CBA Update - Disagreement between owners is the hurdle - New England Patriots Forums

JoeSixPat · 02-22-2006, 08:19 AM

As I've been saying for awhile, the real challenge of the new CBA is getting the owners to agree how to split revenues among themselves, rather than coming to an agreement with the NFLPA

The latest from the rumormill suggests that the NFL and Players Association have an understanding on expanidng the definition of Gross Revenue - thereby greatly inflating the cap and the amount that can be spent on players.

The problem continues to be how the owners themselves should share, or not share, their revenues with each other.

Quote:

Originally Posted by profootballtalk.com

REVENUE SHARING IS THE BATTLE GROUND

Word around the league is that the NFL and the NFLPA essentially are in position to get a deal done on an extension of the CBA, but that the factor keeping the two sides from finalizing the agreement is the inability of owners to agree upon the extent to which currently unshared revenues will be split up among the 32 franchises.

The problem is that the NFLPA intends to include some of the millions in unshared revenues within the calculation that determines player salaries. The NFL is willing to do so, but this will stick the teams earning less unshared revenues with lower profit margins, since their cap amounts will be driven up by the larger revenues earned by other franchises.

The issue has been bubbling for months, and there are indications that it soon could explode, especially with talk of some of the big-money franchises suing their brethren if revenue sharing is expanded.

The teams already share millions in revenue, pursuant to an agreement made decades ago. But now the teams who -- due to market size, ingenuity, and/or hard work -- are making more money from local sources that aren't shared don't want to continue to divide the wealth, thereby subsidizing other owners who, for whatever reason, can't make the same amount of money with their own franchises.

Last year, we proposed a system that would divert a set percentage of each team's unshared revenue into a fund that would pay all players extra money, based on factors such as cap number, total snaps, and/or objective performance indicators. This would preserve the incentive for teams like the Redskins to earn as much as possible, and it would not reward teams like the Bengals, who opt not to sell the naming rights to their stadium.

It's too late for this approach to work, since the union already has its sights set on expanding the Defined Gross Revenue calculation to include unshared revenues. Regardless, the impasse among the owners won't be resolved without a method that doesn't discourage the rich from getting richer, and that doesn't encourage the less-rich to sit on their hands, thumbs pointing up.

***PATSNUTme*** · 02-22-2006, 08:43 AM

I;ve make my thought s know about the fairness of sharing new revenues by teams tha work at it.

However, my only interests is that they get this thing resolved and a CBA agreement is reached real soon,no matter how the resolve it.

We don't need this hanging over the heads of the greatest game ever.

aabtec · 02-22-2006, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeSixPat

As I've been saying for awhile, the real challenge of the new CBA is getting the owners to agree how to split revenues among themselves, rather than coming to an agreement with the NFLPA

The latest from the rumormill suggests that the NFL and Players Association have an understanding on expanidng the definition of Gross Revenue - thereby greatly inflating the cap and the amount that can be spent on players.

The problem continues to be how the owners themselves should share, or not share, their revenues with each other.

This is not going away...too many owners sit on their fat a$$es expecting the bright owners to carry them. The NFL could easily turn into MLB. With 5-7 teams that can outspend everyone else. This would cause a huge drop in the value of the teams that are not in the top 5-7. Forget the Bidwells in arizona and the rest.

JoeSixPat · 02-22-2006, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeSixPat

The latest from the rumormill suggests that the NFL and Players Association have an understanding on expanidng the definition of Gross Revenue - thereby greatly inflating the cap and the amount that can be spent on players.

Note that the understanding probably addresses a maximum salary cap - but not a minimum.

In other words it covers what CAN be spent - not what MUST be spent by team owners.

Unfortunately, barring some division of revenues among the haves and have nots of the owners, you might have an inflated cap that only the "haves" in the NFL will be able to spend up to.

This could be a problem if the NFL truly wants parity.

I would still think that a compromise should be possible.

There are many factors that have allowed some owners to thrive and others to struggle. If the NFL deems it important to have teams in small market teams, they should provide additional cost sharing support for those owners.

But by the same token, there needs to be an appreciation for owners that have invested in their own teams, buidling stadiums without expecting the taxpayers to fund it all.

shatch62 · 02-22-2006, 12:38 PM

http://courses.wcupa.edu/rbove/eco34.../040920NFL.txt

Across this article â€“ it is a few years old â€“ but it does a great job of explaining the revenue sharing issue.

PatsWorldChamps · 02-22-2006, 12:55 PM

it'll be interesting how bobby and his Gang of Nine make out

***DaBruinz*** · 02-22-2006, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatsWorldChamps

it'll be interesting how bobby and his Gang of Nine make out

I'd be willing to bet that there are more than 9 owners fighting the expansion of revenue sharing.

I think that the biggest issue amonst the owners is how to get the people who aren't ponying up to get on the ball. The NFL already has its share of embarrassing owners (Al Davis and the former Vikings Owner). The new breed seems to be Irsay and Bidwell. Irsay really has no excuse. He's got a good team, yet still can draw a crowd? What's up with that?

I agree that the owners need to pony up say 15% of the revenue that isn't included currently. That still puts more of a burden on the better teams. But its really the only fair way.

What does have to be taken into consideration, though, is the expenses of each team. Upshaw beats his chest about the Patriots and Redskins having revenues of over $300 million that the players can't touch, but he doesn't acknowledge that the $300 million goes to expenses such as the stadiums, support staff and equipment for the players.

I've said it before, if the players want more revenue, then they need to start footing the bills for things like their uniforms, uniform cleaning, and such. Its pretty amazing how they expect to just be taken care of and that all the perks they receive are owed to them.

***fgssand*** · 02-22-2006, 03:49 PM

How can Pittsburgh have ONE person on their entire IT department, is that fair as they look for a share of the dollars earned by clubs that g\have devoted and expensive staffs doinf this? Thta is all there is in Pittsburgh. one guy to handles their website and pages. Patriots have a PFW, radio shows, website that is a money maker and all kinds of interesting innovative revenue producing vehicles in motion at all times from their internet based businesses alone.

It seems to me that the solution would be for the owners to not only share the revenues, but also share the expenses needed to generate those revenues. Maybe each team could be given a minimum revenue producing expense fee which would be used to offset the revenue they want to share from income generated above and beyond the current deal. This would cover both additional dollars made and monies spent to do bring this about by the so called high revenue team. Or something along those lines seems fair doesn't it?