Pro football talk hates Buffalo - CBA and stadium funding

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

5 hours ago, JoPar_v2 said:

 

Lol no...it doesn’t read like that, unless you: 1) aren’t familiar with Florio or PFT at all, or 2) are the most naive person on earth. Seriously if you are familiar with his site at all you should know by now he engages in wild conjecture, almost exclusively. Florio did not “hear” anything from ANYONE “involved in the process.” For you to even come close to believing that **** is, frankly, laughable. He runs a aggregator site bro. And infuses it with his speculation. That’s it. Goddamn mate.

 

That’s just amazing to me that you even came to that take. 

 

have you read some of his takes lately? cringey.

 

[dave mcbride]

1 hour ago, Doc said:

Florio just likes too hear himself talk. The Bills aren’t leaving Buffalo.  Don’t click on the bait. 

See my post above. That’s not what Florio said AT ALL. 

[May Day 10]

The bills in buffalo at this time and in the forseeable future are in no danger, and it is way premature and ill-informed to even speculate otherwise

 

Edited July 3, 2019 by May Day 10

[Mr. WEO]

12 minutes ago, Mark80 said:

 

Yes, but I believe the negotiating point brought up is to change that for the Stadium fund, soft of like a write-off in the tax world.  At least that's how it read to me.

 

The stadium loan money or other stadium expenses doesn’t affect the total revenue pool from which they get their cut.  So I wouldn’t make sense for them to worry about stadium funding

[Doc]

15 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

See my post above. That’s not what Florio said AT ALL. 

 

Take a look at Stevewin's post (below mine) and the section he quoted.  What do you think "A market where the return on the investment could be greater? A market where more NFL players would prefer to live and to work?” means?

[Ronin]

6 hours ago, JoPar_v2 said:

 

Lol no...it doesn’t read like that, unless you: 1) aren’t familiar with Florio or PFT at all, or 2) are the most naive person on earth. Seriously if you are familiar with his site at all you should know by now he engages in wild conjecture, almost exclusively. Florio did not “hear” anything from ANYONE “involved in the process.” For you to even come close to believing that **** is, frankly, laughable. He runs a aggregator site bro. And infuses it with his speculation. That’s it. Goddamn mate.

 

That’s just amazing to me that you even came to that take. 

 

LOL 

 

What'd you do, wake up and inadvertantly put automotive grease on your toothbrush this morning.  

[JoPar_v2]

5 minutes ago, Ronin said:

 

LOL 

 

What'd you do, wake up and inadvertantly put automotive grease on your toothbrush this morning.  

 

So my suspicions are confirmed.

[4merper4mer]

11 hours ago, Ronin said:

 

 

 

 

It reads to me as if Florio is merely repeating what he's been told by someone involved in the process.  

Bob Kraft

[Ronin]

23 minutes ago, JoPar_v2 said:

So my suspicions are confirmed.

 

Which were what precisely?  

[dave mcbride]

1 hour ago, Doc said:

 

Take a look at Stevewin's post (below mine) and the section he quoted.  What do you think "A market where the return on the investment could be greater? A market where more NFL players would prefer to live and to work?” means?

He is using Buffalo as a hypothetical case, and it's actually a good hypothetical given the circumstances in Buffalo (big questions about a new stadium in a context of low current stadium revenue and a low-valued franchise) and the nature of the issue itself. Florio is hardly bashing the Bills or mendaciously trying to "generate clicks." The CBA is arguably THE off-the-field issue going forward for the next few years. He is the first person I know of in the media to write about the stadium money carve-out (which I was completely unaware of), and it's genuinely interesting (at least to me). I for one applaud him for raising the issue. 

 

Fwiw, I don't think the Bills are going anywhere because of who the owners are, but I also expect that there will be a new domed stadium built before too long. The current stadium situation isn't really viable given the revenue problems associated with it. As for New Era, the renovation that occurred there (under $150 million) was paltry compared to Arrowhead, which underwent an $850 million renovation (effectively making it a new stadium). The NFL has been clearing out of bad stadiums lately - SD , Oakland, St. Louis (the LA Colosseum doesn't really count) - and the Bills and Jax have probably the worst stadium revenue situations at the moment (and I won't be surprised if Jax eventually moves; I think they probably should). 

 

[Mark80]

2 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

The stadium loan money or other stadium expenses doesn’t affect the total revenue pool from which they get their cut.  So I wouldn’t make sense for them to worry about stadium funding

 

I know it does not currently, but that is what the article is about.  Potentially negotiating that it WOULD affect the pool in the future and, in turn, the players potentially wanting some say in how the money is spent since they, essentially, would have paid for part of it.

Edited July 3, 2019 by Mark80

[TheFunPolice]

Florio's wet dream is the Bills moving

 

It's sad really. For him anyway, because the Pegulas are not moving them.

 

Florio wanted them to move to Toronto so badly and he's still not giving up on the dream.

 

 

[Delete This Account]

the fear-mongering by PFT is never-ending.

remember the annual, LeSean McCoy is going to get traded/cut posts from previous years.

i'd suggest not including a link because it only provides the site credence in clicks.

it's barely a tip sheet of a site.

Florio has authority of predicting the weather.

 

jw

[Mr. WEO]

1 hour ago, Mark80 said:

 

I know it does not currently, but that is what the article is about.  Potentially negotiating that it WOULD affect the pool in the future and, in turn, the players potentially wanting some say in how the money is spent since they, essentially, would have paid for part of it.

 

That’s an impractical scenario.  Players are transient so there’s no way this would make sense for either side. 

 

The players already have full revenue share access as a result of the last CBA there is no way they would give that up.  

[Ronin]

2 hours ago, dave mcbride said:

Fwiw, I don't think the Bills are going anywhere because of who the owners are, but I also expect that there will be a new domed stadium built before too long. 

 

Outstanding post!  

 

On this part of it, what are your thoughts on how tailgating factors into the mix?  

 

Mine are simple, as I see it tailgating in Buffalo is as much a part of the game-day experience as the game itself, perhaps more even.  By building a downtown stadium it's unlikely that the tailgating climate stays intact.  I'm not sure it can given the proposals that I've seen thus far.  

Edited July 3, 2019 by Ronin

[dave mcbride]

5 minutes ago, Ronin said:

 

Outstanding post!  

 

On this part of it, what are your thoughts on how tailgating factors into the mix?  

 

Mine are simple, as I see it tailgating in Buffalo is as much a part of the game-day experience as the game itself, perhaps more even.  By building a downtown stadium it's unlikely that the tailgating climate stays intact.  I'm not sure it can given the proposals that I've seen thus far.  

I honestly don't know, but it being Buffalo, I have a hunch that fans will figure something out.

1 hour ago, john wawrow said:

the fear-mongering by PFT is never-ending.

remember the annual, LeSean McCoy is going to get traded/cut posts from previous years.

i'd suggest not including a link because it only provides the site credence in clicks.

it's barely a tip sheet of a site.

Florio has authority of predicting the weather.

 

jw

It's not really fear-mongering though, and in any event do you REALLY think that's the purpose of this particular piece? I certainly don't think so, and I've read it a couple of times. As I've said above, it's the first I've read about the stadium money carve-out, and I think it's an interesting issue. He explained it clearly and well, at least in my opinion.

[Ronin]

4 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

I honestly don't know, but it being Buffalo, I have a hunch that fans will figure something out.

 

LOL, well that may very well be true.  

 

I do think that the greatly diminished space for tailgating will ultimately be a major factor in determining it.  

[Mark80]

40 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

That’s an impractical scenario.  Players are transient so there’s no way this would make sense for either side. 

 

The players already have full revenue share access as a result of the last CBA there is no way they would give that up.  

Don't have to convince me.  I'm just saying what the article said.

 

Most likely it's just something brought to the table by the owners to be used as a bargaining chip.  This is very common in labor negotiations.  Bring things to the table that you don't really care about so you can take them off during the negotiation to help get what you really want.  "Oh, OK, we'll take X off the table if you take off Y (or give us Z)".

[Ronin]

5 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

It's not really fear-mongering though, and in any event do you REALLY think that's the purpose of this particular piece? I certainly don't think so, and I've read it a couple of times. As I've said above, it's the first I've read about the stadium money carve-out, and I think it's an interesting issue. He explained it clearly and well, at least in my opinion.

 

Fully agree on this.  If nothing else the league and its owners, generally speaking and for sure the bunch in the top-20, care about money and nothing else.  

 

All it takes is a quick google to see that the NFL Stadium Credits issue is real.  This was one of the first links that came up;   

 

https://www.thestadiumbusiness.com/2019/07/03/stadium-credits-mooted-nfls-next-cba-report/

 

It's clear that the issue is real.  

 

That's also why I believe that the performance of the team during the stadium lease-extension years which overlap the CBA is critical.  I don't think it's going to be good if "The Process"/McBeane fail, it won't help to be sure.  

 

 

 

 

[May Day 10]

Players will never be able to gain significant influence of NFL operations in a CBA.   The NFLPA is incapable of holding out.

[bigK14094]

The players union  (the employed) can only go so far in demanding compensation.   The Pegs paid 1.2 Billion, and it buys a LOT of juice in deciding the outcome of what the league does.....more the the players union imho.   Pro labor views can only speculate on unlimited leverage.  Owners own the football, the coaches, the stadium leasing and a lot of other stuff.  Try starting a new league if you really believe all those independent thoughts.

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

5 hours ago, TheFunPolice said:

Florio's wet dream is the Bills moving

 

It's sad really. For him anyway, because the Pegulas are not moving them.

 

Florio wanted them to move to Toronto so badly and he's still not giving up on the dream.

 

 

 

 

...he's a pretty pompous dude....thinks he knows everything....just ask 'em......this just in: the lipstick on his arse turned out to be HIS OWN.....

[Rocket94]

I understand that they are based in Cincinnati. Is there someone there in particular who has an erection for the Bills?

[Mr. WEO]

3 hours ago, Mark80 said:

Don't have to convince me.  I'm just saying what the article said.

 

Most likely it's just something brought to the table by the owners to be used as a bargaining chip.  This is very common in labor negotiations.  Bring things to the table that you don't really care about so you can take them off during the negotiation to help get what you really want.  "Oh, OK, we'll take X off the table if you take off Y (or give us Z)".

 

The concept of the “stadium credit” is a way the owners want to move back away from the “total revenue” cut the NFLPA got into the last CBA.  

 

Florio’s equating a stadium credit with “the NFLPA paying for stadiums” is absurd.  It’s clearly not that so there is zero chance that it would then equate to players having some say in where teams are located.

 

its a huge idiotic thinking-out-loud piece by Florio.  

 

Owners simply want to “shrink the gross” away from “total revenue” again.  If they were to succeed, it would have to come with a much higher % than it is now (47%) for the players.  The players would have to ALL BE HIGH AT ONCE, as would the NFLPA leadership, to accept taking stadium money off all gross revenues.  

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

4 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

The concept of the “stadium credit” is a way the owners want to move back away from the “total revenue” cut the NFLPA got into the last CBA.  

 

Florio’s equating a stadium credit with “the NFLPA paying for stadiums” is absurd.  It’s clearly not that so there is zero chance that it would then equate to players having some say in where teams are located.

 

its a huge idiotic thinking-out-loud piece by Florio.  

 

Owners simply want to “shrink the gross” away from “total revenue” again.  If they were to succeed, it would have to come with a much higher % than it is now (47%) for the players.  The players would have to ALL BE HIGH AT ONCE, as would the NFLPA leadership, to accept taking stadium money off all gross revenues.  

 

 

...LMAO....good luck with THAT......should fly as well as the 737 MAX.......

[dwight in philly]

On 7/2/2019 at 2:51 PM, Jpsredemption said:

Mike Florio has been stirring that pot for years. He doesn’t even make mention that the Pegulas own the other major sports team in town. 

Florio has a typical elitist agenda. Without being political ,  i will just say his site is agenda driven..and its a turn off. 

[Mr. WEO]

1 hour ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

 

...LMAO....good luck with THAT......should fly as well as the 737 MAX.......

 

The point was that if the owners want a give back on what the total shared revenue is,  they would have to offer a higher % of what’s left. Before the last CBA, it was about 60%. They won’t get something for nothing.

 

And it should be noted that the 737-8/9 Max flew for 2 years—41,000 flights/118,000 hours in the first year of service alone—and landed safely all but twice...

Edited July 3, 2019 by Mr. WEO

[SF Bills Fan]

These idiots can speculate and conjecture all they want, but the only way the Bills move is if the Pegulas decide to move them. Nobody can make them move. The Pegulas are not going to move them. 

[Ronin]

On 7/3/2019 at 5:02 PM, Mr. WEO said:

The point was that if the owners want a give back on what the total shared revenue is,  they would have to offer a higher % of what’s left. Before the last CBA, it was about 60%. They won’t get something for nothing.

 

I'm pretty sure that the last CBA (2011) was around 48% for the players.  

 

There actually was a stadium credit" already in it, I can't tell exactly what it was but it appears to be 5% or so with half taken from each side.  

 

I believe that the 48% (or whatever it is around there) is after that.  

 

Either way, it'll be a bargaining chip, but the point the Florio makes, whether people like him or not, agree with him or not, think he hates the Bills or not, all being irrelevant, is that if that ends up being the case, that the "stadium credits" increases, obviously the total pie of the league revenue becomes greater in locales and stadiums that contribute more to the revenue pie.  

 

Since we don't know what those figures are and have to go off of rumors, speculation, etc., it's a very reasonable assumption that there would be other locales/stadiums that would contribute more as such than Buffalo.  What Florio's saying is that if it's their (the players') money just as much as it is the owners' money, then they too should have a say in where those locales/stadiums end up being, much in the same way that shareholders have a certain say in corporate matters.  

 

Not saying it will or won't happen, just saying that it makes sense that if they're money is being used to fund stadiums that will impact how much the league and therefore as a percentage of that "pie" is, that they have at least some say.  

 

That's perfectly reasonable.  Think about it, if someone were forcing all of the employees of a company to pay into fund that was to benefit them, it would make sense that they have some choice(s) in the matter of how best to invest and multiply that money.  

[Tuco]

On 7/3/2019 at 7:22 AM, Mr. WEO said:

 

Currently, players get a percentage of “all revenue”, without “reductions for expenses”.

 

https://nfllabor.wordpress.com/2011/07/21/nfl-clubs-approve-comprehensive-agreement/

But "All Revenue" doesn't mean "All" revenue. Farther down in your link it says-

 

• Clubs receive credit for actual stadium investment and up to 1.5 percent of revenue each year.

 

 

And the CBA's definition of "All Revenue" contains plenty of deductions. One of them is known as the "Stadium Credit." In other words, the NFL's G4 stadium loan program is tied to the CBA and is only done with permission from the NFLPA (NOTE: I don't think this gives any credence to the original article that suggests the players would ever be given the right to decide what cities their deducted "Stadium Credit" should be spent in).

 

ARTICLE 12 REVENUE ACCOUNTING AND CALCULATION OF THE SALARY CAP
Section 1. All Revenues: For purposes of this Article, and anywhere else stated in this Agreement, revenues shall be accounted for in the manner set forth below.
(a) AR.
(i) All Revenues (“AR”) means the aggregate revenues received or to be received on an accrual basis, for or with respect to a League Year during the term of this Agreement, by the NFL and all NFL Clubs (and their designees), from all sources, whether known or unknown, derived from, relating to or arising out of the performance of players in NFL football games, with only the specific exceptions set forth below. AR shall include, without limitation: . . . . . 

 

Section 4. Stadium Credit:
(a) For each League-approved stadium project beginning on or after the effective date of this Agreement, there shall be a credit of fifty percent (50%) of the private cost (whether incurred by a Club, Club Affiliate, or the League) to construct or renovate the stadium, or seventy-five percent (75%) of such cost for stadium construc-tion or renovation in California, which cost shall include financing costs, amortized over a maximum of 15 years using an agreed-upon rate based on the NFL’s long-term borrowing cost to fund or support stadium construction, beginning in the League Year before such new stadium opens. The aggregate credit for all such approved projects for each League Year shall be part of the “Stadium Credit.” For purposes of this Subsection, the private cost shall not include any revenues that are excluded from AR related to the project pursuant to Section 1(a)(vi)(1), 1(a)(vii)(1) or 1(a)(viii)(1) above.
(b) In each League Year, the Stadium Credit shall also include an amount equal to 70% of:
(i) Any PSL revenues excluded from AR pursuant to Subsection 1(a)(vi)(1) above, net of amounts specified in Subsection 1(a)(i)(1) above, and amortized over a maximum of 15 years with Interest, beginning in the League Year before the new sta-dium opens or the renovation is completed;
(ii) Any PSR revenues excluded from AR pursuant to Subsection 1(a)(vii)(1) above, net of amounts specified in Subsection 1(a)(i)(1) above, beginning in the League Year in which the new stadium opens or the renovation is completed;
(iii) Any naming/cornerstone revenues excluded from AR pursuant to Sub-section 1(a)(viii)(1) above, with any lump-sum payments amortized over the life of the naming/cornerstone rights agreement up to a maximum of 15 years, beginning in the League Year the new stadium opens or the renovation is completed.
(c) The Stadium Credit shall also include 50% of the cost of capital expendi-tures incurred during such League Year in any stadium that relate in any way to the fan experience at such stadium (regardless of when the stadium was constructed or reno-vated), amortized over five years (except for video boards, which shall be amortized over seven years), with Interest, such costs to be verified as capital expenditures by the Local Accountants and the Accountants using GAAP.
(d) Notwithstanding the foregoing, absent NFLPA approval, the Stadium Credit may not equal an amount greater than 1.5% of Projected AR or AR for that League Year (the “Stadium Credit Threshold”).
(e) If the sum of the amounts described in Subsections (a)–(c) above would result in a Stadium Credit that would exceed the Stadium Credit Threshold, then the Stadium Credit shall be an amount equal to the Stadium Credit Threshold, unless the parties have agreed otherwise.

[Mr. WEO]

9 hours ago, Ronin said:

 

I'm pretty sure that the last CBA (2011) was around 48% for the players.  

 

There actually was a stadium credit" already in it, I can't tell exactly what it was but it appears to be 5% or so with half taken from each side.  

 

I believe that the 48% (or whatever it is around there) is after that.  

 

Either way, it'll be a bargaining chip, but the point the Florio makes, whether people like him or not, agree with him or not, think he hates the Bills or not, all being irrelevant, is that if that ends up being the case, that the "stadium credits" increases, obviously the total pie of the league revenue becomes greater in locales and stadiums that contribute more to the revenue pie.  

 

Since we don't know what those figures are and have to go off of rumors, speculation, etc., it's a very reasonable assumption that there would be other locales/stadiums that would contribute more as such than Buffalo.  What Florio's saying is that if it's their (the players') money just as much as it is the owners' money, then they too should have a say in where those locales/stadiums end up being, much in the same way that shareholders have a certain say in corporate matters.  

 

Not saying it will or won't happen, just saying that it makes sense that if they're money is being used to fund stadiums that will impact how much the league and therefore as a percentage of that "pie" is, that they have at least some say.  

 

That's perfectly reasonable.  Think about it, if someone were forcing all of the employees of a company to pay into fund that was to benefit them, it would make sense that they have some choice(s) in the matter of how best to invest and multiply that money.  

 

The total revenue is total league revenue.  There is already a huge disparity in the individual team revenues.  And those high revenue teams drive a disproportionate amount of the total.  The players cut of adjusted revenue before the last CBA was 60%.

 

The players aren't shareholders.  They are employees. A shareholder takes his own money and invests in the company's success but puts his money at risk if the company fails.

 

But even if they, for the purposes of this discussion, WERE considered shareholders, there is no conceivable scenario where players could in any meaningful way make choices in how to best invest and multiply the NFL's revenue.   There's no way owners of a company are going to allow employees to vote on whether and where the company is located and does its business.  The concept is absurd.

 

4 hours ago, Tuco said:

But "All Revenue" doesn't mean "All" revenue. Farther down in your link it says-

 

• Clubs receive credit for actual stadium investment and up to 1.5 percent of revenue each year.

 

 

And the CBA's definition of "All Revenue" contains plenty of deductions. One of them is known as the "Stadium Credit." In other words, the NFL's G4 stadium loan program is tied to the CBA and is only done with permission from the NFLPA (NOTE: I don't think this gives any credence to the original article that suggests the players would ever be given the right to decide what cities their deducted "Stadium Credit" should be spent in).

 

ARTICLE 12 REVENUE ACCOUNTING AND CALCULATION OF THE SALARY CAP
Section 1. All Revenues: For purposes of this Article, and anywhere else stated in this Agreement, revenues shall be accounted for in the manner set forth below.
(a) AR.
(i) All Revenues (“AR”) means the aggregate revenues received or to be received on an accrual basis, for or with respect to a League Year during the term of this Agreement, by the NFL and all NFL Clubs (and their designees), from all sources, whether known or unknown, derived from, relating to or arising out of the performance of players in NFL football games, with only the specific exceptions set forth below. AR shall include, without limitation: . . . . . 

 

Section 4. Stadium Credit:
(a) For each League-approved stadium project beginning on or after the effective date of this Agreement, there shall be a credit of fifty percent (50%) of the private cost (whether incurred by a Club, Club Affiliate, or the League) to construct or renovate the stadium, or seventy-five percent (75%) of such cost for stadium construc-tion or renovation in California, which cost shall include financing costs, amortized over a maximum of 15 years using an agreed-upon rate based on the NFL’s long-term borrowing cost to fund or support stadium construction, beginning in the League Year before such new stadium opens. The aggregate credit for all such approved projects for each League Year shall be part of the “Stadium Credit.” For purposes of this Subsection, the private cost shall not include any revenues that are excluded from AR related to the project pursuant to Section 1(a)(vi)(1), 1(a)(vii)(1) or 1(a)(viii)(1) above.
(b) In each League Year, the Stadium Credit shall also include an amount equal to 70% of:
(i) Any PSL revenues excluded from AR pursuant to Subsection 1(a)(vi)(1) above, net of amounts specified in Subsection 1(a)(i)(1) above, and amortized over a maximum of 15 years with Interest, beginning in the League Year before the new sta-dium opens or the renovation is completed;
(ii) Any PSR revenues excluded from AR pursuant to Subsection 1(a)(vii)(1) above, net of amounts specified in Subsection 1(a)(i)(1) above, beginning in the League Year in which the new stadium opens or the renovation is completed;
(iii) Any naming/cornerstone revenues excluded from AR pursuant to Sub-section 1(a)(viii)(1) above, with any lump-sum payments amortized over the life of the naming/cornerstone rights agreement up to a maximum of 15 years, beginning in the League Year the new stadium opens or the renovation is completed.
(c) The Stadium Credit shall also include 50% of the cost of capital expendi-tures incurred during such League Year in any stadium that relate in any way to the fan experience at such stadium (regardless of when the stadium was constructed or reno-vated), amortized over five years (except for video boards, which shall be amortized over seven years), with Interest, such costs to be verified as capital expenditures by the Local Accountants and the Accountants using GAAP.
(d) Notwithstanding the foregoing, absent NFLPA approval, the Stadium Credit may not equal an amount greater than 1.5% of Projected AR or AR for that League Year (the “Stadium Credit Threshold”).
(e) If the sum of the amounts described in Subsections (a)–(c) above would result in a Stadium Credit that would exceed the Stadium Credit Threshold, then the Stadium Credit shall be an amount equal to the Stadium Credit Threshold, unless the parties have agreed otherwise.

 

Looks like the Stadium Credit Threshold tops out at 1.5% of All Revenue.  

[Lurker]

Florio is a click bait pro...as this and other TSW threads show.

 

90% of what PFT posts is a waste of time..   But hey, that's what the Internet is for, so carry on....

[Jpsredemption]

On 7/3/2019 at 4:57 PM, dwight in philly said:

Florio has a typical elitist agenda. Without being political ,  i will just say his site is agenda driven..and its a turn off. 

I get what you are saying without you saying it and I agree 100%.

[Bferra13]

Profootballtalk is literally a political activism site under the facade of a sports reporting website.

[Bferra13]

And Florio is one to talk too being from West Virginia. No offense to anyone here from West Virginia, beautiful state in my opinion.

Edited July 5, 2019 by Bferra13

[Ronin]

22 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

The total revenue is total league revenue.  There is already a huge disparity in the individual team revenues.  And those high revenue teams drive a disproportionate amount of the total.  The players cut of adjusted revenue before the last CBA was 60%.

 

The players aren't shareholders.  They are employees. A shareholder takes his own money and invests in the company's success but puts his money at risk if the company fails.

 

But even if they, for the purposes of this discussion, WERE considered shareholders, there is no conceivable scenario where players could in any meaningful way make choices in how to best invest and multiply the NFL's revenue.   There's no way owners of a company are going to allow employees to vote on whether and where the company is located and does its business.  The concept is absurd.

 

 

Looks like the Stadium Credit Threshold tops out at 1.5% of All Revenue.  

 

We're getting numbers from different places, I'll defer to yours.  My point was that the "stadium credits" is not new, it's been in there since 2011.  

 

It is currently 1.5% (or so).  

 

As you said, there's a huge disparity between individual team revenues, but the aggregate, let's call it "league" revenue, aka the shared revenue, comes from the teams and is predicated upon how much money those teams bring in in certain areas.  I'm no specialist and don't claim to have researched these things to that extent.  However, it stands to reason that if a team brings in more that they have more to share, which is the point here.  

 

If you were a player or owner, it would benefit you to have a team in a locale that brings in more rather than less for the shared pot "league" revenue as it were.  

 

So it's pretty simple in that regard, if your money is going to fund a stadium for a locale, it would make the most sense to have it be where the greatest "league"/shared profits can be had.  Unfortunately, and for however it works out, Buffalo is not one of those locales.  That's what Florio's point was.  

 

One doesn't have to be an expert in CBA or the league's revenue structure to understand that, again, it's pretty simple economics/finance.  

 

Who knows to what extent the "stadium credits" plays out in the next CBA, but one thing's for sure, if McBeane and "The Process"/Allen don't pan out, there will be a combination of that and whatever the new CBA does bring that won't be a good tandem.  We may overcome it, but IMO it won't be good.  Not to mention that we'll be back at the proverbial square-one.  

 

 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

1 hour ago, Ronin said:

 

We're getting numbers from different places, I'll defer to yours.  My point was that the "stadium credits" is not new, it's been in there since 2011.  

 

It is currently 1.5% (or so).  

 

As you said, there's a huge disparity between individual team revenues, but the aggregate, let's call it "league" revenue, aka the shared revenue, comes from the teams and is predicated upon how much money those teams bring in in certain areas.  I'm no specialist and don't claim to have researched these things to that extent.  However, it stands to reason that if a team brings in more that they have more to share, which is the point here.  

 

If you were a player or owner, it would benefit you to have a team in a locale that brings in more rather than less for the shared pot "league" revenue as it were.  

 

So it's pretty simple in that regard, if your money is going to fund a stadium for a locale, it would make the most sense to have it be where the greatest "league"/shared profits can be had.  Unfortunately, and for however it works out, Buffalo is not one of those locales.  That's what Florio's point was.  

 

One doesn't have to be an expert in CBA or the league's revenue structure to understand that, again, it's pretty simple economics/finance.  

 

Who knows to what extent the "stadium credits" plays out in the next CBA, but one thing's for sure, if McBeane and "The Process"/Allen don't pan out, there will be a combination of that and whatever the new CBA does bring that won't be a good tandem.  We may overcome it, but IMO it won't be good.  Not to mention that we'll be back at the proverbial square-one.  

 

 

 

This guy is the ultimate wet blanket.

[Beerbelly]

On 7/2/2019 at 1:59 PM, ShadyBillsFan said:

Is PFT like PFF?

 

PFF says Bills still suck

 

More like Pffffftttt!

[Mr. WEO]

2 hours ago, Ronin said:

 

We're getting numbers from different places, I'll defer to yours.  My point was that the "stadium credits" is not new, it's been in there since 2011.  

 

It is currently 1.5% (or so).  

 

As you said, there's a huge disparity between individual team revenues, but the aggregate, let's call it "league" revenue, aka the shared revenue, comes from the teams and is predicated upon how much money those teams bring in in certain areas.  I'm no specialist and don't claim to have researched these things to that extent.  However, it stands to reason that if a team brings in more that they have more to share, which is the point here.  

 

If you were a player or owner, it would benefit you to have a team in a locale that brings in more rather than less for the shared pot "league" revenue as it were.  

 

So it's pretty simple in that regard, if your money is going to fund a stadium for a locale, it would make the most sense to have it be where the greatest "league"/shared profits can be had.  Unfortunately, and for however it works out, Buffalo is not one of those locales.  That's what Florio's point was.  

 

One doesn't have to be an expert in CBA or the league's revenue structure to understand that, again, it's pretty simple economics/finance.  

 

Who knows to what extent the "stadium credits" plays out in the next CBA, but one thing's for sure, if McBeane and "The Process"/Allen don't pan out, there will be a combination of that and whatever the new CBA does bring that won't be a good tandem.  We may overcome it, but IMO it won't be good.  Not to mention that we'll be back at the proverbial square-one.  

 

 

 

The owners of the NFL are pretty good at making lots of money from their product.  The concept that their employees should have a say in where the league does business is nuts.  The owners can't make a team move, they can only vote (with a supermajority) to approve of a proposed move by one of the other owners.

 

So the concept that players could?/should? be able to push a team such as, say Buffalo, into a "more profitable market" when the league itself can't do that---it isn't even worth putting into the discussion about the CBA/stadium credits.

 

Team relocation or even stadium building are risks the owners assume.  Players aren't funding anything.  They risk nothing financially with these business decisions.  So they can't be rewarded for them either.  1.5 % doesn't get them to that table...

[Ronin]

1 minute ago, Mr. WEO said:

Players aren't funding anything.  They risk nothing financially with these business decisions.  So they can't be rewarded for them either.  1.5 % doesn't get them to that table...

 

If they get a percentage of a shared revenue, which they do, and that shared revenue depends upon how much each team in each locale brings in, which it does, then it only stands to reason that the greater that shared pot is the more the players get as well as the owners.  

 

X% of Y dollars is greater as Y increases.  

 

Whether or not they, "they" being the players union, have a say or not remains to be seen, but if in fact it happens that the 1.5% taken for the "stadium credits" increases to 5%, or whatever, then I don't know why the PU wouldn't at least fight for some say in the matter.  

 

The NFL is a funny cat, the owners treat it like a business except when they go to the taxpayers to cover their financing (or whatver part) for their new stadiums, a business expense, and the players treat it like a business too, it's only the fans that don't treat it that way.  

 

We'll see, and no doubt much of this is simply offseason media filler type tripe, but the premise for now is valid at least.