Welcome to PatsFans.com

CBA Update - Disagreement between owners is the hurdle

Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by JoeSixPat, Feb 22, 2006.

  1. JoeSixPat

    JoeSixPat Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    9,873
    Likes Received:
    33
    Ratings:
    +59 / 2 / -0

    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.

  2. PATSNUTme

    PATSNUTme Paranoid Homer Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2005
    Messages:
    15,255
    Likes Received:
    85
    Ratings:
    +168 / 2 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    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.
  3. aabtec

    aabtec Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2005
    Messages:
    395
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0


    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.
  4. JoeSixPat

    JoeSixPat Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    9,873
    Likes Received:
    33
    Ratings:
    +59 / 2 / -0

    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.
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2006
  5. shatch62

    shatch62 Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2004
    Messages:
    231
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

  6. PatsWorldChamps

    PatsWorldChamps Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,406
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

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

    DaBruinz Pats, B's, Sox PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Messages:
    24,250
    Likes Received:
    172
    Ratings:
    +321 / 20 / -48

    #50 Jersey

    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.
  8. fgssand

    fgssand PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2004
    Messages:
    4,779
    Likes Received:
    25
    Ratings:
    +34 / 0 / -1

    #17 Jersey

    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?

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>