The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Raindog wrote:..When the salary cap was first introduced in 1994 it was $34.6 million. In 2006 it is $94.5 million, with a chance to jump to $105 million. Now, if my stocks appriciated that quickly, you know what I'd do with it? I'd leave it alone.

If you change the face of football because the rich teams are unwilling to share with some of the poorer teams, you are messing with seccess and they'd be fools to do so, and they know it. Otherwise, they'd just get rid of the cap altogther and revenue sharing altogether.

Okay! The only problem is that some owners do not want it to stay the way it was and the Players Assoc. wants a bigger piece of the pie (but they always were going to try that)

Thees smaller revenue teams want to change the formula and the NFLPA wants to change the formula.


I think we get a CBA with both sides forcing the issue that is in their interests. Jones and Co will compromise for this. BUT, that is changing the "formula for success" that was the NFL. Or at least the formula for success for most of the NFL.

SkinsJock wrote:Thees smaller revenue teams want to change the formula and the NFLPA wants to change the formula.

They had to change the formula once the PA wanted a piece of the entire revenue, including, amoungst many other things, merchandice. Figuring out how a new revenue sharing system is a byproduct of that change.

Raindog wrote:
My point is that the seccess of NFL football is at an all-time high. One of the reasons is that teams are much more on an even playing field than say, MLB Baseball or European soccar, both of which have teams that spend freely to aquire the talent and in essence "buy" a team. You can't do that with a salary cap and revenue sharing allows cities that don't have tons of people that can spend their money as freely because of a lower average income of the average city.

YOu mentioned perenal losers like Arizona. What about Indianapolis? They are 29th in terms of the team's income and yet with the proper use of managing the team's available finances, they have put together a team that has been consistently and now highly compeitive. I don't think anyone would see Indianapolis, the city, as a market that's capable of drawing in large amounts of revenue.

If your team cannot generate income due to a slower market with people who are not as wealthty as the Washintonian area, Philly and so on... they are at a sizable disadvange and beome perenial losers. Casual fans become disinterested when they believe their team has no chance to compete.

I'm not suggesting that there shouldn't be a salary cap. That is a given, however, on the revenue sharing issue, I side with the better businessmen and the facts show that location and geography are not viable excuses for poor revenue. Take this for instance.

Big Market Teams In Lower Tier of Revenue
Atlanta Falcons = 28th (has been perenial playoff team recently)
San Francisco = 26th
New York Jets = 21st

Small Market Teams in Upper Level

Cleveland Browns = 7th
Carolina = 8th
Tampa Bay = 9th
Baltimore = 11th

- Cleveland hasn't made the playoffs in over a decade and they are still 7th in overall revenue. Not only that, but they are a new franchise.

- Baltimore is not only a new franchise, but it shares the beltway with the highest grossing team in sports, The Redskins.

- Carolina is also a newer franchise in a Charlotte market that didn't support the Hornets

- San Fran has a storied history, yet is terrible in revenue despite being in a large market.

- New York Jets are not far removed from the playoffs, and are in the largest market, New York.

Who is greedy? Daniel Snyder who has turned this franchise into a 1.2 billion dollar business in part by investing his own revenue and reputation in endeavors to market the franchise. Or the owner of the 49ers who is notorious for doing things like charging his own players for Gatorade? Having pay vending machines in player lounge areas and not spending anything in free agency?

Now you expect Daniel to share with that franchise, or the Bengals franchise, when they leave a lot to be desired in terms of business acumen? Bengals won't even do a stadium naming deal.

Greed is not the desire to keep what you earn, greed in my opinion is the desire to reap where you haven't sown. That is what many of these owners do. They spend more time golfing and puffing cigars in Switzerland than they do grinding business deals year round. Danny is buying up radio stations. What does that have to do with Football? Well it will allow him to get broadcast revenue for his team and also gain radio advertisement deals. It will also minimize his own advertising costs in D.C. because he can control the programming and image of the Redskins. Why should the Bengals or Cardinals reap where they haven't sown?

Take this for instance if you are still not convinced.

The Indianpolis Colts, a perennial championship contender ranks 24th in total value and revenue according to Forbes. The Indiana Pacers rank 14th in their respective sport. Similar markets, but different results due in large part to marketing. The Colts are more successful than the Pacers, yet the Pacers are better positioned in relation to their competitiors.

The Arizona Cardinals are ranked 31 in total revenue in the NFL, yet the Phoenix Suns rank 7th.

I only make this point to show that a "slow market" as you call it is not at all determinative of team value and/or revenue. It's a cycle dependent upon a confluence of variables: owners willingness to invest in the on-field product, and owner's creativity and aggressiveness in investing outside of the football field. Dan and Jerry Jones, Bob Kraft have mastered that art. Other owners take a very different approach and view the team more as an investment that is a part of their overall financial plan.

Good post, Hogster.

The Hogster wrote:

Raindog wrote:
My point is that the seccess of NFL football is at an all-time high. One of the reasons is that teams are much more on an even playing field than say, MLB Baseball or European soccar, both of which have teams that spend freely to aquire the talent and in essence "buy" a team. You can't do that with a salary cap and revenue sharing allows cities that don't have tons of people that can spend their money as freely because of a lower average income of the average city.

YOu mentioned perenal losers like Arizona. What about Indianapolis? They are 29th in terms of the team's income and yet with the proper use of managing the team's available finances, they have put together a team that has been consistently and now highly compeitive. I don't think anyone would see Indianapolis, the city, as a market that's capable of drawing in large amounts of revenue.

If your team cannot generate income due to a slower market with people who are not as wealthty as the Washintonian area, Philly and so on... they are at a sizable disadvange and beome perenial losers. Casual fans become disinterested when they believe their team has no chance to compete.

I'm not suggesting that there shouldn't be a salary cap. That is a given, however, on the revenue sharing issue, I side with the better businessmen and the facts show that location and geography are not viable excuses for poor revenue. Take this for instance.

Big Market Teams In Lower Tier of Revenue
Atlanta Falcons = 28th (has been perenial playoff team recently)
San Francisco = 26th
New York Jets = 21st

Small Market Teams in Upper Level

Cleveland Browns = 7th
Carolina = 8th
Tampa Bay = 9th
Baltimore = 11th

- Cleveland hasn't made the playoffs in over a decade and they are still 7th in overall revenue. Not only that, but they are a new franchise.

- Baltimore is not only a new franchise, but it shares the beltway with the highest grossing team in sports, The Redskins.

- Carolina is also a newer franchise in a Charlotte market that didn't support the Hornets

- San Fran has a storied history, yet is terrible in revenue despite being in a large market.

- New York Jets are not far removed from the playoffs, and are in the largest market, New York.

Who is greedy? Daniel Snyder who has turned this franchise into a 1.2 billion dollar business in part by investing his own revenue and reputation in endeavors to market the franchise. Or the owner of the 49ers who is notorious for doing things like charging his own players for Gatorade? Having pay vending machines in player lounge areas and not spending anything in free agency?

Now you expect Daniel to share with that franchise, or the Bengals franchise, when they leave a lot to be desired in terms of business acumen? Bengals won't even do a stadium naming deal.

Greed is not the desire to keep what you earn, greed in my opinion is the desire to reap where you haven't sown. That is what many of these owners do. They spend more time golfing and puffing cigars in Switzerland than they do grinding business deals year round. Danny is buying up radio stations. What does that have to do with Football? Well it will allow him to get broadcast revenue for his team and also gain radio advertisement deals. It will also minimize his own advertising costs in D.C. because he can control the programming and image of the Redskins. Why should the Bengals or Cardinals reap where they haven't sown?

Take this for instance if you are still not convinced.

The Indianpolis Colts, a perennial championship contender ranks 24th in total value and revenue according to Forbes. The Indiana Pacers rank 14th in their respective sport. Similar markets, but different results due in large part to marketing. The Colts are more successful than the Pacers, yet the Pacers are better positioned in relation to their competitiors.

The Arizona Cardinals are ranked 31 in total revenue in the NFL, yet the Phoenix Suns rank 7th.

I only make this point to show that a "slow market" as you call it is not at all determinative of team value and/or revenue. It's a cycle dependent upon a confluence of variables: owners willingness to invest in the on-field product, and owner's creativity and aggressiveness in investing outside of the football field. Dan and Jerry Jones, Bob Kraft have mastered that art. Other owners take a very different approach and view the team more as an investment that is a part of their overall financial plan.

Wow!

The Hogster wrote:I only make this point to show that a "slow market" as you call it is not at all determinative of team value and/or revenue. It's a cycle dependent upon a confluence of variables: owners willingness to invest in the on-field product, and owner's creativity and aggressiveness in investing outside of the football field. Dan and Jerry Jones, Bob Kraft have mastered that art. Other owners take a very different approach and view the team more as an investment that is a part of their overall financial plan.

Very good post. *tips king over*

Despite that, I still want us to share with lower bracket teams for no better reason than for us to have an even playing field. I think it's better for the teams, the fans and the sport as a whole.

Personally, I don't care which of these owners makes the most money, what it all boils down to that revenue sharing has worked and I love football the way it is now.

You can agree or disagree with that however you want with specifics, but I think it's unfair to the fans to give them a compeitive sporting product where the scales are tipped too far over to the side of a few teams... however they got/lost their money. It's one of the main reasons I don't watch Baseball or Soccer.

Where did you get your info from? I'd like to read it.

EDIT: They've extended the CBA. I'm a happy football fan.

the problem with you wanting all the teams getting a fair share of revenue, is that they still won't spend it on their team. They will just get rich off of other people's hard work.

On a side note, Dan, Jerry and Bob all voted this thing through, so it must be beneficial for everyone.

Raindog wrote:

The Hogster wrote:I only make this point to show that a "slow market" as you call it is not at all determinative of team value and/or revenue. It's a cycle dependent upon a confluence of variables: owners willingness to invest in the on-field product, and owner's creativity and aggressiveness in investing outside of the football field. Dan and Jerry Jones, Bob Kraft have mastered that art. Other owners take a very different approach and view the team more as an investment that is a part of their overall financial plan.

Very good post. *tips king over*

Despite that, I still want us to share with lower bracket teams for no better reason than for us to have an even playing field. I think it's better for the teams, the fans and the sport as a whole.

Personally, I don't care which of these owners makes the most money, what it all boils down to that revenue sharing has worked and I love football the way it is now.

You can agree or disagree with that however you want with specifics, but I think it's unfair to the fans to give them a compeitive sporting product where the scales are tipped too far over to the side of a few teams... however they got/lost their money. It's one of the main reasons I don't watch Baseball or Soccer.

Where did you get your info from? I'd like to read it.

EDIT: They've extended the CBA. I'm a happy football fan.

The NFL Team Valuations and revenue can be found on the Forbes list, just follow this link.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/30/Rank_1.html

I agree that revenue sharing is a good idea. It has been a part of the NFL for a while, and should continue to be. But as the league grows, so too must each individual franchise and they shouldn't reach too far into other owners pockets when they are not using the money to finance their own product.

Kind of like if I bought a McDonald's and I let it go to crap...but the owners of the other franchises had to share their profits with me. That would be fine as long as I wasn't taking that money and pocketing it, or funding my great grandkid's trust fund with it. After a while, if that McDonald's was still the crappiest Mc D's in the state people would be reluctant to continue sharing with me.

I agree that revenue sharing is good, but it shouldn't be the place where low revenue teams look for a bail out plan, or be the reason why they would hold up the CBA for additional handouts.

I'm glad its done, now we can go get this team better.

The Hogster wrote:
The NFL Team Valuations and revenue can be found on the Forbes list, just follow this link.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2005/30/Rank_1.html

I agree that revenue sharing is a good idea. It has been a part of the NFL for a while, and should continue to be. But as the league grows, so too must each individual franchise and they shouldn't reach too far into other owners pockets when they are not using the money to finance their own product.

Kind of like if I bought a McDonald's and I let it go to crap...but the owners of the other franchises had to share their profits with me. That would be fine as long as I wasn't taking that money and pocketing it, or funding my great grandkid's trust fund with it. After a while, if that McDonald's was still the crappiest Mc D's in the state people would be reluctant to continue sharing with me.

I agree that revenue sharing is good, but it shouldn't be the place where low revenue teams look for a bail out plan, or be the reason why they would hold up the CBA for additional handouts.

I'm glad its done, now we can go get this team better.

I am too. I think this benifits everybody and if we win with this in place, then we truly win.

You know, I agree with you to a certan extent. However, if a team the equilvilent to a herion junkie and just looking for a quick score/handout, the other teams will notice. If your McDonalds is the crappist in the state and others are bankrolling you, they'll put pressure on you to step it up and pony the mony to make your team/resturant better or put the pressure on you to sell your team or relocate to a better football market where you have the potential to be better.

In twenty or fifty years and the Washintonian area goes bankrupt, we'll all be screaming for revenue sharing to see our 'Skins back to glory while Cleveland is still looking for their first Super Bowl berth.

I've always thought that their should be a minumum cap, and if your team receives money from revenue sharing, your minimum cap should go up that amount. Then the teams have to spend that money on players.

JansenFan wrote:I've always thought that their should be a minumum cap, and if your team receives money from revenue sharing, your minimum cap should go up that amount. Then the teams have to spend that money on players.

I think there is some language in the agreement if I am not mistaken. I heard that the teams now have to spend up to a certain level based on some complex formular in order to get revenue sharing. Their revenue sharing kicks only to the extent that they are spending over 65 percent of their revenue on salary, which is similar to what you suggest here.

Which would make sense being that two low revenue teams, Bengals and Bills were the lone dissenting votes yesterday.