Breaking down the revenue debate...

[Pats726]

http://www.profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm
This is an interesting piece...and an oddity..that one of the teams begging poor..is the Bengals which is VERY profitable..I tend to agree with the suggestions made.

 

[patsfan13]

Terrific overview of the issue, The comments of Birk were very telling also.

 

[pats-blue]

http://www.profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm
This is an interesting piece...and an oddity..that one of the teams begging poor..is the Bengals which is VERY profitable..I tend to agree with the suggestions made.

Excellent article. It points out IMO you will never have an owner finance thier own stadium if thier portion gets put in the "total revenue" pile as they would never pay off thier debt by increased revenue deals. The consumer (fans and communities) would be the ones footing the ENTIRE costs for new staidums so the owners can maintain THIER profit margin rather than give it away to the other owners and players. I'm not oppossed to publicly financed stadiums to a point as I think it benefits the community as a whole even if you never attend an event there. But the owners need a vested interest in these stadiums and that usually means substantial $$$$. If I was an owner I wouldn't put a dime into the improvement of my facilities if the Players ASSoc got what they wanted.

The article after that about Matt Birk from the Vikings was a great view of a players side of the union.

 

[mgteich]

The suggestions of the article are good ones. The only teams that should get help are:

1) one's that can demonstrate need AND
2) are committed to answer the league about what they are doing to improve their revenue and profits.

I would add that there should salary cap and cash penalties to teams that do not meet commitments.