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

Came across this quote in Peter King's Monday Morning QB article

8. I think the owners in the NFL who don't want more revenue-sharing -- in some form -- are looking down the barrel of a long gun right now. The smaller-market teams are simply not going to make a deal when guys like Dan Snyder are making $100 million or more than they are. It's going to come to a head soon and will be a major factor in whether the league can get a new deal done with the players.

Can someone explain something here..is Washington a huge TV market or is Dan Snyder just a good business man who knows who to maximise his revenue streams. It seems crazy and not a lot like captalism if revenue is shared and the better businesses suffer? Have I got this all wrong, I would appreciate your views

BadgerKing wrote:Came across this quote in Peter King's Monday Morning QB article

8. I think the owners in the NFL who don't want more revenue-sharing -- in some form -- are looking down the barrel of a long gun right now. The smaller-market teams are simply not going to make a deal when guys like Dan Snyder are making $100 million or more than they are. It's going to come to a head soon and will be a major factor in whether the league can get a new deal done with the players.

Can someone explain something here..is Washington a huge TV market or is Dan Snyder just a good business man who knows who to maximise his revenue streams. It seems crazy and not a lot like captalism if revenue is shared and the better businesses suffer? Have I got this all wrong, I would appreciate your views

Im sorry but from a business background, this is proposterous that a team that has generated local profits and thrown itself to the top of the heap without even being in the top 3 media markets, has to share its income with crap run franchises like the cardinals and vikings. I can understand the revenue sharing model and i think its a great way to keep teams on an even playing field, however when you attempt to give local money to teams that aren't willing to spend in the first place, what the hell is the incentive to maximize your own profits? Might as well sit on your rear like a Bidwell and collect off of the jerry jones, dan snyders of the world.

My two cents.

And may i add that Peter King and Pete Prisco are big fat overpaid worthless media mongers. The two deserve to be on an island with no way back to civilization, and there writing is unintelligent and factless.

Yeah, Danny is just an amazing businessman, I am all for parity, but the fact of the matter is that a lot of NFL teams are just terribly run...

They waste money on worthless players, they hire and fire coaches and eat leftover salaries, they don't market well, they can't sell tickets...

Maybe the answer would be for the NFL to put on a business symposium for the owners.

While Snyder is a great businessman, most of the Redskins value lies in the fact that they own FedEx Field (just like the Cowboys and Patriots own Texas Stadium and Gillette Stadium). No matter how well small-marked teams are run, they won't be able to approach the revenue generated by teams who own their own venue.

I hate communisum and love capitalism. Snyder should not have to share his profits. Redskins fans put money into the team so it will go back to the team. I don't want to buy a Redskin hat and have the money go to the Steelers or Pats, I want it to go to the Redskins. I hate this idea of sharing revenue. Were a capitalist country, survival of the fittest.

Don't screw with a winning formula! Keep the teams competitive and put the best product to market. It may seem like all the teams are business competitors, but they are really just franchises in the same business and need to work towards sustaining and improving the quality of the product.

John Manfreda wrote:Were a capitalist country, survival of the fittest.

If the NFL was really run like that, it wouldn't be long before the Redskins, Cowboys and Patriots had bought out (or crushed) most of the lesser teams and we were left with a five-team league.

Steve Spurrier III wrote:

John Manfreda wrote:Were a capitalist country, survival of the fittest.

If the NFL was really run like that, it wouldn't be long before the Redskins, Cowboys and Patriots had bought out (or crushed) most of the lesser teams and we were left with a five-team league.

When there were fewer teams the league was more competitive. While I have no problem with parity, the problem is there are too many teams to pair. There's just not enough talent to fuel all the teams in the NFL that will render them capable of challenging for championships. Year after year with few exceptions we can pretty much determine which teams will finish up where in the standings.

Fanforever wrote:

Steve Spurrier III wrote:

John Manfreda wrote:Were a capitalist country, survival of the fittest.

If the NFL was really run like that, it wouldn't be long before the Redskins, Cowboys and Patriots had bought out (or crushed) most of the lesser teams and we were left with a five-team league.

When there were fewer teams the league was more competitive. While I have no problem with parity, the problem is there are too many teams to pair. There's just not enough talent to fuel all the teams in the NFL that will render them capable of challenging for championships. Year after year with few exceptions we can pretty much determine which teams will finish up where in the standings.

Really? On your pre-season rankings last Summer, you predicted that only one of the previous year's NFC playoff teams would make it again?

I love the free market and capitalism...

but....

you have to look at it like this... there are 32 separate business units working for the NFL corporation...

under the leadership of tagliabue and some of the more profitable units... the NFL is crushing the other players in their market (Sports Leagues)

NFL is king right now.... b/c of the revenue sharing...

Chicos - I agree with you in spirit. However think of it this way... if you and some other employees at your company were working harder and producing more than some others who sat on their butts half the time, would you be in favor of sharing your income with them?

thaiphoon wrote:Chicos - I agree with you in spirit. However think of it this way... if you and some other employees at your company were working harder and producing more than some others who sat on their butts half the time, would you be in favor of sharing your income with them?

This is totally commonplace in business. The project I work on makes a ton of money, whereas other projects don't make much or run a deficit, but provide some other value to our clients and to the company. The teams with more revenue help support the teams with less revenue so that the rich teams have someone to play.

The capitalism / socialism analogy here in invalidated by the fact that the NFL is itself a private corporation running under its own rules without coercion. Owners are already agreeing to myriad rules just to run a franchise, so saying that revenue sharing is somehow the crux of the issue is misleading. There are far too many disanalogies to give a broad-stroke "this shouldn't happen because capitalism is good!" one-liner for an argument.

(This is the same reason why the arguments like "if this was like capitalism, 5 teams would crush all the others and have a monopoly on the power" are irrelevant.)

The teams with more revenue help support the teams with less revenue so that the rich teams have someone to play.

I agree with the principle as they will need to have other teams to play against but don't the bigger TV market teams already do this ??

Again - I'm not seeing why teams who work hard to increase their local revenue and increase profitability have to share that local money with teams who sit on their collective butts. The only way I can see this working is if the low revenue teams are also forced to start actually trying to make some money.

thaiphoon wrote:Chicos - I agree with you in spirit. However think of it this way... if you and some other employees at your company were working harder and producing more than some others who sat on their butts half the time, would you be in favor of sharing your income with them?

yes... this goes on a daily basis.. in the real business world... about 60-70% of people in an orginazation are average... and 15% are exceptional... and the other 15% are slackers...

life is what it is... the true superstars will always be rewarded... cream rises to the top... what cliches we can think of apply...

life is what it is... the true superstars will always be rewarded... cream rises to the top... what cliches we can think of apply...

Sounds to me like the NFL superstars are having to share their rewards with the slackers.

Again - I agree that the teams need each other to play the game and it works only if there are 32 teams in the league. However the slackers need to pick up the slack. Right now there is no incentive forthem to do anything to increase their own revenues. Why should they? ...they'll just suckle at the teat of higher revenue teams.

Steve Spurrier III wrote:

John Manfreda wrote:Were a capitalist country, survival of the fittest.

If the NFL was really run like that, it wouldn't be long before the Redskins, Cowboys and Patriots had bought out (or crushed) most of the lesser teams and we were left with a five-team league.

We already have a cap, the Redskins shouldn't have to give their hard earn money to another team that did jack to earn it.

John Manfreda wrote:

Steve Spurrier III wrote:

John Manfreda wrote:Were a capitalist country, survival of the fittest.

If the NFL was really run like that, it wouldn't be long before the Redskins, Cowboys and Patriots had bought out (or crushed) most of the lesser teams and we were left with a five-team league.

We already have a cap, the Redskins shouldn't have to give their hard earn money to another team that did jack to earn it.

We already have revenue sharing as well, BTW.

Revenue Sharing is the main hold up between the owners, the huge money makers don't want to increase the cut of the big money makers. In the end 1 or 2 of the huge money makers will join the big money makers and then this will get done.
If this gets done before 3/3/06 or not really doesn't matter, because the NFLPA will know there has been a increase in RS and they will want to increase the amount of revenue that accounts for players salaries.

If the NFLPA gets what it will eventually want will mean a increase in the salary cap or should I say a BIGGER increase in the Salary Cap