells more merchandise? It's the biggest sport on the planet. They already sell ungodly amounts of merchandise to the people of LA regardless of what team it is. And then there's the fact that the NFL (Goodell included) may not want to end a 50+ year franchise as it may cause a stir in fans perspective of the league. Could hurt it more than it could help. All in all, until we know who is the next owner of the team is, it's all speculation and honestly, none of us here (including myself) has any f#%king clue what's going to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 thay all depends on who the new owner is and what toes they may or not have with the city of Buffalo. If they deem a new stadium needed or if reasonable upgrades can be made for a minimum. The city's of Toronto and LA may want a team all day long but history has shown that they cannot support an NFL team from a fan perspective. They have had many issues selling out games and losing teams to other cities. So there is no argument at this point that supports them having another team. Then we cannot speculate that the NFL even wants to tap into these markets on a full scale. What does the NFL gain by introducing another team in LA? Sore it's a city of approximately 10million but do we really think that the people of LA care about a team in their home town? How about merchandise sales? Do we really believe that all the sudden the NFL sells more merchandise? It's the biggest sport on the planet. They already sell ungodly amounts of merchandise to the people of LA regardless of what team it is. And then there's the fact that the NFL (Goodell included) may not want to end a 50+ year franchise as it may cause a stir in fans perspective of the league. Could hurt it more than it could help. All in all, until we know who is the next owner of the team is, it's all speculation and honestly, none of us here (including myself) has any f#%king clue what's going to happen. Supporting a team from a fan perspective and generating revenue are two different things. LA (or Toronto) would have enormous PSL's, giant suite revenue and tons of corporate revenue. In addition,the TV deal will most likely go up if either of those giant markets starts having a team. Those teams would also be contributing more to the shared pot with their higher ticket revenues. This would certainly be appealing to other owners as would the increased TV checks. The Bills need to find an owner with ties to WNY and the ability to raise revenues. The most obvious way to do that would be a new stadium with PSLs and naming rights. Hopefully, the Bills can continue to capitalize on the corporate dollars of Rochester and more importantly Southern Ontario to make it work. There are not a lot of potential owners on the open market that will be looking to buy this team with the plan on playing at the Ralph. The 7th year escape clause is potentially terrifying. The team needs the plan for a new stadium in place for when the team goes up for sale (under construction would be ideal). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 I understand your arguments. But at the end of the day, the shared TV contract provides millions and millions above and beyond what is needed to run an NFL team. That is just not true. It covers player salaries, but not the entire player costs. There are other expenses in running a team as well. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 The Bills already spend approx. 65% of their revenues on player costs, of which salary is only a part of. Compared to teams that spend only 35% of revenues on player costs, that's quite a stark contrast.That will increase as salary cap goes up. It remains to be seen how much offset will be realized with new media deals. GO BILLS!!! Yeah... I'm pretty resigned to the fact that the Bills won't be able to stay in Buffalo past 5 years or so. Sucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Yeah... I'm pretty resigned to the fact that the Bills won't be able to stay in Buffalo past 5 years or so. Sucks. They are just going to have to make some changes. This was the reason for the Toronto series. Toronto paid like $8M a year for that game. That is a nice way to cut into that gap. They are just going to have to be creative in how they go about generating revenue. They certainly can't do things like triple their suite pricing to get in line with some larger markets because they won't be able to sell them. It is certainly a scary proposition and a conversation that we need to be having. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Naming rights to the stadium? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts