|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246
Legend
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,246 |
Might as well start talking about the labor issues on the horizon... www.KFFL.comNFL | To end $100 million in revenue sharing Mon, 07 Dec 2009 07:39:48 -0800 Chris Mortensen, of ESPN, reports the NFL has notified the players' union that effective in March, owners will pull the plug on the $100 million-per-year revenue-sharing program that has subsidized lower-revenue clubs, according to multiple sources. By Tuesday, Dec. 8, the NFL Players Association will challenge the move with an NFL arbitrator, claiming owners can't terminate the revenue-sharing model without the union's approval because it was adopted into the 2006 labor agreement, which doesn't expire until March 2011.
I am unfamiliar with this feeling of optimism
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,561
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,561 |
Oh man, this is a fire storm that is going to cause a ton of unrest...
Actually, I'm wondering if its just a ploy to intimidate the union...
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 218
2nd String
|
|
2nd String
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 218 |
Why would the Owners want to discontinue the Revenue Sharing? Doesn't that help out teams by giving them the 100 Million?
I'll admit, I'm not too familiar with it, but I think I've heard the basics.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,563
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 4,563 |
Quote:
Why would the Owners want to discontinue the Revenue Sharing? Doesn't that help out teams by giving them the 100 Million?
I'll admit, I'm not too familiar with it, but I think I've heard the basics.
I'm fairly certain that the NFL owners are tired of paying for the Jacksonville franchise that has not produced attendance.
This is a bad thing for teams that do not have a rabid following. It means nothing for the Browns, IMO, though.
you had a good run Hank.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Basically, it's a "Have's giving to the have not's" type of thing if I understand it correctly. Basically, the Cowboys are tired of giving money to the Phins and Bengals in order to make themselves more competitive by being able to be more financially sound while making the other teams less financially sound.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,833
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,833 |
I'd like to change the rookie contracts and keep the salary cap. I just don't think the NFLPA will want it however.......
there are also proposed chages to the roster like more active players on the roster bigger ps etc.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 880
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 880 |
Quote:
Oh man, this is a fire storm that is going to cause a ton of unrest...
Actually, I'm wondering if its just a ploy to intimidate the union...
I think it is as well. They want the players to know that there will be significantly less teams able to afford higher salaries in an uncapped season.
I think this is the only leverage the owners really have. Unfortunately, this will REALLY hurt the smaller-market teams.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,531
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,531 |
Quote:
Quote:
Why would the Owners want to discontinue the Revenue Sharing? Doesn't that help out teams by giving them the 100 Million?
I'll admit, I'm not too familiar with it, but I think I've heard the basics.
I'm fairly certain that the NFL owners are tired of paying for the Jacksonville franchise that has not produced attendance.
This is a bad thing for teams that do not have a rabid following. It means nothing for the Browns, IMO, though.
Really? Cuz I think the Browns fanbase has decreased significantly after this disaster of a year.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,186
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,186 |
It would be like baseball. Thta's not good for the league overall. There already is a large gap growing among the haves and have not's. We have 2 12-0 teams, and 3 1-11 squads. PLus plenty of teams are having attendence issues. Even though we sold out, the stadium was barely half-full.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,561
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,561 |
Quote:
I think this is the only leverage the owners really have. Unfortunately, this will REALLY hurt the smaller-market teams.
I'm a little confused by that as well.. I mean, look at Jacksonville,, that's a team that doesn't generate the type of revenue that we do for instance.. They can't fill up thier stadium.. we can, even when the team sucks such as now.
Thier merchandise sales are probably in the toilet as well. I would think.. don't know for sure.
I think that would make it easier to make a case to move a franchise like Jacksonville to another city,, like maybe LA for instance.
But here is was confuses me..
I was always under the impression that the league itself was owned by the owners of the 32 teams.. So if the NFL makes a profit, where does it go if not to the owners?
I'm kinda wondering if this is a way of putting the money directly in the pockets of the team owners without paying the Team itself..
This is a bit out of the box, but you have Randy Lerner.. he owns the Browns. The way it's set up now, if the league produces a distributable profit of 1 billion.. THen the Browns would get 1/32 of that amount.
Now, if they no longer share profits with the teams,,, where does the money go,, perhaps that 1/32 goes directly into the pocket of Randy Lerner? it by passes the team thus making it NOT part of the amount the NFLPA bargans for......
Interesting concept, but I have NO idea if that's what they are doing.. just interesing..
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Why would the Owners want to discontinue the Revenue Sharing? Doesn't that help out teams by giving them the 100 Million?
I'll admit, I'm not too familiar with it, but I think I've heard the basics.
I'm fairly certain that the NFL owners are tired of paying for the Jacksonville franchise that has not produced attendance.
This is a bad thing for teams that do not have a rabid following. It means nothing for the Browns, IMO, though.
Really? Cuz I think the Browns fanbase has decreased significantly after this disaster of a year.
I don't think the fanbase has decreased at all, they just aren't as enthusiastic about the team at this point as they have been in the past.
And all it would take is to start next season off with a win or 2 and the fans will be happy to come right back. Even in a bad season like this though, there is still plenty of revenue coming in from the fans.
Unlike teams like Jax, Buf, Mia and Arizona before their SB trip. Teams that year after year had trouble selling out games and didn't have huge followings.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
Quote:
It would be like baseball. Thta's not good for the league overall. There already is a large gap growing among the haves and have not's. We have 2 12-0 teams, and 3 1-11 squads. PLus plenty of teams are having attendence issues. Even though we sold out, the stadium was barely half-full.
Take this with a grain because while I do try and follow the business model of the league, I don't know it as well as I know the game itself.
The original idea behind the revenue sharing was that the extra money went to all things for the lower revenue-producing clubs, including using that money for player salaries. While there was a minimum salary cap required to be spent on salaries, there's nothing that says a percentage of their revenue must be spent on player salaries. So if that goes bye-bye, certain clubs can simply retreat backwards to try and make their bottom lines better, which would disrupt parity.
I suppose it's possible that this is a preemptive strike by the league to try and scare the union into realizing what will happen if there's no CBA in place. The NFL does away with Revenue-sharing, the minimum cap disappears, less teams would be looking for quality free agents or free agents at all, which obviously means less money for the players, which looks bad for the union.
Now, without putting too much thought into it, this could be a good thing for some of the clubs which are really struggling, because it'd mean less of a chance they'd either fold or have to relocate. The Jags obviously come to mind. It's not as though they'd actually want to go backwards in progress and operate without a CBA, turning the game into the bastardized MLB, but it would put more pressure on the Players union because teams wouldn't be forced to spend money on salaries, and though they likely wouldn't be competitive, they'd, perhaps, begin working their way towards the black and out of the red.
My best uneducated guess is that we won't have a CBA in 2010. That's going to mean players like Brick Edwards won't be unrestricted afterall.
Dark waters ahead...............
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,561
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,561 |
Quote:
Really? Cuz I think the Browns fanbase has decreased significantly after this disaster of a year.
I don't think so Ammo,,, We have a 70,000 seat stadium in Cleveland,, yet, there is only 5000 or so seats not sold for the home games, and that's only recently because of the poor play..
Now go look at jacksonville, they are lucky to get 30,000 people in the stands on any given week... Big difference..
The browns fans are out there,, they are just ticked off and bored with the product on the field.. THey still feel the team... they just aren't spending on a loser....
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
I believe you are right. I'm here all the time, I watch every game... I'm far less interested in receiving any Browns gear for Christmas though... If they start to be competitive, that will change immediately.
Right now I'm not wasting any money on a jersey when I have NO IDEA who will be here 2 years from now.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,531
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,531 |
Quote:
Quote:
Really? Cuz I think the Browns fanbase has decreased significantly after this disaster of a year.
I don't think so Ammo,,, We have a 70,000 seat stadium in Cleveland,, yet, there is only 5000 or so seats not sold for the home games, and that's only recently because of the poor play..
Now go look at jacksonville, they are lucky to get 30,000 people in the stands on any given week... Big difference..
The browns fans are out there,, they are just ticked off and bored with the product on the field.. THey still feel the team... they just aren't spending on a loser....
I dunno Daman, I've heard more people this year say they're done with this team and are becoming Steelers fans.
Mangini pissed off the fans the moment he was hired cuz he wasn't a big name and failed in NY and it's been a snowball ever since. You have an entire generation saying "screw the Browns, go Cavs!" and the local media TELLING Cleveland fans to shun the Browns and embrace the Cavs.
I think the potential blackouts looming is proof that many people are truly done with this franchise.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Really? Cuz I think the Browns fanbase has decreased significantly after this disaster of a year.
I don't think so Ammo,,, We have a 70,000 seat stadium in Cleveland,, yet, there is only 5000 or so seats not sold for the home games, and that's only recently because of the poor play..
Now go look at jacksonville, they are lucky to get 30,000 people in the stands on any given week... Big difference..
The browns fans are out there,, they are just ticked off and bored with the product on the field.. THey still feel the team... they just aren't spending on a loser....
I dunno Daman, I've heard more people this year say they're done with this team and are becoming Steelers fans.
I don't know any self respecting Browns fan that would say that....ever....no matter what.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
Quote:
I dunno Daman, I've heard more people this year say they're done with this team and are becoming Steelers fans.
Then they weren't Browns fans to begin with, and can't be relied upon to produce revenue regardless.
No, the fanbase is as it has always been. They just aren't spending the money right now. Get back to even 8-8 and things will be just fine.
Losing creates a negative false perception.
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,165
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,165 |
An article on how the revenue sharing works: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 NFL's Revenue Sharing Gives it Parity, and Unrivaled Success Last night, the Green Bay Packers destroyed the Seattle Seahawks by a score of 42-20 to reach the NFC conference championship game. In what many think is Brett Favre's last hurrah, the gunslinging quarterback revived a franchise that is just two years removed from a 4-12 season. No other professional sports league exhibits parity like the NFL, where it is commonplace for a team to have a successful year not long after a very disappointing one. This parity, and the NFL's unrivaled financial success, is due to revenue sharing. First introduced by former NFL Commissioner Pete Rozelle in the early sixties, the NFL revenue sharing system allows small market teams, such as the Green Bay Packers, to compete with larger market teams, such as the Dallas Cowboys. The NFL's revenue sharing system works like this: roughly 2/3 of the NFL's revenue comes from lucrative TV and radio broadcasting deals. The salary cap, the maximum money that goes to the players, utilizes about 2/3 of the teams revenue, so basically, the TV and radio broadcasting deals pay for the players' salaries. Each team has the same salary cap and each team has the same TV deal, which is why small market teams can field a competitive team. Other sources of revenue, such as NFL licensed products, are also shared equally. The other 1/3 of the league's generated revenue is derived from stadium sales, such as corporate boxes, seat sales and $8 hot dogs. This revenue sharing system gives teams, big or small market, a level, competitive playing field, while still giving entrepreneurial owners the ability to make substantial additional money through stadium income. The NFL owes its financial success to revenue sharing. Unlike the MLB and NBA, sports traditionally dominated by large market teams such as the New York Yankees and LA Lakers, the NFL has thrived on the "any given Sunday" phenomenon. It is this parity that keeps viewers on the edge of their seats every game, generating advertising sales, and gives fans, at the beginning of each year, the hope and belief that their teams have a realistic chance to make the Super Bowl. By giving the exclusive broadcasting rights of each conference to just one distribution channel, FOX for the NFC and CBS for the AFC, the NFL creates a bidding war for the right to televise its games, and gets a lucrative contract. The brilliance of this system gives the NFL its unrivaled financial success and devoted weekly audience. www.thebusinessofsports.com
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,561
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,561 |
Quote:
I dunno Daman, I've heard more people this year say they're done with this team and are becoming Steelers fans.
I'd say they fall into the catagory of "fair weather" fans.. The indians have a ton of them.. Stands are empty until they are winners.. then as soon as they drop, so does attendence.. Not so with the Browns.. as you can see, the Browns have to get REALLY REALLY BAD to lose butts in the seats...
Quote:
Mangini pissed off the fans the moment he was hired cuz he wasn't a big name and failed in NY and it's been a snowball ever since
Let's get a few things straight Ammo,, Mangini wasn't an unknown.. he didn't fail in NYC... But what he's done here, yeah, he appears to have messed things up bigtime..
But He'll not be here forever.. the fans that are REAL fans know that.. They know that eventually, the worm will turn...
Quote:
I think the potential blackouts looming is proof that many people are truly done with this franchise.
Don't make judgements based on pending doom,,
I think that IF we have any blackouts, it will be because of this years performance. While a black out may occure, I don't think it's any indication that the fans have left the team, I think they are as disappointed as you and I, but those that are the real fans, they will be here no matter what....
Again, you aren't seperating real fans from fair weather fans.....
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,882
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,882 |
And plus, if Lerner gets a big-named GM and maybe fires Mangini, expect some more excitement in 2010.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/Punchsmack/punch.gif) “...Iguodala to Curry, back to Iguodala, up for the layup! Oh! Blocked by James! LeBron James with the rejection!”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,950
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,950 |
It's a negotiating ploy, take it all away at the begining and negotiate some back over time after you get what you want, it's getting something for less than what they had to start with, or getting something you need bye giving somebody something they already had, ownership v.s. unions do it all the time, both sides.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,561
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,561 |
Thanks Gift Horse, for sharing that info..
Well, Reading that, I still don't get it.
Is the league owned by the owners of the 32 franchises or is it an entity all to itself?
I think I remember it being owned by the team owners. So if they stop revenue sharing, I don't think it changes anything but the amount of money that is put into the team kitty to be shared with the Players....
The more I think about it, the more I think it's a plan to appear to generate less revenue to make the pie that gets paid to the players smaller..
The NFLPA isn't dumb enough to fall for that... as Toad said,, Dark days ahead.....
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,531
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,531 |
Mangini may not be here forever, but Junior will be (well, for a long, long time at least).
That may be the final straw: ownership that is so clearly inept that no one will want to come here, much like the Raiders.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,165
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,165 |
From where I'm standing it seems clear that the NFL owners of influence are ready and willing to migrate teh NFL to a MLB type format.
Take this step of ending revenue sharing combined with the impending death of the salary cap and it's the only conclusion I can draw.
The big market teams want to take a shot at becoming the NY Yankees of the NFL and figure that even if they fail they can be the Red Sox. Either way. they put more money in their pockets and teams like Cleveland, Buffalo, and Green Bay become the "Indians".
Very few small market owners have real pull anymore - and the ones that do are well over 70 years old. This is a Jerry Jones type move and I don't think anyone in the small markets can stop it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,561
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,561 |
Quote:
Mangini may not be here forever, but Junior will be (well, for a long, long time at least).
That may be the final straw: ownership that is so clearly inept that no one will want to come here, much like the Raiders.
Oh give it a rest.. Randy is NO WHERE NEAR WHAT Al Davis is.. Come on man.., Wake the hell up..
There isn't a damn thing wrong with Lerner.. nothing. It's one of the dumbest arguments I've ever heard.
He's a back of the room guy. he doesn't want any recognition, he wants a winner and I'm completely convinced he won't stop trying to find the folks that will get his Browns there.. What the hell else do you want from an owner...
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,882
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,882 |
Yup, I agree.
The owners want this badly. Despite losing the perceived league parity, it will save them millions. Just like MLB, the stars will get paid huge contracts by the big-market teams while everyone else gets scraps. It's an odd gamble from the players, they'd risk being paid very little to maybe be one of the dozen players that get a lions share of the money. Greed at it's finest.
I'd like to hear from all the guys that claim baseball is dead to them for this very reason. If this all goes through like it might, the NFL will look a lot like MLB. Will they stop caring about football too?
The big-market teams will dominate the league. So a guy like Joe Thomas could be long gone in 2-3 years because we can't either afford the contract Jerry Jones is offering. And that a franchise tag will be long gone too.
And like Daman said, Lerner isn't that bad. He made a horrible decision on Mangini. Savage and Crennell wasn't bad. He needs to hit the next GM/coach combo out of the park....he can miss or be decent. It has to be a winner.
Last edited by Punchsmack; 12/07/09 04:06 PM.
“...Iguodala to Curry, back to Iguodala, up for the layup! Oh! Blocked by James! LeBron James with the rejection!”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,561
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,561 |
Quote:
The big market teams want to take a shot at becoming the NY Yankees of the NFL
God I hope your wrong about that.. in fact I'm pretty sure you are.
The Owners know that the reason they are so damn successful is, in part, because of the relationship they share (and the revenue as well)
There are 32 teams,, each team has an equal vote,, the age of the owners don't mean a thing in that sense..
Now go and look at the number of small market teams
Pittsburgh
Cleveland
Cincinnati
Nashville
Green Bay
Minnisota
New Orleans
Jacksonville
San Diego
Seattle
Carolina
Kansas City
St. Louis (iffy on this one)
Detroit
Buffalo
Denver
Arizona (iffy on this one)
Oakland
I think those would be considered small market.. at least none of them compare to:
Dallas
NYC
NE
Miami
Baltimore
Washington, DC
San Fran
Miami
Houston (iffy on this one)
Tampa (iffy on this one)
Given those demographics, I'd say the small market teams would out vote the large market teams..
No way is Randy Lerner or Art Rooney going to vote for a deal that lessens competitive balance. Same with all the small market teams. won't happen..
It seems inconceivable to me that they would put in jeopardy the very thing that got them to where they are..
No No,, I think this is a gun to the head of the union...
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887 |
I thought the Browns were in the top 10 for generating revenue???
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
NRTU
It could be the first move to separating the revenue sharing.
Wasn't Jones trying to get the sharing changed to not include team licensed products a few years back?
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,531
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,531 |
Quote:
Quote:
Mangini may not be here forever, but Junior will be (well, for a long, long time at least).
That may be the final straw: ownership that is so clearly inept that no one will want to come here, much like the Raiders.
Oh give it a rest.. Randy is NO WHERE NEAR WHAT Al Davis is.. Come on man.., Wake the hell up..
There isn't a damn thing wrong with Lerner.. nothing. It's one of the dumbest arguments I've ever heard.
He's a back of the room guy. he doesn't want any recognition, he wants a winner and I'm completely convinced he won't stop trying to find the folks that will get his Browns there.. What the hell else do you want from an owner...
He's 0-2 with people he's hired, his football operations and his non-football operations are a joke. All he has are deep pockets.
I could go into detail but I don't have the time right now.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,975
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,975 |
Quote:
And plus, if Lerner gets a big-named GM and maybe fires Mangini, expect some more excitement in 2010.
Really?
Based on what? What players are going to be (now) unrestricted free agents? Without a cap, the most likely players to be let go are underperforming/overpaid guys who negatively impact the cap if kept. Cutting them in an uncapped year makes a ton of sense as there would be no cap considerations ..... and such a senario could get a team out of "cap hell" in a hurry.
If anything, it could increase competition for quality players. Once teams can rid themselves of future negative cap issues .... they can consider spending for the present and next couple of years. This would include spending on their own free agents.
Remember, much of a team's salary cap is money that has already been paid out in the form of bonuses. It is not money leaving the owner's pocket in this calendar year. An uncapped year would allow teams to accelerate those monies off their cap ..... and increase their current and future capacity to spend .. even if a cap is reinstated the following year.
Further, each team would have 2 "tags" in an uncapped year. How many "great" players hit the market in any given year on any given team? If anything, the market might be up for those guys who have a year or 2 of decent productivity left ...... but premiere players would be even more unlikely to hit the market.
Then take into account the fact that currently NFL players become unrestricted free agents (unless tagged) after 4 years. (or the end of their contract) Under the rules of an uncapped year, NFL players would have to have accrued 6 seasons to become an unrestricted free agent.
Now you have those players who show a lot of promise after 3 or 4 years ... and who could be signed in previous years, being restricted. This is the market that the browns would be most likely to look at for free agent signings ... and it is a market that will dry up in an uncapped year.
An uncapped year sounds like it would be a good thing for the Browns .... but it really could force them into another year of hitting the draft, and signing some guys on the backside of average careers.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,882
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 13,882 |
Quote:
Quote:
The big market teams want to take a shot at becoming the NY Yankees of the NFL
God I hope your wrong about that.. in fact I'm pretty sure you are.
The Owners know that the reason they are so damn successful is, in part, because of the relationship they share (and the revenue as well)
Well, it depends on what the owners want more of.....money or a chance to win a Super Bowl (parity).
Having no salary cap and floor will save the owners millions in player salaries (for those that want to save - some will spend like crazy). The NFL would be making a serious bet that the relationship between it's TV contracts, fans, and sponsors won't decline with this change in system. Therefore, saving them more money despite not getting as much of the pie.
“...Iguodala to Curry, back to Iguodala, up for the layup! Oh! Blocked by James! LeBron James with the rejection!”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,561
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,561 |
Quote:
I thought the Browns were in the top 10 for generating revenue???
Dunno, but I was speaking of market size,, Cleveland is considered a small market...
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887 |
Yeah Cleveland the city is but we have a large fan base and they make up the revenue. I saw somthing on Forbes like two years ago we were #8 or #9 in overall revenue. Granted that was two years ago. I'll try and find it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,561
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,561 |
if that happens, you will have second and third tier players playing.. like the days of replacment players.. Remember that... ugly..
I can't speak for anyone else,, But I can't follow NFL lite... The league would be shooting itself in the foot., JMO however
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887 |
web page We were #9. This was dated 9/2007 but it was for the 06 season. We might be lower now.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887 |
And we dropped to #15 for 2007 despite increasing our team value and revenue. web pageThen jumped to 13 in 2008 again increasing our revenue. web page So last year we generated 235 million in revenue.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,561
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,561 |
Quote:
Yeah Cleveland the city is but we have a large fan base and they make up the revenue. I saw somthing on Forbes like two years ago we were #8 or #9 in overall revenue. Granted that was two years ago. I'll try and find it.
Yes, and I bet above us is Green bay that is even smaller than Clevelnad.. the revenue of the team isn't what I was speaking of, I was speaking of the size of the market itself..
You can't compare the Cleveland market to chicago or NYC or Philly or Boston or Washington..
Don't confuse the two.....
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,561
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,561 |
Quote:
And we dropped to #15 for 2007 despite increasing our team value and revenue.
web page
Then jumped to 13 in 2008 again increasing our revenue.
web page
So last year we generated 235 million in revenue.
I think my head is going to explode... GEEZ..
it's not the revenue I was speaking of.. IT'S the SIZE OF THE MARKET..
I don't care if the browns generated the most revenue.. it's still a small market..
Did you notice the small difference in revenue and profits between Cleveland and Green Bay.. $100,000 separates the two in terms of income,,, 20.2 for Cleveland and 20,1 for Green bay..
Do you want to argue the size of the two markets....
Cleveland has higher revenue than the Giants, but lower income..
Do you want to argue the size of the difference between the two markets..
it's about the size of the market.. not the revenue achieved..
Last edited by Damanshot; 12/07/09 06:18 PM.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,561
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,561 |
Quote:
He's 0-2 with people he's hired, his football operations and his non-football operations are a joke. All he has are deep pockets
Geez,, you young kids crack me up,, I want it now,, I want instant gratification, I don't want to wait.. GEEZ...
Art Rooney was 1 for 8.. The one winner was Noll...
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum NFL to end revenue sharing...
|
|
![[Linked Image from thumb0.webshots.net]](http://thumb0.webshots.net/t/34/34/0/73/58/2594073580091396520Miskbz_th.jpg)
![[Linked Image from mypsn.eu.playstation.com]](http://mypsn.eu.playstation.com/psn/profile/Letherface.png)
