Greg de'Ville Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20050510/1063220.asp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 The Jones's and Snyder's of the NFL will f**k the league up. Those douchebags ignore the sage advice of people like Wilson who have been throug it all. We can only hope that Taglia-doo-doo has a pair and is willing to smackdown these idiots. PTR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrLocke Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 good read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin in Va Beach Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 The Seven Deadly Sins 1 Pride 2 Wrath 3 Lust 4 Sloth 5 Gluttony 6 Greed 7 Envy Course, Jerry Jones calls this his "What I Need To Do Today" list... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20050510/1063220.asp 332737[/snapback] Many thanks Greg! This article is a fascinating summary for anyone who cares about this game beyond living in the pretend world of wanting owners to be real men who beat up the evil overpaid players (the players are certainly overpaid but are really no more evil than the rest of the world trying to make a buck- some are stupider than the norm and say silly things like accusations of people taking food from the mouths of their obese children but they are not generally more evil than the rest). I see two real threats for the game we love embodied in one line of this article: > Before the players and owners can strike a labor accord, the owners themselves have to agree on how to share revenue. That's the problem. < 1. The owners have to realize that the free market is the enemy in terms of them making beaucoup bucks. There is a real threat that the recent owners who do not have the experiences that Ralph relates about the the strikes of the 70s and 80s will need go through a similar experience today in order to realize that the NFL is so glorious because of non-free market restraint of trade and cooperation with the NFLPA rather than simply bludgeoning them as was done with the replacement players in 1985. The NFLPA can be simply beaten because the players are greedy, but beating them is not victory. Victory is actually cooperating with them to produce an NFL product which allows all of them to make bucks hand over fist. The potential need for the new generation to relearn this lesson through a stupid face-off and eventual defeat of the NFLPA is a threat. 2. However, the big threat is that the owners will waste so much time dealing with re-learning this lesson as the big market and small market teams duel with each other, they will not have the time before the CBA expires to cut a deal with the NFLPA. We are already seeing many signs of high profile players like Terrell Owens and the cadre that has Drew Rosenhaus as their hired boy launch holdouts while they are under contract. The owners cannot effectively deal with these holdouts and with the NFLPA until they get their act together. This may take to long and create a free-market in the pro football which will not allow a good product to be created. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 If these fools kill the golden goose, I wouldn't be suprised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamboni Man Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 "Our club has spent a lot of time on this thing - in research trying to solve these problems," Wilson said. "We discovered that last year the six smallest market clubs had higher television audiences than the six high-revenue clubs. There's your answer." Wilson was referring to total viewership for Sunday and Monday night prime-time games last season. He said the six smallest markets outdrew the six largest in total viewers, not just percentage of households watching. Washington, New England, Philadelphia, Houston, Dallas, Denver and Cleveland are among the highest earning clubs in the league. That's a pretty interesting fact. However, look at the top six teams. Only 2 of those teams are actually contenders and the others are either terrible or very mediocre. Indy was the least profitable team and had the biggest story of the season in Peyton Manning. I don't think it really matters what size the tv market is, as it does how entertaining the team actually is. Ralph is right on though, the owners need to get on the same page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockpile Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 This type of candor, in the face of the new owners, players, fans, etc is probably one reason why RW is not in Canton. In the end, it is about money, politics and greed at the owner and NFLPA level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SF Bills Fan Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 If these fools kill the golden goose, I wouldn't be suprised. 332770[/snapback] I have a bad feeling that Snyder, Jones and McNair as well as a few others could sink the league as we know it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Poojer Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 are houston, cleveland and denver really big market teams? are they any bigger than the buffalo market? sure dc, ny, philly are, but the other 3? does anyone know off hand? http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20050510/1063220.asp 332737[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SF Bills Fan Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 are houston, cleveland and denver really big market teams? are they any bigger than the buffalo market? sure dc, ny, philly are, but the other 3? does anyone know off hand? 332861[/snapback] I was in Houston last weekend and that city is enormous. I think it's one of the biggest in the country. I think the metro area has 5-6 million. Denver draws from all over the Rockies and can probably claim TV and radio rights in Salt Lake, Wyoming etc etc. Clevelend is not a big market team. Buffalo with it's regional appeal has to be on par with Cleveland. That one makes no sense. If Cleveland is, then Pittsburgh, Tampa and Kansas City are. So no, it's not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ch19079 Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 NFL | Bills' Owner Wilson Concerned with NFL Shared Revenue Policy - from www.KFFL.com Tue, 10 May 2005 10:16:38 -0700 Mark Gaughan, of the Buffalo News, reports Buffalo Bills owner Ralph C. Wilson Jr. expressed concern with the league's policy in regard to shared revenue and the growing disparity between large and small market teams over the past 10 years. "There's about eight or 10 of the high revenue clubs that seem to be united in a block," Wilson said. "They are united. They want to keep the disparity." This issue effects the collective bargaining agreement, which has yet to be extended, as the NFL owners first have to agree on how to share the revenue. "We just want to have enough revenue under the new collective bargaining agreement that gives us a chance to field a competitive team," Wilson said. "If we don't get that, then along the line, the league is going to be totally unbalanced." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 This type of candor, in the face of the new owners, players, fans, etc is probably one reason why RW is not in Canton. In the end, it is about money, politics and greed at the owner and NFLPA level. 332825[/snapback] Actuslly,, I wish it were all about money, because if it were we would not be having these problems. Owners unfortunately get caught up in the game of not making bucks but trying to show they have bigger cojones than the players and fail to be motivated by trying to make money. In 1985 they used replacement players to prove they were better businessmen than the players (why proving you are a better businessman than a bunch of Travis Henry's means you are cool is beyond me) and actually they ended up getting dragged kicking and screaming into the CBA rather than face a free-market because they needed an operating NFLPA in order to restrain trade. As it turned out, the NFL owners had to agree with the players to give them what now amounts to 65% of the designated gross when the old NFLPA demand that they beat badly in 1985 was for only 52% of the gross. As it turns our by cooperatively reaching agreement on what is designated gross, they got labor cooperation and peace that has allowed the networks to give the NFL and NFLPA bucks which makes even the new designated gross far larger than the old straignt gross revenues. If it simply was a matter of money, then the owners would agree to a common position that reflects the big market teams agreeing with Ralphie that they make more money as a group of owners with shared communal interests than they do as individuals showing off their cojones. It may be more communistic than free-market oriented, but the NFL owners will make a lot more money by cooperating with each other and the players than they will be fighting for their individual freedom and rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockpile Posted May 10, 2005 Share Posted May 10, 2005 That is why I said "money, politics, and greed". You are correct that if it was JUST money, it would be easy. Math is Math (at least in the non-theoretical world). Actuslly,, I wish it were all about money, because if it were we would not be having these problems. Owners unfortunately get caught up in the game of not making bucks but trying to show they have bigger cojones than the players and fail to be motivated by trying to make money. In 1985 they used replacement players to prove they were better businessmen than the players (why proving you are a better businessman than a bunch of Travis Henry's means you are cool is beyond me) and actually they ended up getting dragged kicking and screaming into the CBA rather than face a free-market because they needed an operating NFLPA in order to restrain trade. As it turned out, the NFL owners had to agree with the players to give them what now amounts to 65% of the designated gross when the old NFLPA demand that they beat badly in 1985 was for only 52% of the gross. As it turns our by cooperatively reaching agreement on what is designated gross, they got labor cooperation and peace that has allowed the networks to give the NFL and NFLPA bucks which makes even the new designated gross far larger than the old straignt gross revenues. If it simply was a matter of money, then the owners would agree to a common position that reflects the big market teams agreeing with Ralphie that they make more money as a group of owners with shared communal interests than they do as individuals showing off their cojones. It may be more communistic than free-market oriented, but the NFL owners will make a lot more money by cooperating with each other and the players than they will be fighting for their individual freedom and rights. 332908[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 That WAS a great article, thanks. Some of these owners are SO rich, that they do not rely at all on the team to make a profit, and view it as a toy, status symbol, etc. Paul Allen bought the Seahawks with pocket change, and I am guessing that they have doubled in value since the purchase. It seems from reading the article that Mr. Wilson would make much more money if he raised the prices for parking and game tickets, unless doing so would serve to hurt attendance. Would increasing these things have a negative impact on the attendance totals at RWS due to the WNY economy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 That WAS a great article, thanks. Some of these owners are SO rich, that they do not rely at all on the team to make a profit, and view it as a toy, status symbol, etc. Paul Allen bought the Seahawks with pocket change, and I am guessing that they have doubled in value since the purchase. It seems from reading the article that Mr. Wilson would make much more money if he raised the prices for parking and game tickets, unless doing so would serve to hurt attendance. Would increasing these things have a negative impact on the attendance totals at RWS due to the WNY economy? 333386[/snapback] Its hard to say for sure but the real world measure is probably the question of how likely are the Bills to sellout games. When we sellout, this means that there is excess demand for tickets to play with so RWS should be able to comfortably make individual items more expensive. He will lose some folks on the margins as the prove unwilling in the real world to buy tickets or spend the hundreds necessary now to make this a family outing. However, these marginal losses would be replaced by folks who woulda bought tickets but missed out on the sellout now buying tickets. As the Bills have gone a couple of straight seasons racking up all but one game as a sellout this hints toward excess capacity which would allow for an increase in parking prices etc. However, there is the other side of the equation: 1. On a significant number of occaisions the sellouts were achieved at the last minute or by RWS choosing to give away the final few thousand tickets to the troops or to kids. Our perfect record of sellouts the year before and near perfect record last year would be noticeably worse without this intervention. The Bills are still a hand over fist moneymaker, but the excess capacity is questionable. 2. The Bills had to work like demons to create the sellouts we got. This wasn't a simple natural demand situation where the main work is simply counting your money. The Bills have needed to take steps to create demand by fostering a regional market and taking other steps that are cost centers (like advertising BBtix.com) which teams with waiting lists for season tickets do not have to do. If raising items prices like parking means that the Bills would simply have to spend the excess money gained on more advertising, arranging for more trains to come to WNY and taking it in the shorts every time we got a home night game (too far to travel in a regional market) then it would not make sense to do this. 3. The base on season tickets sales is made up of local businesses that use the tax advanatage of being able to deduct ticket purchses from their tax bill as a cost of doing business. When the businesses have no profit they are paying taxes upon, there is no subsidy. Overall, my sense is that the decision on how much the market will allow the Bills to charge for direct income like ticket prices or indirect income like parking, costs of hot dogs, etc. is actually determined more by larger factors than the marginal cost of ticket prices. If the team is doing well, tickets are easier to sell, their are lots of sellouts and a greater margin for raising additional costs. Further, if the larger economy is doing well (no US recession) then the subsidy provided through government taxation of business profits creates a lot of excess. If the overall economy is contracting there is not much excess. Overall, a ollar here and there is a marginal cost which will get lost in the bigger picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HopsGuy Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 The key for the NFL to continue to build upon the successful model they have is to maintain a strong commissioner. Say what you will, but Tagliabue has continued the work that Rozelle started years ago. Pete (and now Paul) understood that the owners must be made to understand that while their teams fight on Sundays, they should not view each other as competitors. The league is competing for our disposable bucks and they're doing a pretty good job of it (Do people clamor for Philharmonic tickets where you live? Me neither). While revenue sharing is abhorrent to these new guys that built their fortunes in our capitalistic system, they must understand that widening the gap between the large and small market teams is detrimental to the future of the league. My opinion is that the revenues from the luxury boxes should not be counted towards the figure used to determine the salary cap. That way, Danny Snyder doesn't have to share that cash with Dan Rooney. He bought the team in DC, it costs more than if he had bought the team in Buffalo, he should reap those rewards while not hurting the rest of the league. But that's just my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 The key for the NFL to continue to build upon the successful model they have is to maintain a strong commissioner. Say what you will, but Tagliabue has continued the work that Rozelle started years ago. Pete (and now Paul) understood that the owners must be made to understand that while their teams fight on Sundays, they should not view each other as competitors. The league is competing for our disposable bucks and they're doing a pretty good job of it (Do people clamor for Philharmonic tickets where you live? Me neither). While revenue sharing is abhorrent to these new guys that built their fortunes in our capitalistic system, they must understand that widening the gap between the large and small market teams is detrimental to the future of the league. My opinion is that the revenues from the luxury boxes should not be counted towards the figure used to determine the salary cap. That way, Danny Snyder doesn't have to share that cash with Dan Rooney. He bought the team in DC, it costs more than if he had bought the team in Buffalo, he should reap those rewards while not hurting the rest of the league. But that's just my opinion. 333904[/snapback] Certainly every business (and this means NFL teams) need to focus on luxury box and every other source of revenue and get all they can for their business. However, it strikes me that the big picture and the important picture here is that to the extent that these businesses focus only or even primarily on the principle of whether they should have to share sources of income or not, or to whether a particular item is part of the designated gross or not, they run the real risk of over-focusing on the details and hurting or killing the goose that lays the golden egg. I think the big picture here is that the big market teams may be focusing so much on the fight they are having with the small market teams, they are not going to leave enough time to reach agreement with the players before the current CBA forces them into a free-market in which the NFL will not produce a good product and may even not survive. The tough thing about this is that appears Ralph is right that the NFL cannot forge a deal with their potential partners the players until they get their own house in order. If it takes to long for the big market and small market teams to get their house in order there will not be sufficient time to forge a deal with the NFLPA. The scary thing is that there are clear signs like the Terrell Owens debacle and Rosenhaus being hired by a number of players who appear ready to hold out under contract that even the NFLPA is being hit by individualism rather than a more communal approach which seems to be the key to the NFL producing a better product and everybody making scads of money. I hope the NFL owners and the big market teams keep their eye on the prize of making lots of money rather than latching onto the distraction of principle that they deserve this particular thing as being designated gross or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Live&DieBillsFootball Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 The owners created the loophole in the last CBA by adding other revenue sources that were exempt from the players pool. If the players push for adding this revenue (seat licenses, luxury suites, naming rights, etc) how can you have a common salary cap for all teams without sharing this revenue? The owners fighting among themselves will be a bigger impediment to a new CBA than the players. The commish has his work cut out. He has done a great job so far, but this will be his biggest challenge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts