dfosterf
15 years ago
Link 


Revenue sharing remains a key source of potential controversy
Posted by Mike Florio on March 21, 2010 7:45 PM ET
We've heard from multiple league insiders who agree with our assessment that the current unity among NFL owners is fleeting, and largely confined to one issue: Squeezing the players into taking less money.

As to the issue of owners sharing the money that their teams generate, the potential for discord remains. Indeed, four years ago we believed that, absent a comprehensive solution, the NFL possibly could split into two leagues -- one made up of teams willing to share every dollar and another composed of teams with an "every man for himself" mentality.

Supplemental revenue sharing, the redistribution of wealth from teams making the most to teams making the least, has turned out to be a Band-Aid at best. Meanwhile, the traditional notions of sharing have been challenged over the past decade.

A league source tells us that, for example, the traditional 60-40 split of ticket money between home team and road team doesn't apply universally. Per the source, the Cowboys have finagled an exception for club seat revenue, apparently to help defray the costs of the North Texas Football Cathedral. Other teams have worked out similar deals, many of which transactions have received little or no publicity.

Bottom line? If the NFL plans to maintain competitive balance via a salary cap and a salary floor based on total football revenues, any new agreement must account for the fact that a formula based on total revenues will increase the labor costs for low-revenue teams. Absent a long-term answer to this specific problem, the situation will continue to create controversy every time a labor deal is due to be renewed, and it will only get worse as the gap in the revenues continues to grow.

In the interim, the challenge for the NFL will be to keep that percolating problem tightly under wraps. For the NFLPA, the mission is clear -- find a way to force this core issue to the surface sooner rather than later.



Revenue sharing is what keeps the Pack competitive.

How's about throwing Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder out of the NFL?
They can both play with themselves, as far as I'm concerned.

I LIKE that idea.
Rockmolder
15 years ago
Thank you.

I was thinking the exact same thing when I read that. I'm getting more and moe annoyed by what Jones is trying to do, getting around revenue sharing, trying to get rid of the salary cap.

I really hope that no one will follow his lead. Getting the Dallas Yankees in the NFL will destroy the game.

And I know. He didn't go crazy spending money right now. I do think that, in the long haul, he'll make the Cowboys into the Yankees.
dfosterf
15 years ago
I bet that even the Cowboys fans would grow weary of playing the Redskins after about 15 weeks in a row, lol

Seriously though, when you think about it...The costs associated with those two teams far outstrip their value to the league as a whole, and if the idea ever gained traction to the point that either of them got a little nervous- well, the entire NFL would be better off if they kept their yaps and wallets closed.
Pack93z
15 years ago
Greed is at the root of all collapse in history... why would the NFL be any different?
"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"
Stevetarded
15 years ago
I thought the Packers were one of the teams that had to pay into revenue sharing?
blank
all_about_da_packers
15 years ago

I thought the Packers were one of the teams that had to pay into revenue sharing?

"Stevetarded" wrote:




They are.... which leads me to be very confused as to why the Packers need revenue sharing to survive....

What stops any NFL team from being like the Yankees is that broadasting revenue is evenly split amongst all NFL teams, whereas in MLB it's solely dependent on what a team can get in its local market - hence Yankees get a lot more than, say, the Pirates.
The NFL: Where Greg Jennings Happens.
Pack93z
15 years ago

I thought the Packers were one of the teams that had to pay into revenue sharing?

"all_about_da_packers" wrote:




They are.... which leads me to be very confused as to why the Packers need revenue sharing to survive....

What stops any NFL team from being like the Yankees is that broadasting revenue is evenly split amongst all NFL teams, whereas in MLB it's solely dependent on what a team can get in its local market - hence Yankees get a lot more than, say, the Pirates.

"Stevetarded" wrote:



Which is exactly the problem, it will lead to competitive imbalance and will pull the overall league down. Currently, with the stadium redone our revenues are up... at the moment, probably isn't a huge deal, but that will last only so long.

What then.. selling more sod to redo Lambeau the next time? Water down the stock concept with more stock?

Sure we could go the route of the YES network here.. PACKTV is what you will have to subscribe to to get, fight with cable companies nationally to get it instituted into their packages, etc.

BTW, I believe the massive TV contract that the NFL signs prevents this from happening, which isn't the revenue stream that is being discussed.. it is the clubs revenue around ticket sales, merchandise and other local forms of revenue.

The beauty and honestly the success of the NFL is its competitive parity... start washing that away and it will become a violent version of baseball. They are both beautiful games, just MLB hasn't had to balls to level the playing field for all clubs.

Jerry Jones and his new temple provide a threat to the overall success of the NFL.. the sooner he is absent the better. Greedy SOB.

Does it suck having to fork cash over to say the Vikes.. sure it does right now.. but that more than likely won't stay a constant.. sooner or later the stadium issue will be resolved and their revenues may increase. Maybe some day they are forking cash out to other franchises.. maybe us.

It is a overgrown coop... a way to balance the revenue stream so that all parties make a profit and the overall league stays healthy.

Want to see what the NFL will become if they break that apart.. see the NBA.. almost all trades are to wash away contracts, many of them are aren't about equality in talent.. just salaries. The clubs that can take on the long term heavy payrolls gobble up the talent and deal in expiring contracts. Note the Dallas / Washington trade as the deadline.

That is not what I want for the NFL I love.. and it is not that teams are losing money. It is the greed of some, one in particular that build the second coming of Rome, that by the rules can't become the Yankees and corner the market.. and it bruises his precious little ego.

Greed has taken down many an empire.. trust me the NFL is an empire.. and it can fall to greed just like any other empire.

Will it mean instant doom for the NFL.. nope.. but we have a couple of posters here than compare the Packers to the 70's and 80's... IMO, lack of revenue sharing (BTW, we are not talking about TV contracts) will start to bring that fate to some of the weak right now.
"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"
Zero2Cool
15 years ago
Okay, who's posting as Shawn? That was too well written and even I understood what he said. What have you done with our Shawn? :P



I do not mind giving money we earn to others. This year we scratch their back, maybe next year they scratch ours. And if that's what it takes to keep a competitive league, so be it.
UserPostedImage
bozz_2006
15 years ago
dfosterf, can you explain to me (a guy who doesn't have much knowledge of labor deals and revenue sharing) how revenue sharing is what keeps the Pack competitive? Are you saying that it benefits the Packers more than other teams (besides the Redskins and Cowboys) or do you mean that the Packers and most other teams rely on revenue sharing to stay competitive? So, my questions are
1) How does revenue sharing help the Packers?
2) What other teams need revenue sharing for the same reasons the Packers do?
UserPostedImage
Pack93z
15 years ago

Okay, who's posting as Shawn? That was too well written and even I understood what he said. What have you done with our Shawn? :P

"Zero2Cool" wrote:



Hmmm, you really don't read a lot of my posts do you.. lol. ;)

Bozz...

http://football.calsci.com/SalaryCap.html 

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2781759 
"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"
Fan Shout
wpr (6h) : 7 days
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : sounds like Packers don't get good compensation, Jaire staying
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Nobody coming up with a keep, but at x amount
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Trade, cut or keep
dfosterf (16-Apr) : that from Jaire
dfosterf (16-Apr) : My guess is the Packers floated the concept of a reworked contract via his agent and agent got a f'
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Yes, and that is why I think Rob worded it how he did. Rather than say "agent"
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Same laws apply. Agent must present such an offer to Jaire. Cannot accept or reject without presenting it
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : I'm thinking that is why Rob worded it how he did.
dfosterf (16-Apr) : The Packers can certainly still make the offer to the agent
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Laws of agency and definition of fiduciary responsibility
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Jaire is open to a reduced contract without Jaire's permission
dfosterf (16-Apr) : The agent would arguably violate the law if he were to tell the Packers
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : That someone ... likely the agent.
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : So, Jaire has not been offered nor rejected a pay reduction, but someone says he'd decline.
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Demovksy says t was direct communication with someone familiar with Jaire’s line of thinking at that moment.
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Demovsky just replied to me a bit ago. Jaire hasn't said it.
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Of course, that depends on the definition of "we"
dfosterf (16-Apr) : We have been told that they haven't because he wouldn't accept it. I submit we don't know that
dfosterf (16-Apr) : What is the downside in making a calculated reduced offer to Jaire?
Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : Packers are receiving interest in Jaire Alexander but a trade is not imminent
Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : Jalen Ramsey wants to be traded. He's never happy is he?
Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : two 1sts in 2022 and two 2nd's in 2023 and 2024
Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : Packers had fortunate last three drafts.
dfosterf (15-Apr) : I may have to move
dfosterf (15-Apr) : My wife just told the ancient Japanese sushi dude not enough rice under his fish
Zero2Cool (14-Apr) : I think a dozen is what I need
dfosterf (14-Apr) : Go fund me for this purpose just might work. A dozen nurses show up at 1265 to provide mental health assistance.
dfosterf (14-Apr) : Maybe send a crew of Angels to the Packers draft room on draft day.
Zero2Cool (14-Apr) : I am the Angel that gets visited.
dfosterf (14-Apr) : Visiting Angels has a pretty good reputation
Zero2Cool (14-Apr) : what
Martha Careful (14-Apr) : WINNING IT, not someone else losing it. The best victory though was re-uniting with his wife
Martha Careful (14-Apr) : The manner in which he won it was just amazing and wonderful. First blowing the lead then getting back, then blowing it. But ultimately
Zero2Cool (12-Apr) : I'm guessing since the thumb was broken, he wasn't feeling it.
dfosterf (10-Apr) : Looking for guidance. Not feeling the thumb.
Mucky Tundra (10-Apr) : If they knew about it or not
Mucky Tundra (10-Apr) : I don't recall that he did which is why I asked.
Zero2Cool (10-Apr) : Guessing they probably knew. Did he have cast or something on?
Mucky Tundra (10-Apr) : Did they know that at the time or was that something the realized afterwards?
Zero2Cool (9-Apr) : Van Ness played most of season with broken thumb
wpr (9-Apr) : yay
Zero2Cool (9-Apr) : Mark Murphy says Steelers likely to protect Packers game. Meaning, no Ireland
Zero2Cool (8-Apr) : Struggling to figure out what text editor options are needed and which are 'nice to have'
Mucky Tundra (8-Apr) : *CHOMP CHOMP CHOMP*
Zero2Cool (2-Apr) : WR who said he'd break Xavier Worthy 40 time...and ran slower than you
Mucky Tundra (2-Apr) : Who?
Zero2Cool (2-Apr) : Texas’ WR Isaiah Bond is scheduled to visit the Bills, Browns, Chiefs, Falcons, Packers and Titans starting next week.
Zero2Cool (2-Apr) : Spotting ball isn't changing, only measuring distance is, Which wasn't the issue.
Zero2Cool (2-Apr) : The spotting of the ball IS the issue. Not the chain gang.
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2024 Packers Schedule
Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
Eagles
Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
Titans
Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
Jaguars
Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
49ERS
Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM
Vikings
Sunday, Jan 5 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Jan 12 @ 3:30 PM
Eagles
Recent Topics
4h / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

16-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

15-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

13-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

12-Apr / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Zero2Cool

11-Apr / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Rockmolder

2-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

2-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

1-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

1-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

31-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

30-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

29-Mar / Random Babble / wpr

28-Mar / Random Babble / Martha Careful

26-Mar / Random Babble / Mucky Tundra

Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.