Welcome to PatsFans.com

High revenue teams have the leverage

Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by ralmat55, Mar 1, 2006.

  1. ralmat55

    ralmat55 Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2005
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    As the stare down known as the CBA negotiations continues, my observation is that the high revenue teams hold the best hand.

    They can compete and thrive in a cap less NFL in 2007 and beyond. It is the small and middle class teams that desperately need an extension and revenue sharing. The union might like the prospect of losing the salary cap. But, its members will make about $640 million($10 m /32 team for 2 years) less than they would if an extension is done.

    I can also see where it may be advantageous for many not to have an agreement in place before the start of the new league year on 3/2 with an extension being reached soon after. As has been reported, several teams are significantly over the cap and will have to cut some good players to get under it. Those players will become free agents sooner and be able to take advantage of the windfall of available money when the new CBA takes effect Most teams will be able to watch some of their competitors have to gut themselves and then swoop in and sign the players thay have to discard(think Jerry Jones wouldn't like to see the Redskins have to cut 5 players to get under the cap).

    It wil be interesting to see how this all plays out.
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2006
  2. ilduce06410

    ilduce06410 Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2005
    Messages:
    916
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    wonder if that's so

    will watch to see of nfl becomes predatory like baseball.
    no cba, contracts get written anyway front offices and agents want. players may have less leverage, as there will be salary collusion right away.
    fringe players might certainly get screwed with no minimum salaries.
    would be sad to see the owners chew each other up like a dogfight.

    one fundamental principle, put together by pete rozelle and some far-sighted owners, was to share the revenue. they walk away from that and look out.
  3. JoeSixPat

    JoeSixPat Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    9,876
    Likes Received:
    34
    Ratings:
    +64 / 2 / -0

    Its actually a very simple stalemate

    The Players want a share of ALL NFL revenues
    That would require full revenue sharing among the owners to ensure parity (owners with less can't spend money they don't have)
    The "have more" owners don't want to share the revenue they feel they earned with owners who didn't earn it

    The players and the owners, and the owners among themselves need to figure out how to break this stalemate
  4. patpatriot

    patpatriot Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Messages:
    807
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    How will the Pats fare in a capless world?

    It's hard to predict what the future NFL will look like exactly with no CBA and no salary cap. In the salary cap era BB is generally conceeded to be the best coach because of his (and Pioli's) ability to manage the cap (among other things). In the new NFL, that advantage goes away to a great extent. The new world appears to look a lot like the current MLB world.

    However, the Krafts are better owners than most in the NFL as evidenced by their ability to produce a consistently good product and generate new revenue streams. Will we be able to compete with the New Yorks and Washingtons of the new world order? That is the question.

    Bottom line, as long as we have the Krafts as owners, BB/SP as management-coaches and TB as QB, I think we will be in good shape. We can kiss players like Seymor who are at the top of their position goodbye though.
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2006
  5. Big_Os_Hometown

    Big_Os_Hometown Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2004
    Messages:
    57
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    In a capless world i think players would want to play for a winner which SP and BB will have no trouble convincing. If the pats have to pay extra for those prized FA they can stretch a bit. IMO
  6. DaBruinz

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

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Messages:
    24,260
    Likes Received:
    174
    Ratings:
    +330 / 20 / -48

    #50 Jersey

    Honestly, The easiest way to breakt he stalemate is to tell the players that they can do 1 of three things:

    1) Accept the 59% of the Adjusted Gross (the adjustments including some, but not ALL of the local revenue)
    2) Accept the 59% of the GROSS revenue, but accept that the players will now have deductions from their pay checks to cover the team doctors, trainiers, and fees for the facilities
    3) Get locked on come Friday, March 3rd.

    As for the "small market" owners, the league already has a salary floor (thanks to AdamJT for that info) and the "big market" owners such as Kraft shouldn't have to share revenue beyond what is required to meet the salary cap needs. Any left over revenue should stay with the Pats for their expenses.

    In other words, if, after figuring out what each team's salary cap burden would be, the Patriots were left with $200 million in revenues, then they shouldn't be required to share that $200 million.
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2006
  7. ilduce06410

    ilduce06410 Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2005
    Messages:
    916
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    how about better payments to for retirees, disabled?

    looks to me like you're on target. you may have ideas better, more clear, than what the knucklehead lawyers are proposing in nyc this minute. BTW, don't think they're smarter than us----they are not. the lawyers down there would be terribly interested, and on the phone to US, if they read a coupla these threads from today.
    the beauty of the revenue sharing system is that no owner, no franchise was required to actually GIVE money into a kitty. their shares were GTIVEN to them by the league. nfl owners have not been asked to actually do arithmetic and send money (bytes) into a pool.you start with arithmetic, you start with problems. remember these guys don't like to 'write big checks'. it's not in their nature.
    it's stayed simple because the arithmetic is done BY THE LEAGUE before the owners get their hands on it.
    gross revenue? lessee,
    REVENUE: derived from the date 12:01am january 1 to 11:59pm december 31st. as shown on irs reports.
    hilarious laughter. these guys have been running rings around irs for 50 years.
    GROSS: lessee, all receipts by the corporate nfl member and its subsidiaries during the above defined timespan.
    and they're off to ther races!
  8. mgteich

    mgteich PatsFans.com Veteran PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    20,669
    Likes Received:
    111
    Ratings:
    +287 / 19 / -2

    Why a lockout? Isn't there a contract through the 2007 season?


  9. Triumph

    Triumph Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2004
    Messages:
    6,443
    Likes Received:
    79
    Ratings:
    +190 / 45 / -18

    #32 Jersey

    Every team loses if a new CBA isnt done. Big money teams too.

    The whole premise of the salary is cap was to keep salaries from escalating out of control. Thats why the owners wanted a salary cap to begin with.The NFL will turn into a joke like MLB.

    Question: Do the Pats have PSL's??
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2006
  10. ilduce06410

    ilduce06410 Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2005
    Messages:
    916
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    i don't think so

    i believe there no PSLs. as i recall that was a point of personal pride for kraft.
  11. fgssand

    fgssand PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

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

    #17 Jersey


    Why would you say kiss Seymour goodbye?? We are a high revenue team - in this capless new world, we hold the big bucks. Who else will be able to afford RS, maybe the Skins or Cowboys, if they take him, then we will take some of their top players. We have what we need to compete in any way the NFL proceeds.
  12. Murphys95

    Murphys95 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    793
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Yes, the current CBA runs through the '07 season. Any lockout would occur prior to the '08 season.
  13. Murphys95

    Murphys95 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    793
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    There are two worlds being discussed right now. The NFL through 2006, and the NFL after 2006. If the current CBA isn't renewed, high revenue teams like the Redskins will actually be forced to cut players for the '06 season to get under the cap (which won't be raised). After the '06 season, the high revenue teams should have an advantage. Until, of course, the NFL locks out the players in '08. :)
  14. fgssand

    fgssand PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

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

    #17 Jersey

    I understand - my reference to Seymour was for next year as he is signed for this upcoming season.
    As for lockout, won't happen as Upshaw has said that he will disband the union so as to avoid just that.
  15. Triumph

    Triumph Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2004
    Messages:
    6,443
    Likes Received:
    79
    Ratings:
    +190 / 45 / -18

    #32 Jersey

    IMO,that will all change if Kraft has to give up local revenue.
  16. DaBruinz

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

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Messages:
    24,260
    Likes Received:
    174
    Ratings:
    +330 / 20 / -48

    #50 Jersey

    Because the Owners could easily say that the NFLPA isn't bargaining in good faith and that their demands would easily put many teams on the road to financial ruin. Not bargaining in good faith would take them to an arbitraitor and the NFLPA doesn't want that since it hasn't had good luck with them.
  17. DaBruinz

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

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Messages:
    24,260
    Likes Received:
    174
    Ratings:
    +330 / 20 / -48

    #50 Jersey

    Except that the NFL can't lock out players if the Union decertifies. Of course, if it decertifies, then they are not only screwing themselves, but also every previous person who has been in the union. But Upshaw doesn't see it like that. And that is part of the problem.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>