Jump to content

You want something to worry about?


Recommended Posts

Playoffs=extra revenue!

 

At least in the past, this was not the case & teams actually typically lost money going to the playoffs (& SB).

They have the same expenses as a regular season game, presumably only having ticket gate revenue, etc. to offset it (i.e. no extra tv revenue share).

TV is where all the owners make the bulk of their $.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 45
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Yeah, but this "new breed" is called being an American and living by the good ol American principle of having as free a market as possible and getting a good product through competition with everyone trying to get the best for himself.

594900[/snapback]

Sorry, Mr Republican. But the same reason why the league gets an anti-trust exemption and claims"there is no business like a sports league" is why you're flat wrong here! Not all cities /owners are the same and the local markets are very different, with the economies of scale to larger thriving cities. But the product you're selling league wide is competition based on a level playing field with each team having an equal chance to win. That is what has made the NFL king of all sports leagues. Each teams fans believe they have a chance at the playoffs at the start of the season, with no team buying up all the best players due to economies of scale. Take that away and leave super nouveu riche owners like Kraft, Allen, Snyder et al to dominate the landscape and you have a league that sucks a la MLB.This league was built on revenue sharing and if they don't like the rules after they paid the price to join the "club", tough darts. Stick to mayonnaise, software, etc that made you rich and forget about fu**ing up sports for the rest of us. :blush:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

easy for you to say - you didn't spend $300 million of your own money on a stadium for your team.

594895[/snapback]

It's an investment, like putting a pool in your backyard. He doesn't put his 300 million at risk because he can get a profit on his investment any day he wants. He chose to do that because he would make money on it in the short run and the long run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WRT buying a team/expansion fee, it's called initial investment. The NFL isn't obligated to help an owner buy a team to help him join the NFL, and that's primarily why new owners are left alone to find financing, from what I understand. The idea is that you'll make your money after while and again as has been mentioned, you can sell it to make a profit to someone else.

 

As for revenue-sharing and new stadiums, a lot of owners built new and expensive stadiums to attract high-rollers to buy luxury boxes and such, that they'd get to put in their pockets directly without sharing. However if the proposal that the NFLPA wants is that luxury box revenue should count towards the cap, then these owners who spent money on new stadiums deserve a higher portion of the revenue pie, ideally enough to cover their stradium debts. That only seems fair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's an investment, like putting a pool in your backyard. He doesn't put his 300 million at risk because he can get a profit on his investment any day he wants. He chose to do that because he would make money on it in the short run and the long run.

 

right, and you can't blame him for trying to recoup his investment.

 

If you owned a pizza place and had to pay rent, while your competitor across town didn't have to pay rent would you want to have to give him a portion of your profits?

 

(yeah, that was a horrible example)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True, but I also think owners like Jones and Kraft would prefer competing in a two-tiered NFL, where the same 8-10 teams go to the playoffs every year (their teams) and the rest are cannon fodder.  Playoffs=extra revenue!

 

PTR

594846[/snapback]

 

Hey, they have to know it doesn't get any better than this. Imagine the entire country, and a surprisingly large amount of the world, gathering around their tv's to watch the Mariners and Pirates in the World Series. Not in our lifetime. A united NFL can sell any matchup they want because fans really believe in the product. Hell, the weekend is actually becoming a national shopping holiday that retailers plan for. It's beyond huge, and it's because it means so much to SO MANY people, not just the fans in the respective championship ciities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

right, and you can't blame him for trying to recoup his investment.

 

If you owned a pizza place and had to pay rent, while your competitor across town didn't have to pay rent would you want to have to give him a portion of your profits?

 

(yeah, that was a horrible example)

595022[/snapback]

It's actually a good example, for why the Dan Snyders of the world are screwing the NFL. All other sports leagues think of themselves as 30 or so separate pizza places all trying to make the best pizza and make the most money. The NFL, to its credit, thinks of itself as the National Pizza League, one company, with 32 franchise restaurants all trying to make money for the NPL. Snyder and Jones are trying to open their own pizza place with their own recipes and prices and keep the difference under the National Pizza league umbrella because they have the best location for their restaurant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why does everyone assume we won't be able to compete if there is no salary cap? As I recall, there was no salary cap until '93/'94. Seems Buffalo put together quite a formidable team without a salary cap. I'm sure they can do it again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think about it, its not just Buffalo who'd go down if there is no salary cap...the NFL would watch Buffalo, Green Bay, Pittsburgh, Kansas City, Jacksonville, Baltimore and Tampa Bay just die.  There is no way that Tags wants his lasting memory to be the man who killed off those great teams.

594164[/snapback]

The problem is owners like Snyder, Kraft and Jones probably could care less if some of these teams don't survive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the difference being that Kraft decided that because he had by far the worst restaurant in the entire league, he was going to build a new one.

 

When he built his new restaurant he was saddled with debt. Now the other pizza guys want to take a chunk out of his luxury table sales - sales that exist only because he put up $300 million to build luxury tables.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is owners like Snyder, Kraft and Jones probably could care less if some of these teams don't survive.

595092[/snapback]

They'd better care -- unlike the pizza-parlor analogy, you kind of need opposing teams if you're going to run a sports league...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, but this "new breed" is called being an American and living by the good ol American principle of having as free a market as possible and getting a good product through competition with everyone trying to get the best for himself.

594900[/snapback]

 

 

If that is what you call it... Call it what you will. They are effing everybody.

 

Bob Kraft calls it squeezing 4 people into 3 season ticket seats at Sullivan Stadium for Pats games in th eearly '70s. He admitted taking part in this little theft of service in a Forbes article last year. I guess he has always been doing what is best for himeself. Can you actually belive they published a story like that? :(:w00t:

 

Now that he is owner, think he allows that to go on at "The Razor?"

 

You wonder why the Sullivan boys went broke in NE?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the difference being that Kraft decided that because he had by far the worst restaurant in the entire league, he was going to build a new one.

 

When he built his new restaurant he was saddled with debt.   Now the other pizza guys want to take a chunk out of his luxury table sales - sales that exist only because he put up $300 million to build luxury tables.

595093[/snapback]

 

And the Pats better win and win and win... Think the NFL knows what a fickle fan base they could have there?... Weren't they moving to Hartford?

 

Could this explain the "blowfest" over the Pats? Saddled with debt and Smith-Barney re-working Kraft's debt on the place EVERY 30 DAYS can only go so far. :(

 

Put RW into this mess of owners and he doesn't look so bad... An honorable business man he is. I will support a guy like that till the day I die.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BackInDaDay

Because the old NFL was already franchised to most major cities, the old AFL owners had to drum up action in less glamorous locales. Smaller cities, with good football fans welcomed their AFL teams. When the new league's success established itself as an equal to the old league they merged.

 

Back then owners costs were low. Some were lower than others, but even the new league owners weren't putting up king's ransoms to buy into the league. Most of these men had similar financial investments in their franchises. This probably made the whole 'revenue sharing' thing a little easier for the large market owners to swallow. That, and the work of W. Mara in helping to convince other NFL owners that the the success of their business was dependent on good football on the field. This would give each franchise equal footing in fielding competitve teams. This would insure franchises could stay afloat.

 

Turn the page 50 years and we find the NFL falling victim to it's success.

 

Old owners are selling their franchises at huge profits. Hey, that's the American way, but the standards which helped form the league - equal risks / equal rewards - have been skewed. The league now finds itself demanding greater risks from it's new owners, while offering the same rewards. To offset some of the financial burden of that risk, these new owners want to re-align the league's wealth. It's a natural, economic progression.

 

Owners like Wilson, Rooney, Mara, Hunt, etc. are sitting on goldmines. They have to accommodate these new owners to sustain the business and thereby protect the value of their own francises. They need to compromise on a position which leaves them with a smaller slice of the revenue pie in order to preserve their opportunity to sell their own franchise at an un-godly profit.

 

A fellow poster compared the new owners with homeowners buying into a top-shelf neighborhood. OK. But what if the old guy up the block starts letting his house go, and isn't putting much into it. This can't be good for the rest of the owners on the block, especially the new owners who've poured most of their money into buying their place. If more than one old timer doesn't spend what it takes to keep up their homes, the new folks just bought into a bad investment.

 

The NFL has to figure out a way to help the old owners keep their houses in order while giving the new owners some relief in maintaining theirs. When Ralph's kids sell his 'house' for 500 mil, they'll be happy he did.

 

Once the owners decide what they're going to give each other, they can address what they're going to give they players in their new CBA. It's quite a volatile transition period for the league, and especially it's old owners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the difference being that Kraft decided that because he had by far the worst restaurant in the entire league, he was going to build a new one.

 

When he built his new restaurant he was saddled with debt.  Now the other pizza guys want to take a chunk out of his luxury table sales - sales that exist only because he put up $300 million to build luxury tables.

595093[/snapback]

Kraft bought his National Pizza League franchise for 172 million. He could now sell it tomorrow for a billion with his new luxury restaurant, and he made that 800+ million (500+ million if you subtract what he spent remodeling) ONLY ONLY ONLY because the NPL makes the best pizza in the world and knows exactly how to sell it, not because Bob Kraft makes fabulous pizza and is a great businessman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kraft bought his National Pizza League franchise for 172 million. He could now sell it tomorrow for a billion with his new luxury restaurant, and he made that 800+ million (500+ million if you subtract what he spent remodeling) ONLY ONLY ONLY because the NPL makes the best pizza in the world and knows exactly how to sell it, not because Bob Kraft mades fabulous pizza and is a great businessman.

596348[/snapback]

 

Excellent point.

 

I won't shed a single tear for Jones, Snyder, Kraft or McNair.

 

When your problem is that you spent 500 million of your play money to buy a team and you're biatching, I'm sorry, but that doesn't seem like much of a problem to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, Mr Republican. But the same reason why the league gets an anti-trust exemption and claims"there is no business like a sports league" is why you're flat wrong here! Not all cities /owners are the same and the local markets are very different, with the economies of scale to larger thriving cities. But the product you're selling league wide is competition based on a level playing field with each team having an equal chance to win. That is what has made the NFL king of all sports leagues. Each teams fans believe they have a chance at the playoffs at the start of the season, with no team buying up all the best players due to economies of scale. Take that away and leave super nouveu riche owners like Kraft, Allen, Snyder et al to dominate the landscape and you have a league that sucks a la MLB.This league was built on revenue sharing and if they don't like the rules after they paid the price to join the "club", tough darts. Stick to mayonnaise, software, etc that made you rich and forget about fu**ing up sports for the rest of us. :(

594948[/snapback]

 

 

I'm not sure I understand your post (no doubt because of my own mental failings so your explaining it to me is appreciated). On one hand you talk about all the franchises being different, but on the other hand you seem to present the NFL as being great because a unitary whole which guranteed equality is presented.

 

Do YOU see the NFL as 32 different and separate units doing their own thing (some of whom make good choices and win and profit and some of whom make bad choices with the approrpiate penalties) or do you this as a unitary whole where everyone has an equal chance generally to win it all and no one fails in the big picture irregardless of mistakes they might make.

 

Or alternately is something else going on here.

 

In general, the way of American captalism is to have a system which allows folks to throw their money around as they chose and because of benefits and penalties of outcomes theoetically a better product is produced as the good choosers are rewarded and the bad choosers go away.

 

On the other hand, one can adopt a system which is not the same as but is more akin to socialism where the rich folks are restricted in throwing $ around as th choose and poor decisionmakers know they will never be killed because the safety net assures everyone of survival.

 

My sense is that in practice and in outcome the NFL is taking the latter route by stopping the Snyders etc from spending all the choose on players to create a team as good as they can. The revenue sharing of the big cash cow of TV money allows even idiots like the Bidwills to profit regardless of his marketing decisions.

 

Do you see something else going on here? Do you think the adoption of socialistic tyoe controls is producing a better product than the traditional American way?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BackInDaDay
Excellent point.

 

I won't shed a single tear for Jones, Snyder, Kraft or McNair.

 

When your problem is that you spent 500 million of your play money to buy a team and you're biatching, I'm sorry, but that doesn't seem like much of a problem to me.

596353[/snapback]

 

Who are the new owners buying from? The old ones! They're the ones who came into an equitable business situation and are creating an inequitable one for they're own personal gain. Why do you blame guys from buying their franchises? If they could buy them for less, don't you think they would?

 

When the Wilson estate sells the Buffalo franchise to new ownership for say, $500M, without a modified revenue sharing plan in place, the Bills new owner will be forced to bring more money in elsewhere. Even if New York State and Erie County continue to offer tax breaks and help subsidise the franchise, that will not be enough to keep across the board price increases from taking place. That may not even be enough to keep the franchise solvent.

 

Unless the new owner has sentimental ties to WNY, if what's coming in is less than what's going out, he's gone. Any hopes of keeping the Bills in Buffalo hinge on a restructuring of the league's wealth. It will cost Wilson money now, but when his kids hang the 'for sale' sign on the club, at least prospective buyers know they're walking into a managable economic situation with no immediate need to move the team to another location.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...