Don Banks: Behind the rhetoric...what a fair deal in NFL labor debate will look like

[Rob0729]

Re: Don Banks: Behind the rhetoric...what a fair deal in NFL labor debate will look l

The problem some of the owners have with the smaller market teams isnt that they help subsidize them, they know that team will always have lower revenues and they're ok with that, its the fact that some of the owners of the lower revenue teams dont do anything to maximize their revenue.

Considering the league doesn't make maximizing revenue a condition to receive revenue sharing, the league only has themselves to blame if teams like the Bills and Bengals don't maximize their revenue with stadium naming rights and other marketing opportunities.

 

[IllegalContact]

Re: Don Banks: Behind the rhetoric...what a fair deal in NFL labor debate will look l

I don't know why anyone should expect the NFL owners to open their books. All but the Packers are privately held companies. I own a privately held company and none of my employees other than the employee who does the company's books have any idea of what I make or the company's profit and losses. When they negotiate salaries, if they asked to see my books, I would throw them out of my office. Unions in privately held companies have no right to see the company's books either.

do you have an anti-trust exemption?

 

[IllegalContact]

Re: Don Banks: Behind the rhetoric...what a fair deal in NFL labor debate will look l

The problem some of the owners have with the smaller market teams isnt that they help subsidize them, they know that team will always have lower revenues and they're ok with that, its the fact that some of the owners of the lower revenue teams dont do anything to maximize their revenue.

this is a good point......on the forbes list, the only team I see that is worth helping is the Lions.....the Detroit area is an economic smouldering crater, but I think it has typically been a good football market up until all the jobs disappeared......I could see some kind of temporary assistance with that issue......even the subsidizing of tickets to fill up the stadium and getting people to show up until things are better.

jacksonville will always be an issue because of its market size......they should be moved to LA...I don't believe the market will ever be strong for the jags

buffalo could be worth helping, and I believe a new owner who is interested in keeping them in buffalo could improve the situation there.......wilson is tired and has little interest in the longer term

I see a team like cincy being 5th in profit, and I think that the revenue sharing is the cause for that.

I believe revenue sharing should exist to protect teams from losing money, not add to their profit.

 

[BPF]

Re: Don Banks: Behind the rhetoric...what a fair deal in NFL labor debate will look l

this is a good point......on the forbes list, the only team I see that is worth helping is the Lions.....the Detroit area is an economic smouldering crater, but I think it has typically been a good football market up until all the jobs disappeared......I could see some kind of temporary assistance with that issue......even the subsidizing of tickets to fill up the stadium and getting people to show up until things are better.

jacksonville will always be an issue because of its market size......they should be moved to LA...I don't believe the market will ever be strong for the jags

buffalo could be worth helping, and I believe a new owner who is interested in keeping them in buffalo could improve the situation there.......wilson is tired and has little interest in the longer term

I see a team like cincy being 5th in profit, and I think that the revenue sharing is the cause for that.

I believe revenue sharing should exist to protect teams from losing money, not add to their profit.

Jags complete sweep of sellouts | ProFootballTalk

Jaguars see dramatic spike in attendance | ProFootballTalk

18 NFL Teams Raising Ticket Prices

 

[Rob0729]

Re: Don Banks: Behind the rhetoric...what a fair deal in NFL labor debate will look l

do you have an anti-trust exemption?

No. Nor do I have federal subsidies or any other government assistance that is as totally irrelevant to this matter as Antitrust exemption. An antitrust exemption doesn't give your employees free range into your books. If it did, the NFLPA would have had access to the owners' books long ago.

Yes, the owners benefit from an Antitrust exemption. No, that Antitrust exemption does not mean that they have to or even should open their books to the players.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

Re: Don Banks: Behind the rhetoric...what a fair deal in NFL labor debate will look l

this is a good point......on the forbes list, the only team I see that is worth helping is the Lions.....the Detroit area is an economic smouldering crater, but I think it has typically been a good football market up until all the jobs disappeared......I could see some kind of temporary assistance with that issue......even the subsidizing of tickets to fill up the stadium and getting people to show up until things are better.

jacksonville will always be an issue because of its market size......they should be moved to LA...I don't believe the market will ever be strong for the jags

buffalo could be worth helping, and I believe a new owner who is interested in keeping them in buffalo could improve the situation there.......wilson is tired and has little interest in the longer term

I see a team like cincy being 5th in profit, and I think that the revenue sharing is the cause for that.

I believe revenue sharing should exist to protect teams from losing money, not add to their profit.

Some of these teams dont even have a marketing dept so they're not even trying.

 

[part-timer]

Re: Don Banks: Behind the rhetoric...what a fair deal in NFL labor debate will look l

While you get it on on many levels where you fail to is in assessing what contraction would do to the league revenue wise. If the haves don't underwrite the have nots to the extent they must (due not to incompetence which is what makes them bristle in a handful of cases) because of the geographical limits of their markets...they lose product. The product isn't the players, it's the games. That is the NFL model, and one the NBA now laments not following. They've made it all about the talent, and are going under as a result. For every team that contracts because it can't compete without assistance, the league loses 16 games it cannot market to the TV networks. I guess you think they care about the quality of the product they are marketing at a time when ratings are at a record high irrespective of quality (although advertising revenue is down due to overall economic factors).

As for the NFLPA, notice the last letter in that acronym is A as in trade Association (which is what they will morph into if they decertify). Even they know they aren't really a union. Unions set maximum as well as minimum wages and wage scales and benefits and work rules for all members irrespective of merit or value/talent. NFL players are free to negotiate their own contracts with their individual employer in whatever excess of any collectively bargained base rates they choose to. While spending is capped, individual contracts are not. The market sets those. The NFLPA merely acts as their collective agent in negotiating minimum benefits and work rules with the collective league and representing members in seeking regress if they believe their rights have been violated in terms of those basic collectively bargained for terms. Which is one of the reasons why the NFLPA also controls the individual agents who represent players via a certification process and limits what they can charge to 3% of the value of the individual excess contract they negotiate between the player and his individual employer. The NFLPA is essentially the super agent whose clientele encompasses the entire player base and who negotiate for their basic welfare while association members.

When an auto worker retires his relationship with his employer ceases while his relationship with the UAW continues because they provide his retirement benefits. When an NFL player retires his relationship with the NFLPA ceases while his relationship with his former employers collective (the league) becomes the basis of his retirement benefits. The NFLPA only represents talent in the here and now. What happens to you down the road is based largely on what you and your agent negotiated with your employer while you were a member of the association...ergo, if you end up living under a bridge that's on you and your individual employer or the league... At least that's what Gene Upshaw always contended...

This union cries today about what happened to retirees. Those are crockodile tears. For years their focus was on straight cash homey...where it remains to this day. Lots of long retired players foresaw the folly in that focus at the time and were told to S-T-F-U... Even now when the league has proposed capping unproven rookie deals and splitting the savings ($200M per year) between established veterans and retirees from those early years, the union counter proposes not only shortening that capped period but redistributing half of that money back to the handful of rookie players who meet or exceed expectations while the other half gets split between remaining rank and file veterans and retirees. Their core constituency remains the talent at the top, the handful of elite association members they have always pandered to at the expense of their rank and file. Show me a union that gets away with that... Show me a union whose members don't get to vote for their own leadership (an appointed executive council does...) because they're afraid if they did their majority sub elite blue collar rank and file members would end up getting more representation than the elite talent...and what you will be showing me is another talent marketing association...and not a workers union.

First of all I agree and comend you on how you dealt with the topics in both post 55 and 58.

I find our difference in the function of the NFLPA and the reprocussions of contraction of the NFL.

As far as the loss of low profitable, and small market teams I see only better financial grounds for the survivors. As it is the bottom feeder teams are not selling their market share within the nfl, wether it is natinal TV time, NFL gear, team related advertising, the entire package. Yet they collect their share of revenue shareing. It dosn't matter if it is geogaphical demographics or quality of games, it is on the individual owner to correct there own problems instead of collecting what is the NFL equivalent of welfare. A team that is not surviving in a low marketable area must move to survive as many other franchises have done. If management changes are nessisary they must make them. If ownership is the problem (as with the Raiders) the NFL must stop helping with revinue shareing to force ownership out. The 2/32 loss of two nonprofitable teams does not represent 2/32 of the total nfl income. I do not wish to speculate on the percantages but it is highly evedent that their loss will not represent their 2/32 percentage. TV ratings are high, but only for the high earning more succesfull teams. You will not see the Bills playing Detroit on national TV or even in new england out side the buffalo region. But you will see Pats, Jets.Giants on national TV regularly. Who is paying the bills, and who is sucking profits from the earners. If Tampa bay ,Jacksonville, and Miami can not be sustained in close proximity maby some one must move to survive. As long as ownership partisipates in revenue shareing there is very little incentive for the bottom feeders to correct there problems and increase investments in there future.

As far as unions, negociated wage scale and benifits, they are the MINIMUM amounts due to its members. Many union members recieve increased pay scale and benifits corisponding to there higher level of proficency and profitability to ther respective employers. This is exactly how the NFLPA is set up. And YES there is a level of pandering to higher skilled union members by giveing expidited and preforential placement acording to there skill level . Also by placement in higher paying leadership and stuard roles. The NFLPA is responsible for the players retirement. They collect the players revenue shareing from the owners, part of which is designated for the retired players, exactly the way a union employees benifit amount is payed to the union to be payed to the retired menbers. Any negociated benifits above union negociated amounts from the company are dealt with between the management and employee. If you are a union member and are not fully aware of your rights, request a copy of you locals articles of incorporation and last signed contract, become informed on your own, do not rely on misinformation. You also have federaly guarenteed rights that may be in conflict with those documents.

As far as a lack of an ability to vote for leadership, if so had to be a result of a membership vote giveing that right to a executive commitee. If so a vote can reverse that, as well as remove any and all leadership figures. This leads us to DESERTIFICATION, which is a legal option when a vote of noconfidence is taken by union members against the leadership of their union. The NFLPA's sophmoric threat to decertify for the last year was no more than scare tactics aimed at the NFL and fans, and giveing a sence of bravado to its uninformed membership. As you know the NFL has filed suit to block the threatened sham decertification. The union leadership went out of there way during the last year to visit all NFL teams to loby for an advance vote to decertify themselves. They have already played that card once before and the result gives substanance to the NFL's case to block it as a sham.

 

[jmt57]

Re: Don Banks: Behind the rhetoric...what a fair deal in NFL labor debate will look l

As far as the loss of low profitable, and small market teams I see only better financial grounds for the survivors.

Whether you have two teams, 32 teams, or 132 teams there is always going to be one that is most profitable and one that is least profitable. How do you propose that the NFL determines what is acceptable and what is not? If 32 is not the right number of teams, then what is? Why is that other number right and 32 wrong?

As it is the bottom feeder teams are not selling their market share within the nfl, wether it is natinal TV time, NFL gear, team related advertising, the entire package. Yet they collect their share of revenue shareing. It dosn't matter if it is geogaphical demographics or quality of games, it is on the individual owner to correct there own problems instead of collecting what is the NFL equivalent of welfare.

What is acceptable and non-acceptable in your view? The Raiders are one of those low-value, low-profit franchises, but their apparel sales remain high. Every year somebody is going to finish with the least wins, somebody is going to have the lowest attendance, somebody is going to have the lowest sales of licensed apparel. What exactly is your plan? To eliminate whomever ranks at the bottom in these categories last year? For how long, one year, five years? How many teams do you eliminate, and why that number? Thankfully for Pats fans this plan wasn't in place before Schaefer Stadium was in place or while Victor Kiam was the owner.

The bigger question is this: where is the money going to come from to buy out that team, the lease on their stadium, the severance pay, etc? Whatever gain is made by splitting the pie into fewer pieces could easily be more than lost with those additional expenses.

A team that is not surviving in a low marketable area must move to survive as many other franchises have done.

It takes time to build a fan base. Constantly moving for greener pastures is not a good idea. Do you want the NFL to resemble the NHL? Other than LA, what market is not being served?

If management changes are nessisary they must make them. If ownership is the problem (as with the Raiders) the NFL must stop helping with revinue shareing to force ownership out.

You're going to arbitrarily stop revenue sharing for one team but continue it for others? Can you say lawsuit with treble damages? However I do agree it would be in the NFL's best interest to help with advice to a team that constantly struggles to put a competitive team on the field.

The 2/32 loss of two nonprofitable teams does not represent 2/32 of the total nfl income. I do not wish to speculate on the percantages but it is highly evedent that their loss will not represent their 2/32 percentage. TV ratings are high, but only for the high earning more succesfull teams. You will not see the Bills playing Detroit on national TV or even in new england out side the buffalo region.

Team's success ebb and flow; that was part of the plan with the salary cap to coincide with free agency. There was a time the Pats were not on tv. Just a few years ago the Rams were on every other week. Remember when the 49ers and Raiders were on all the time?

But you will see Pats, Jets.Giants on national TV regularly.

That has more to do with the size of the television market than anything else. So your plan is to reward big market teams and punish other teams simply because they are in smaller markets?

Who is paying the bills, and who is sucking profits from the earners. If Tampa bay ,Jacksonville, and Miami can not be sustained in close proximity maby some one must move to survive.

Florida is also more hard hit by the housing crisis than probably any other state. As far as close proximity, you're talking four, five and six hour drives. The issues they have are not due to proximity. Tampa is the 13th largest television market, Miami 16th; the television networks are not going to be happy paying what they do without NFL teams in those markets.

Jacksonville is a different story. At the time the franchise was awarded there was a large population shift to the south. It was projected the market would grow; that's a mistake that should probably be rectified with a move to another city such as Los Angeles.

As long as ownership partisipates in revenue shareing there is very little incentive for the bottom feeders to correct there problems and increase investments in there future.

The reverse is just as true; with no revenue sharing there is no incentive to field a competitive team. There already are measures in place in regards to revenue sharing. Back in the days before the cap the Tampa Bay Bucs were the worst team in the NFL, yet they were also the most profitable because Hugh Culverhouse spent as little money as possible, especially on player salaries. That business plan is somewhat out the door today because there is a salary floor to go along with a salary cap.

And as far as moving a team goes, forget it. With no revenue sharing it will be impossible for a team to survive while it builds its fan base. A solid fan base does not happen overnight; it takes a full generation to take root and become incorporated in the family and the community. Those teams need to have that revenue sharing to build the relocated franchise.




Obviously you are very passionate (and adamant) about your position - even if it is odd considering that you are a union guy. I whole heartily agree that compromises should be, and need to be made. But I have to disagree that the solution is draconian measures like contraction of franchises and an end to revenue sharing.

 

[part-timer]

Re: Don Banks: Behind the rhetoric...what a fair deal in NFL labor debate will look l

Whether you have two teams, 32 teams, or 132 teams there is always going to be one that is most profitable and one that is least profitable. How do you propose that the NFL determines what is acceptable and what is not? If 32 is not the right number of teams, then what is? Why is that other number right and 32 wrong?

It apears you have a great deal of questions and very few answers, also this is starting to be more of an interview than a discussion, but here go's:

The number of franchises will be determined by who can survive without revinue shareing.

What is acceptable and non-acceptable in your view? The Raiders are one of those low-value, low-profit franchises, but their apparel sales remain high. Every year somebody is going to finish with the least wins, somebody is going to have the lowest attendance, somebody is going to have the lowest sales of licensed apparel. What exactly is your plan? To eliminate whomever ranks at the bottom in these categories last year? For how long, one year, five years? How many teams do you eliminate, and why that number? Thankfully for Pats fans this plan wasn't in place before Schaefer Stadium was in place or while Victor Kiam was the owner.

Again those franchises that show they can survive without NFL's corporate welfare. Some franchises survive because they consistantly put out a wining product. Some survive simply because of location in a highly marketable area. And some survive because of a great marketing plan. Most survive with a good combination of all three. The ones that fail will have failed in all three areas.

The bigger question is this: where is the money going to come from to buy out that team, the lease on their stadium, the severance pay, etc? Whatever gain is made by splitting the pie into fewer pieces could easily be more than lost with those additional expenses.

ARE YOU SERIOUS? When a franchise fails either it is bought privately at an agreed upon percentage of value assumeing liabilities or goes through bankruptcy reorganization or court apointed sale which deals with remaining debts. Your last sentence seems to imply NFL asumption of franchise debts? How and by what logic do they become responsible for ownership of an NFL franchise.

It takes time to build a fan base. Constantly moving for greener pastures is not a good idea. Do you want the NFL to resemble the NHL? Other than LA, what market is not being served.

Who said franchises would be constantly moveing? There may be some relocations needed when revinue shareing is stoped to make some franchises more profitable. And what is the NHL and who cares.

You're going to arbitrarily stop revenue sharing for one team but continue it for others? Can you say lawsuit with treble damages? However I do agree it would be in the NFL's best interest to help with advice to a team that constantly struggles to put a competitive team on the field.

NO, ALL FRANCHISES. Are you intentionaly trying to apear obtuce? Advise, you must be kidding. Go try to give Raiders ownership advise on running his franchise.

Team's success ebb and flow; that was part of the plan with the salary cap to coincide with free agency. There was a time the Pats were not on tv. Just a few years ago the Rams were on every other week. Remember when the 49ers and Raiders were on all the time?

That has more to do with the size of the television market than anything else. So your plan is to reward big market teams and punish other teams simply because they are in smaller markets?

Absolutely NOT. Succesfull franchises in produceing a good product get a much larger share of national television coverages wether they are a small market or large market franchise. At one time buffalo had a very good product for a few years running and got a lot of national coverage. Lately their product is sub par and you will not see them if you are not in the buffalo area if they are sold out. By not produceing a good product they restrict their own earning potential.

Florida is also more hard hit by the housing crisis than probably any other state. As far as close proximity, you're talking four, five and six hour drives. The issues they have are not due to proximity. Tampa is the 13th largest television market, Miami 16th; the television networks are not going to be happy paying what they do without NFL teams in those markets.

If the demographic area can not support the three franchises succesfuly maby a move is needed. If an owner is allowing his product to suffer due to lack of investment to produce a good product why should the NFL give him welfare to keep his franchise from going under. With out the welfare the owner will be forced to sell before his value decreases too far, or he will go under.

Jacksonville is a different story. At the time the franchise was awarded there was a large population shift to the south. It was projected the market would grow; that's a mistake that should probably be rectified with a move to another city such as Los Angeles.

A glimer of light is seen.

The reverse is just as true; with no revenue sharing there is no incentive to field a competitive team. There already are measures in place in regards to revenue sharing. Back in the days before the cap the Tampa Bay Bucs were the worst team in the NFL, yet they were also the most profitable because Hugh Culverhouse spent as little money as possible, especially on player salaries. That business plan is somewhat out the door today because there is a salary floor to go along with a salary cap.

Absolutely not. Without the revinue shareing the teams must make investments to secure a stable franchise or go under, or sell before there product devalues too much. Revinue shareing encourages the owner to invest as little as possible counting on the welfare check to keep him above water.

And as far as moving a team goes, forget it. With no revenue sharing it will be impossible for a team to survive while it builds its fan base. A solid fan base does not happen overnight; it takes a full generation to take root and become incorporated in the family and the community. Those teams need to have that revenue sharing to build the relocated franchise.

Didn't you just say jacksonville need to relocate? There are way too many examlpes of relocation being succesfull to eliminate that possibility. How many franchises has LA had move in and out and they are first in line for the next move. Colts upgrade to indy and ravins right into baltimore filling the colts void. Oiler to tenn, texans to huston. If the vikings move to LA can't you see a small market team moveing to Minn. maby the BILLS. Sometimes chance is needed.

Obviously you are very passionate (and adamant) about your position - even if it is odd considering that you are a union guy. I whole heartily agree that compromises should be, and need to be made. But I have to disagree that the solution is draconian measures like contraction of franchises and an end to revenue sharing.

The fact that i have been a union member for many years has given me the oppurtunity to see both sides of the fence and seen the kinds of leverage used in many contract negociations. But my values are governed by what is right and just not by what is most profitable for me. I am not pushing for contraction in the NFL, but if that is what results from the elimination of the corporate welfare system in the NFL then so be it.

 

[part-timer]

Re: Don Banks: Behind the rhetoric...what a fair deal in NFL labor debate will look l

Why in four attempts was I unable to post the previous reply to JMT57. Eventual got it by cutting and pasting as nonrelated comment



Edit: fixed it for you above. You need to put the

tool around each individual portion when you respond that way - other wise it just comes out as one long quote as it was before. You can also do it manually by typing in

at the beginning of your content and then again at the end - (/quote) except with brackets rather than parenthesis.

jmt

 

[upstater1]

Re: Don Banks: Behind the rhetoric...what a fair deal in NFL labor debate will look l

To the conversation of new stadiums and/or upgrades. It looks like Arthur Blank is looking to build a new stadium for the Falcons. So there is another one.

New Atlanta Falcons stadium advances down the field | Atlanta Business Chronicle

So, by my count, there are at least 3-7 teams looking to relocate or get new stadiums or at least have significant upgrades in the next 5-10 years or so.

- Vikes (already exploring possibility)
- Falcons (already exploring the possibility)
- 49ers (already exploring the possibility)
- Raider (already exploring the possibility with sharing with the 49ers)
- Bills (probably will move when Wilson dies and his daughter sells the team)
- Jags (possibly moving at some point in the next 5-10 year)
- Saints (the stadium is really outdated and even upgrades post Katrina were only to get back to status quo)

So potential almost 1/4 of the teams in the league may need additional funding to build a stadium or at least keep their current stadium in touch with the times.

Relocate to where?

That's what I want to know.

And don't say Toronto for the Bills. That's OVER already since Rogers died. Everyone in Toronto says so, same with the Bills. That contract will not be renewed.

LA has an opening, and one team may move--but only if they get the $$$ to pay off the other owners first.

 

[jmt57]

Re: Don Banks: Behind the rhetoric...what a fair deal in NFL labor debate will look l

It apears you have a great deal of questions and very few answers, also this is starting to be more of an interview than a discussion, but here go's:

The number of franchises will be determined by who can survive without revinue shareing.



Again those franchises that show they can survive without NFL's corporate welfare. Some franchises survive because they consistantly put out a wining product. Some survive simply because of location in a highly marketable area. And some survive because of a great marketing plan. Most survive with a good combination of all three. The ones that fail will have failed in all three areas.



ARE YOU SERIOUS? When a franchise fails either it is bought privately at an agreed upon percentage of value assumeing liabilities or goes through bankruptcy reorganization or court apointed sale which deals with remaining debts. Your last sentence seems to imply NFL asumption of franchise debts? How and by what logic do they become responsible for ownership of an NFL franchise.



Who said franchises would be constantly moveing? There may be some relocations needed when revinue shareing is stoped to make some franchises more profitable. And what is the NHL and who cares.



NO, ALL FRANCHISES. Are you intentionaly trying to apear obtuce? Advise, you must be kidding. Go try to give Raiders ownership advise on running his franchise.







Absolutely NOT. Succesfull franchises in produceing a good product get a much larger share of national television coverages wether they are a small market or large market franchise. At one time buffalo had a very good product for a few years running and got a lot of national coverage. Lately their product is sub par and you will not see them if you are not in the buffalo area if they are sold out. By not produceing a good product they restrict their own earning potential.



If the demographic area can not support the three franchises succesfuly maby a move is needed. If an owner is allowing his product to suffer due to lack of investment to produce a good product why should the NFL give him welfare to keep his franchise from going under. With out the welfare the owner will be forced to sell before his value decreases too far, or he will go under.



A glimer of light is seen.



Absolutely not. Without the revinue shareing the teams must make investments to secure a stable franchise or go under, or sell before there product devalues too much. Revinue shareing encourages the owner to invest as little as possible counting on the welfare check to keep him above water.



Didn't you just say jacksonville need to relocate? There are way too many examlpes of relocation being succesfull to eliminate that possibility. How many franchises has LA had move in and out and they are first in line for the next move. Colts upgrade to indy and ravins right into baltimore filling the colts void. Oiler to tenn, texans to huston. If the vikings move to LA can't you see a small market team moveing to Minn. maby the BILLS. Sometimes chance is needed.



The fact that i have been a union member for many years has given me the oppurtunity to see both sides of the fence and seen the kinds of leverage used in many contract negociations. But my values are governed by what is right and just not by what is most profitable for me. I am not pushing for contraction in the NFL, but if that is what results from the elimination of the corporate welfare system in the NFL then so be it.

Not to put words in your mouth, but basically you want to do away with revenue sharing, and believe that all teams will be able to compete due to having a salary cap - correct?


Sorry, but I'm going to disagree.

No revenue sharing means each team makes its own deals. That's 32 teams making their own television deals. The only teams that stand a chance are (a) big market teams, and (b) possibly teams that are currently winners right now that already have a sizable fan base.

What you are suggesting WILL bankrupt small market teams if they are forced to hit a salary floor. The NFL will become the NFL East and maybe a handful of other teams.

No thank you.

I'm not buying into the theory that the others will then be financially stable under that scenario because they get a bigger piece of the pie with fewer franchises in the league.

I guess we agree to disagree but I cannot envision a business model in which there is no revenue sharing but on the other hand there is also still a salary floor. To me that is a never-ending spiral of disaster. It's just going to be one franchise after another folding. When that happens interest in the sport will wane. The financial gains of having to cut the pie into fewer pieces will be offset by the size of the pie shrinking.

If you then suggest that you also do away with the salary floor then you're going to have two classes of teams. I don't see how that is good for the game. And I don't see why the NFLPA would ever consider going along with the idea of a cap but no floor.

That leaves no salary cap as the last option. Again, no thank you to that idea; I don't even want to think about that.


-


In regards for my previous comments about relocation, that was because in previous comments it seemed to be that you were advocating that any and all teams that were 'bottom feeders' should move to another market in an attempt to be more profitable. I suggested Jacksonville as being one that should move because a projected population shift did not occur there. My feeling remains that a lot of relocation of franchises is not an answer though.

-

The other response I made was in regards to contraction; you seemed to be advocating that the NFL force teams to contract. That was why I said 'where is the money going to come from to buy them out?'

-

While you're certainly entitled to your opinion about the upside on the elimination of revenue sharing, I'm going to disagree. Now if you want to tweak it a little bit - for example, withhold a portion if a team does not sell naming rights to its stadium - that's fine. But in my opinion revenue sharing needs to stay in the NFL.

 

[upstater1]

Re: Don Banks: Behind the rhetoric...what a fair deal in NFL labor debate will look l

However you cut the mustard, any business that has had massive expansion in revenues over the last decade should not be worried about growth.

My concerns as a fan are that the owners are going to get so greedy that they are going to start messing badly with the game (franchises in the UK, longer seasons, emphasis on scoring points, etc.) in order to maintain the game's phenomenal growth rate.

As a fan, I'm less concerned about the rise and fall of the value of franchises precisely because I want the owners to focus on the sport and not on their pockets. Eventually, if they continue this way, they may lose me--and I consider myself a diehard fan.

But the truth is, I grew up a big sports fan, and have lost interest in a couple of sports (NHL, MLB, NBA). Right now I follow the NFL and college sports. The NFL isn't anywhere close to losing my interest but I could envision it happening. I'm currently reconsidering my support (i.e. buying tix, etc.) for college sports. There's a big problem there.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

Re: Don Banks: Behind the rhetoric...what a fair deal in NFL labor debate will look l

Part-timer one thing you seem to be overlooking is teams need an opponent. Whos wants to see 3-4 teams dominate while the lower echelon teams drop like flies one by one. The product is the games, more people may watch the Pats when the Pats play Buffalo but its in the leagues best interest to help the lower revenue teams stay as healthy financially as possible so the fans can watch a good game every week. 32 teams means 16 games a week (baring bye weeks) and most games every week will have a good audience, you may get the odd matchup now and then with two lower echelon teams but for the most part the games are good competetive games every week.
Thats the product and the NFL feels its a number that maximizes revenue.

 

[part-timer]

Re: Don Banks: Behind the rhetoric...what a fair deal in NFL labor debate will look l

Not to put words in your mouth, but basically you want to do away with revenue sharing, and believe that all teams will be able to compete due to having a salary cap - correct?

Sorry, but I'm going to disagree.

No revenue sharing means each team makes its own deals. That's 32 teams making their own television deals. The only teams that stand a chance are (a) big market teams, and (b) possibly teams that are currently winners right now that already have a sizable fan base.

What you are suggesting WILL bankrupt small market teams if they are forced to hit a salary floor. The NFL will become the NFL East and maybe a handful of other teams.

No thank you.

I'm not buying into the theory that the others will then be financially stable under that scenario because they get a bigger piece of the pie with fewer franchises in the league.

I guess we agree to disagree but I cannot envision a business model in which there is no revenue sharing but on the other hand there is also still a salary floor. To me that is a never-ending spiral of disaster. It's just going to be one franchise after another folding. When that happens interest in the sport will wane. The financial gains of having to cut the pie into fewer pieces will be offset by the size of the pie shrinking.

If you then suggest that you also do away with the salary floor then you're going to have two classes of teams. I don't see how that is good for the game. And I don't see why the NFLPA would ever consider going along with the idea of a cap but no floor.

I never mentioned anything about changeing the salary cap system.

That leaves no salary cap as the last option. Again, no thank you to that idea; I don't even want to think about that.

I never mentioned anything about changeing the salary cap system.
-
In regards for my previous comments about relocation, that was because in previous comments it seemed to be that you were advocating that any and all teams that were 'bottom feeders' should move to another market in an attempt to be more profitable. I suggested Jacksonville as being one that should move because a projected population shift did not occur there. My feeling remains that a lot of relocation of franchises is not an answer though.

All my coments that had anything to do with relocation were related to franchises becomeing fiscaly responsible independently without the need for corporate welfare. If and I said if that is the best economic decesion to increase marketability and the bottom line than so be it. I never said it was the only option for the bottom feeder teams.

For someone who said you did not want to put words in my mouth, you are doing a lot of it.
If a franchise starts to stagnent changes must be made in management and marketing to reinvigurate it potential. Sometimes it has gone beyond that and a move to an area with a fanbace hungry for a franchise must be made.

The other response I made was in regards to contraction; you seemed to be advocating that the NFL force teams to contract. That was why I said 'where is the money going to come from to buy them out?'

You spoke of the NFL asumeing responsibility for franchise buy outs, which is ludicris.

I never mentioned that the NFL would force a franchise out. What I implied was that with the stoping of corporate welfare some frachises owners would be forced out and possibly even the franchise itself if there was no one that thought it was financialy fesible to resurect it.
-

While you're certainly entitled to your opinion about the upside on the elimination of revenue sharing, I'm going to disagree. Now if you want to tweak it a little bit - for example, withhold a portion if a team does not sell naming rights to its stadium - that's fine. But in my opinion revenue sharing needs to stay in the NFL.

It remains ownerships own responsibility to maximise its independent potential for the good of the entire NFL. If they don't they are disrespecting the rest of the fraternity of NFL owners. In addition to the ending of revinue shareing I would like to see a minimum amount of investment required by each team twards improveing each franchise to maintain high standards. Maby if ther was a recertification of each franchise every five or ten years there would be more control and clout to avoid the decline of a franchise in the NFL community.

 

[upstater1]

Re: Don Banks: Behind the rhetoric...what a fair deal in NFL labor debate will look l

It remains ownerships own responsibility to maximise its independent potential for the good of the entire NFL. If they don't they are disrespecting the rest of the fraternity of NFL owners. In addition to the ending of revinue shareing I would like to see a minimum amount of investment required by each team twards improveing each franchise to maintain high standards. Maby if ther was a recertification of each franchise every five or ten years there would be more control and clout to avoid the decline of a franchise in the NFL community.

Aren't you making too big a deal of Ralph Wilson making $1 million less in yearly fees for the name rights? $1 million is going to make or break the NFL's salary structure. The Bills are maxed out in Buffalo. They have done the best they could do. And they are marketing the team to the entire region (10 million people live within 1 hour 15 minutes of Buffalo). The problem is that they don't have the huge corporate sponsors to drive up the price of luxury suites. And, 7.5 million of those 10 million people count toward the Canadian TV package and not the greater Buffalo area (which encompasses Rochester, Niagara Fall, So. Ontario and Hamilton).

There are only a few huge corporations HQ'd in Buffalo, HSBC USA, Delaware North, Rich Foods, American Axle, Univera and HealthNow, and even some sports apparel that may be interested in name rights, like New Era hats. But that's pretty paltry compared to most areas. Only Rich or New Era seem viable for such a purpose, and Rich is a food producer conglomerate that advertises brands, not the corporation.

 

[Rob0729]

Re: Don Banks: Behind the rhetoric...what a fair deal in NFL labor debate will look l

Relocate to where?

That's what I want to know.

And don't say Toronto for the Bills. That's OVER already since Rogers died. Everyone in Toronto says so, same with the Bills. That contract will not be renewed.

LA has an opening, and one team may move--but only if they get the $$$ to pay off the other owners first.

Toronto! Absolutely, except it will be done right. No $500 for nose bleed seats (which is why it was a failure). They will build a new stadium there and have tickets more line with the league average. The NFL wants it there because they are the fourth largest city in North America. Since Wilson refused to move, they settled on this compromise which was a mistake.

If not Toronto, anywhere would be better than Buffalo. The only reason they don't have worse attendance in Buffalo than the Toronto games is because they are charging for tickets what the Pats were charging for tickets around 2001. Last season, the average ticket price for a season ticket for the Bills was $59.19 per seat. Their most expensive seat in the stadium last year other than club or luxury box seats was $80. In contrast, the Pats' average ticket price last year was $117.84 which is almost 50% higher than the most expensive ticket in Ralph Wilson Stadium. It is a no brainer that the Bills will be out of Buffalo before Wilson's body gets cold in the ground after he dies.

The only hope the Bills have for staying in Buffalo is if Thomas Golisano buys the team since he said he wanted to buy it and keep it in Buffalo, but since he just sold off the Sabres I don't know if he is having money issues. Anyone who buys the Bills otherwise know the only way they will have the cash flow to compete with other teams in the NFL is to move to a larger market that isn't as poor blue collar as Buffalo like Toronto or another city. There is also the question of whether the league would approve of Golisano buying the Bills since they want the team moved out of Buffalo since all visiting teams get a cut of the ticket revenue each game. The average income is too low to have a season ticket holder base that can pay market NFL value for tickets and there aren't enough local businesses able to pay market NFL value for premium seats and boxes. Other cities like San Antonio have been kicked around for years.

But since Goodell has said he wants an international team in the next 5-10 years, Toronto is the most likely choice. Judging it as a Buffalo team playing in Toronto with overpriced seats because of the limited size of the stadium is not a test bed to judge if Toronto can support its own team.

As for money to pay other owners to move to LA, I don't think it is a give that the other owners will get money for a team to move there. If the league determines that they decide on relocating another team over expansion, I doubt that team will be forced to pay a fee. The only time the league has ever charged another owner a fee to open a new stadium is in expansion. The Ravens didn't pay a fee when they moved.

 

[upstater1]

Re: Don Banks: Behind the rhetoric...what a fair deal in NFL labor debate will look l

Toronto! Absolutely, except it will be done right. No $500 for nose bleed seats (which is why it was a failure). They will build a new stadium there and have tickets more line with the league average. The NFL wants it there because they are the fourth largest city in North America. Since Wilson refused to move, they settled on this compromise which was a mistake.

Refused to move? where are you getting that from?

If not Toronto, anywhere would be better than Buffalo. The only reason they don't have worse attendance in Buffalo than the Toronto games is because they are charging for tickets what the Pats were charging for tickets around 2001. Last season, the average ticket price for a season ticket for the Bills was $59.19 per seat. Their most expensive seat in the stadium last year other than club or luxury box seats was $80. In contrast, the Pats' average ticket price last year was $117.84 which is almost 50% higher than the most expensive ticket in Ralph Wilson Stadium. It is a no brainer that the Bills will be out of Buffalo before Wilson's body gets cold in the ground after he dies.

Don't hold your breath. From what I'm hearing, this isn't so, and for a variety of reasons. By the way, Buffalo's revenue from tickets is not in the bottom 10 of the NFL. So how do you square that fact with your argument about ticket prices and the Bills?


The only hope the Bills have for staying in Buffalo is if Thomas Golisano buys the team since he said he wanted to buy it and keep it in Buffalo, but since he just sold off the Sabres I don't know if he is having money issues.

Word in town is that Wilson already has the plan in place that will keep the team in Buffalo. The plan and the buyers are there already. There's been a two-year extension the lowered estate tax until 2012. The plan is based on current rates. Any revisions will obviously take new rates--if they ever happen--into account. Golisano is not even a Buffalo person originally (he's from Rochester) and he doesn't even live in the area anymore. I wouldn't know if he's interested at all. Regardless, he's certainly not the richest guy from the area with an interest in sports. There are actually many others, including the Rich's and the Bruins owner Jacobs whose wealth dwarfs Golisano's.


Anyone who buys the Bills otherwise know the only way they will have the cash flow to compete with other teams in the NFL is to move to a larger market that isn't as poor blue collar as Buffalo like Toronto or another city.

That's why I asked you: what larger markets? Toronto is not going to work not because of ticket problems, but there are a host of other problems that they ran into--the big one being fan interest. And the ticket prices are NOT $500 for nose bleeds. They were $75 US (more Canadian). And that was for a total of 14,000 of the available 45,000 seats. And they didn't sell out. There were $75 seats available on gameday. If you talk to Bills fans from Toronto, the vast majority prefer to drive down to Ralph Wilson 1 1/2 hours because there is absolutely no gameday experience around the Rogers Centre (as anyone who has attended games there already knows). Then you take into account the tax rates for players (which are over 10% higher when you include NY and Ontario taxes) and the currency conversion difference, and there's yet another problem. Don't underestimate as well the NY state political interest in having at least some NFL money return to the state in the form of taxation on revenues and salaries. Schumer has been threatening the NFL for years over this. The Jets and Giants both pay taxes to New Jersey.

There is also the question of whether the league would approve of Golisano buying the Bills since they want the team moved out of Buffalo since all visiting teams get a cut of the ticket revenue each game. The average income is too low to have a season ticket holder base that can pay market NFL value for tickets and there aren't enough local businesses able to pay market NFL value for premium seats and boxes. Other cities like San Antonio have been kicked around for years.

Average income in WNY is 17% higher than it is nationwide. The problem with Buffalo is population, not income.

But since Goodell has said he wants an international team in the next 5-10 years, Toronto is the most likely choice. Judging it as a Buffalo team playing in Toronto with overpriced seats because of the limited size of the stadium is not a test bed to judge if Toronto can support its own team.

As for money to pay other owners to move to LA, I don't think it is a give that the other owners will get money for a team to move there. If the league determines that they decide on relocating another team over expansion, I doubt that team will be forced to pay a fee. The only time the league has ever charged another owner a fee to open a new stadium is in expansion. The Ravens didn't pay a fee when they moved.

I've already heard the owners say they will demand a fee for LA, on record.

You're comparing a move to Baltimore from Cleveland to a move to LA?

 

[part-timer]

Re: Don Banks: Behind the rhetoric...what a fair deal in NFL labor debate will look l

Aren't you making too big a deal of Ralph Wilson making $1 million less in yearly fees for the name rights? $1 million is going to make or break the NFL's salary structure. The Bills are maxed out in Buffalo. They have done the best they could do. And they are marketing the team to the entire region (10 million people live within 1 hour 15 minutes of Buffalo). The problem is that they don't have the huge corporate sponsors to drive up the price of luxury suites. And, 7.5 million of those 10 million people count toward the Canadian TV package and not the greater Buffalo area (which encompasses Rochester, Niagara Fall, So. Ontario and Hamilton).

There are only a few huge corporations HQ'd in Buffalo, HSBC USA, Delaware North, Rich Foods, American Axle, Univera and HealthNow, and even some sports apparel that may be interested in name rights, like New Era hats. But that's pretty paltry compared to most areas. Only Rich or New Era seem viable for such a purpose, and Rich is a food producer conglomerate that advertises brands, not the corporation.

I did not intend to make it apear that I had singled out Buffalo in my discussions of underachieveing franchises, i relize that there may have been more appropriate choices. It is evedent that they are makeing an effort to stay marketable and increase quality of the product even with their demographic area being limited. What I felt was the most important point was that not too many years ago they had a high quality product and there market stretched beyond their demographic area as you can do with a high quality product. Thus you can overcome a limited demographic area with a high quality product. If they were in any division other than the afl east they may have remained yearly competitors, along with their marketing success would have kept them among the more profitable franchises.

 

[Rob0729]

Re: Don Banks: Behind the rhetoric...what a fair deal in NFL labor debate will look l

Refused to move? where are you getting that from?

Wilson has long been on record saying that he will never move the team. Goodell wants to get a team internationally and Mexico City and Toronto are the two most likely candidates because of population size and proximaty to the United States. Golisano has been accusing the NFL of trying to move the Bills to Toronto since 2000.

Don't hold your breath. From what I'm hearing, this isn't so, and for a variety of reasons. By the way, Buffalo's revenue from tickets is not in the bottom 10 of the NFL. So how do you square that fact with your argument about ticket prices and the Bills?

And from what I have been hearing, it is a likely possibility. Buffalo is always mentioned as a possible LA team.

In 2009, the Bills were 26th in revenue (that is total revenue) out of 32 teams. They only made $14 million more than the lowest revenue team, but $125 million less than the highest revenue team. Their operating profit ranks them higher because Wilson doesn't have a lot of debt and currently has a sweetheart lease with the county (that could dry up with a new owner). Their ticket prices are the lowest in the league.

Word in town is that Wilson already has the plan in place that will keep the team in Buffalo. The plan and the buyers are there already. There's been a two-year extension the lowered estate tax until 2012. The plan is based on current rates. Any revisions will obviously take new rates--if they ever happen--into account. Golisano is not even a Buffalo person originally (he's from Rochester) and he doesn't even live in the area anymore. I wouldn't know if he's interested at all. Regardless, he's certainly not the richest guy from the area with an interest in sports. There are actually many others, including the Rich's and the Bruins owner Jacobs whose wealth dwarfs Golisano's.

I call BS. First, if that was the case, he would have sold the team since if he died tomorrow, his daughter is going to be in a bind to sell the team quickly to pay the inheritance tax since Wilson isn't that liquid. If Wilson had a buyer in place who would keep the team in Buffalo, he would be selling just for that reason. Second, any sale has to be approved by the league. That take time and no guarantees that the rest of the league is on board with keeping a team in Buffalo.

If Jacobs buys the team, there is no guarantee he will keep it in Buffalo. He buys teams for business investments and already shown he doesn't mind owning teams in other cities other than Buffalo. He doesn't own the Buffalo Bruins.

That's why I asked you: what larger markets? Toronto is not going to work not because of ticket problems, but there are a host of other problems that they ran into--the big one being fan interest. And the ticket prices are NOT $500 for nose bleeds. They were $75 US (more Canadian). And that was for a total of 14,000 of the available 45,000 seats. And they didn't sell out. There were $75 seats available on gameday. If you talk to Bills fans from Toronto, the vast majority prefer to drive down to Ralph Wilson 1 1/2 hours because there is absolutely no gameday experience around the Rogers Centre (as anyone who has attended games there already knows). Then you take into account the tax rates for players (which are over 10% higher when you include NY and Ontario taxes) and the currency conversion difference, and there's yet another problem. Don't underestimate as well the NY state political interest in having at least some NFL money return to the state in the form of taxation on revenues and salaries. Schumer has been threatening the NFL for years over this. The Jets and Giants both pay taxes to New Jersey.

So if they build a new stadium in Toronto with the ability to tailgate, Bills fans in Toronto would still rather drive 1 1/2 hours? Would they rather drive 20 hours to see the San Antonio Bills?

If Toronto had its own team with a true football stadium, the dynamics would be different than a rent a team with a non-football stadium.

As for NY politics, you are talking about Buffalo not NYC. The Jets and Giants are close to NYC and anyone in NY will tell you that NYC and Long Island hold all the cards in state politics and upstate NY has little power. Sorta like Western Mass in this state.

As for the currency conversion, it hasn't hurt the NHL and the Canadian and U.S. dollar have been pretty much close to equal for a while now with the Canadian dollar actually having more value at times.

Average income in WNY is 17% higher than it is nationwide. The problem with Buffalo is population, not income.

Western NY is a big area and much of it doesn't include the Bills' fan base. Western NY consists of 12 counties and 8,973 square miles. Erie County (where Buffalo resides) 12.9% of the population are below the poverty line. I think Ontario County is the the richest county in Western NY and Canandaigua is about 2 hours from Orchard Park. You aren't going to get a lot of season ticket holders who travel two hours to the game. You'll get some, but it is a small percentage of your base.

I've already heard the owners say they will demand a fee for LA, on record.

You're comparing a move to Baltimore from Cleveland to a move to LA?

There has never been legitimate talks about LA either way. There is always a franchise fee for a new team, but there has never been a relocation fee. It would be a tough sell if the league really wants a team in LA. What if San Deigo moves, are they going to charge them $100 million to move 50 miles?