Jump to content
The 9 Isles

Pro football talk hates Buffalo - CBA and stadium funding

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
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 by Mark80

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Like (+1) 3
  • Thanks! (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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 by Ronin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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)".

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

 

 

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
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 by Mr. WEO
  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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%.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

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 by Bferra13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...