Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
The 9 Isles

Pro football talk hates Buffalo - CBA and stadium funding

Recommended Posts

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
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

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
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.  

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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...

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...