NFL Revenue Sharing: Wilson vs Kraft...

[BigMike]

Revenue issue gets personal for NFL owners
Print This Story By DANIEL KAPLAN
Staff writer

Published February 05, 2007 : Page 01
Revenue disparity, the issue that has bedeviled the NFL for several years, looks to become an even thornier matter in 2007.

With yesterday’s Super Bowl now in the rearview mirror, the NFL is faced with the continuing struggles of some of its teams to make ends meet, a pressing concern for a league based on competitive parity.


Teams like the Patriots want recipients to have to qualify for
the extra revenue sharing by demonstrating they are trying to
raise additional money on their own. Clubs like the Bills largely
contend they should not be penalized by their relative small market
size. “Probably close to half the [32] clubs are feeling the same financial strain [as the Falcons],” said Atlanta team owner Arthur Blank last week, adding that his franchise suffered a cash-flow loss in the recently completed season. “It is not three or four clubs. … The difference between the third- and fourth-revenue quartile is humongous and just needs to be dealt with.”

A revenue-sharing committee is set to meet Wednesday to try to make progress on how to distribute subsidies to needy teams. Meanwhile, the arguments between high- and low-revenue teams are becoming increasingly personal and contentious, a notable shift for a sport that has long kept its disagreements discreet and in-house.

Responding to reported comments of New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft saying late last month that the low-revenue Buffalo Bills should sell naming rights to their stadium, Buffalo owner Ralph Wilson said last week, “I appreciate Kraft’s suggestion. It recalls the oldest story of life: When you go to a poor guy, he will give you money. When you go to a rich guy, he will give you advice.”
The Bills play in Ralph Wilson Stadium.

Bills treasurer and CFO Jeff Littman added, “It appears that when Bob Kraft gets a subsidy from the league, he thinks it is an incentive, but when he is asked to pay his fair share of labor costs, he thinks of that as wealth transfer.

“The NFL borrowed $150 million from banks to subsidize the construction of Gillette Field for the Patriots,” Littman said. “We pay the banks back with a payment from our TV revenues and our visiting team’s share of club-seat premiums; they keep all the suite, advertising, naming-rights and other revenues. We get to pay the players’ share on that revenue.”
To be sure, that league loan is deducted from the salary cap, and one-third of the Patriots’ general-ticket revenue is shared with the other 31 clubs.
Said a Patriots spokesman, “The fact is that Gillette Stadium is a model for how the G3 [stadium-financing] program is a win-win for not only the team building the stadium, but also the 31 other teams. Gillette Stadium has been a net generator of cash to the other 31 teams.”

It’s this type of back and forth that will surely be played out when the revenue-sharing committee meets via conference call this week. Teams like the Patriots want recipients to have to qualify for the extra revenue sharing by demonstrating that they are trying to raise additional money on their own. Clubs like the Bills largely contend they should not be penalized by their relative small-market size.

Collectively, the eight-club group is known as the qualifier committee.

Much of the matter at hand stems from the collective-bargaining agreement the league cut last year, giving players a share of all revenue. As a result, for the first time, every local dollar counts toward the salary cap. That means that teams without fruitful stadiums are faced with steeper labor costs because the cap is being driven up by franchises in more bountiful venues.

The Falcons, for example, lost money in 2006 even though on paper they turned a profit because of the way player bonuses are accounted for, Blank said. At some point, teams that are spending a large percentage of their revenue on player costs need relief, he said.

Minnesota Vikings owner Zygi Wilf made a similar concession in April, but he declined to comment for this story. Wilson has said the Bills are losing money, as well.

This all comes as a startling development for a league that for so long has considered itself the gold standard in sports. For many years, the NFL’s national media money, which is evenly distributed among all the league’s teams, went a long way toward covering player costs. With the surge of local revenue driving up the cap, that is no longer the case.

“It is important we get this thing resolved sooner rather than later,” said Bill Prescott, senior vice president of the Jacksonville Jaguars, another club recognized as a low-revenue team. “By the time we get to the owners meeting in March, hopefully this will be resolved by then or go to an owners vote at that meeting.”

About half of the league’s more than $6 billion in revenue is shared equally, about 30 percent is shared unequally and the remainder is not shared. Before creating as part of the new labor deal a supplemental revenue-sharing pool of up to $900 million over six years, teams in need collectively received about $40 million annually.

 

[unoriginal]

Ralph Wilson wants Ralph Wilson stadium to remain Ralph Wilson's Ralph Wilson stadium, and no amount of Salmon P. Chases are going to affect Ralph Wilson's decision concerning the storied history of Ralph Wilson (the stadium). How dare Robert Kraft ask Ralph Wilson to do more than sit around and be Ralph Wilson all day long, and that goes for Ralph Wilson (the man) as well, who Ralph Wilson Ralph Wilson Ralph Wilson Ralph Wilson.

 

[upstater1]

I think both of them have a point.

Wilson has no excuse in not selling naming rights.

On the other hand, the NFL is headed toward baseball's 3 tier system if something isnt done, because the recently negotiated salary cap took the player's percentage from the mid 50s to over 60%. It's bad enough that the cap is rising astronomically but now it will skyrocket from here on, well above the revenues of many football teams.

If the Patriots can use 30% of gross revenues (i.e. not the revenues defined by the CBA) to pay their players, and Buffalo has to use 60%, well then guess what? The Patriots are the new Red Sox, and the Bills are the new Royals.

I used to be a much bigger baseball fan growing up, the 86 World Series was excruciating for me compared to the 85 Super Bowl, but I lost interest in baseball after the strikes and the fact that the league is so heavily tilted toward the big market teams. Curt Schilling is a mercenary, I mean come on. I hope football doesn't make the same mistake.

That being said, Ralph Wilson needs to take care of his own house first, and then I think he'll have a valid complaint, because despite the fact that the Bills are top 10 in ticket sales year after year, there is now way they are going to sell million dollar luxury boxes, nor region wide preseason TV and regular season radio rights.

Buff, Jax, Cincy, KC, Minnesota, St. Louis, New Orleans, Oakland, all these teams are going to be in rough shape with the new CBA.

On the next tier, the middle tier, Indy, Green Bay, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Tennessee, San Diego, maybe Phoenix, will start feeling the heat soon.

 

[PatsSteve1]

IMO, all sides in this have good points. Even if Wilson sold naming rights it really isn't that much money and there isn't much for local business's to put thier names all over the stadium like the Razor that'd pull in much money either. Even if he did some of this there's still be large inequities between smaller market teams and larger market teams. Although how is Atlanta a small market? That area is huge. Every team isn't going to be able to have the same fan base, local business base and advantage. Both sides have to compromise somehow.

 

[upstater1]

IMO, all sides in this have good points. Even if Wilson sold naming rights it really isn't that much money and there isn't much for local business's to put thier names all over the stadium like the Razor that'd pull in much money either. Even if he did some of this there's still be large inequities between smaller market teams and larger market teams. Although how is Atlanta a small market? That area is huge. Every team isn't going to be able to have the same fan base, local business base and advantage. Both sides have to compromise somehow.

There are some pretty big companies around Buffalo still, believe it or not. It's the population base that's a problem. Buffalo and it's immediate first ring suburbs only number 1 million people. Granted, they get fans from Rochester (another million) elsewhere in New York state, and also Southern Ontario, but that's the main problem.

HSBC, Dunlop, Delaware North, New Era, LaBatts America, Health Now, all have national headquarters here. While some subsidiaries are even bigger than these companies, such as Rich Food Products, Sorrento, Tim Horton's HQ, etc. So no problem with signage.

 

[Willie55]

Whats the population of Green Bay - not even 150,000? They are one of the highest revenue generating teams because they work at it.

 

[Jimke]

When Bob Kraft bought the Pats, they were last in total revenue.

He worked his butt off and now they are a high revenue team.

Ralph Wilson and friends are looking for a handout without any

strings attached like having to exert a little extra effort to help

themselves.

 

[Jimke]

The average price of a Buffalo Bills' season ticket is the lowest in the NFL.

The average price of a New England Patriots' season ticket is among the

highest in the NFL (if not the highest). Should Bob Kraft ask his season

ticket holders to subsidize the ones in Buffalo?

 

[BigEZPatsFan76]

I am all for all of the clubs working together to keep the league "healthy" and "financially stable". Like the old saying goes, a rising tide lifts ALL boats. However, that having been said, I don't think the clubs that make big money (like the Patriots) should be forced to hand over "welfare checks" to those who use the "smaller market" excuses. I live in New Orleans, which is indeed a small market (especially in the wake of Katrina), but the Saints generate BIG BUCKS. They could lose all 16 games and still put 70,000 in the Superdome. Their owner (Tom Benson) is an utter "penny pinching" former used car salesman. So, my comment to Ralph Wilson would be, it is NOT our problem that you are in a "small" market. You have three choices, either work to make the best that you can out of your market, sell the team to someone who can, or relocate to a more "profitable" market. Ever stop to think that the crappy product you put on the field might be contributing to your woes there, Ralphy boy? With revenue sharing, had it not been for the money that the "big market" and profitable teams in other markets generate, NO WAY does Indy be able to field and keep the team they have that won the SB the other night.


EZ76

 

[upstater1]

The average price of a Buffalo Bills' season ticket is the lowest in the NFL.

The average price of a New England Patriots' season ticket is among the

highest in the NFL (if not the highest). Should Bob Kraft ask his season

ticket holders to subsidize the ones in Buffalo?

Green Bay is publicly owned, and obviously we have to talk about the metro area. Are you assuming GB fans are limited to the city of GB? If that were the case, they wouldn't exist. They have to draw from Milwaukee. But yes it is a small market team that does well regardless. I've looked at their finances and they DO pay a very large amount of their revenues to the players. They are publicly owned but that's not exactly a growth stock there. So they're in the same boat, essentially.

Again, it's not the ticket holders of New England that will be subsidizing Buffalo. Because there is not that much difference when you come down to it because of the numbers. Buffalo averages 76,000 fans versus New England's 68,000.

So New England brings in 28.5 million in tickets, New England brings in 38. That's a $10 million difference. That would not require any money to go from Kraft to Wilson. Especially when you consider the fact that parking and concessions are the same and the extra people in Buffalo make up some of the difference.

The big difference is in the market area, broadcast rights, luxury boxes. Consider this: the New England area already subsidizes the Buffalo area because of the TV demographic (i.e. they split the TV money, which is mainly how the player's get paid). So now Wilson is trying to make it so that they share not only TV revenue, but some (key word) of the extra income.

The NFL has to make sure that owners are not pocketing the money for other clubs as sometimes happens in baseball. One way to do that is to make sure the small market owners maximize revenue (which is my argument). So, Buffalo would still have to put 60% of revenues toward player costs while the Patriots can maintain their 30%. That number wouldn't be reduced. The richer clubs and the Patriots would essentially meet the costs of paying the players above the cutoff point of 60% of total revenues.

The only other option is to do it the way baseball does it.

 

[upstater1]

I am all for all of the clubs working together to keep the league "healthy" and "financially stable". Like the old saying goes, a rising tide lifts ALL boats. However, that having been said, I don't think the clubs that make big money (like the Patriots) should be forced to hand over "welfare checks" to those who use the "smaller market" excuses. I live in New Orleans, which is indeed a small market (especially in the wake of Katrina), but the Saints generate BIG BUCKS. They could lose all 16 games and still put 70,000 in the Superdome. Their owner (Tom Benson) is an utter "penny pinching" former used car salesman. So, my comment to Ralph Wilson would be, it is NOT our problem that you are in a "small" market. You have three choices, either work to make the best that you can out of your market, sell the team to someone who can, or relocate to a more "profitable" market. Ever stop to think that the crappy product you put on the field might be contributing to your woes there, Ralphy boy? With revenue sharing, had it not been for the money that the "big market" and profitable teams in other markets generate, NO WAY does Indy be able to field and keep the team they have that won the SB the other night.


EZ76

OK, but can you name a market that the Bills should move to? And New orleans is not generating big profits by the way, they are in Buffalo's same boat. They pay a huge amount of revenues to player costs. And New Orleans is also looking to move.

I also think there has been a misunderstanding. The Bills are actually very profitable. That is not the problem. The problem for Wilson is the new CBA which elevates player's share from 55% of the pie to over 60%. That combined with the skyrocketing salary cap means that in the future teams like New Orleans and the Bills will not be able to pay players to maintain profitability. The Bills aren't losing money right now.

I've looked around and thought about cities that would be good for expansion. I can't think of many. Los Angeles sure, but San Diego, New Orleans, Cincinnati, Buffalo and Jacksonville aren't all going to move to Los Angeles.

I don't look at this as a welfare check anyway. You have the NFL as a single entity, and it markets itself as a league of parity. Each team is responsible for maximizing its revenues and they should be accountable to that end. But the player costs should indeed be shared by the league because otherwise the product on the field will suffer. Make no mistake. The NFL has always been a collective (call it a Commie operation if you like) and I think this has been to its vast benefit over baseball.

Buffalo is a good test case because it is supported well in the community, has always been top 10 in attendance, and has been profitable. But the new CBA threatens that. Your argument is a good one in the sense that they should perhaps move to a more profitable city. But that assumes there is a more profitable place for them to move to.

I don't see one anywhere.

 

[BigEZPatsFan76]

OK, but can you name a market that the Bills should move to? And New orleans is not generating big profits by the way, they are in Buffalo's same boat. They pay a huge amount of revenues to player costs. And New Orleans is also looking to move.

I also think there has been a misunderstanding. The Bills are actually very profitable. That is not the problem. The problem for Wilson is the new CBA which elevates player's share from 55% of the pie to over 60%. That combined with the skyrocketing salary cap means that in the future teams like New Orleans and the Bills will not be able to pay players to maintain profitability. The Bills aren't losing money right now.

I've looked around and thought about cities that would be good for expansion. I can't think of many. Los Angeles sure, but San Diego, New Orleans, Cincinnati, Buffalo and Jacksonville aren't all going to move to Los Angeles.

I don't look at this as a welfare check anyway. You have the NFL as a single entity, and it markets itself as a league of parity. Each team is responsible for maximizing its revenues and they should be accountable to that end. But the player costs should indeed be shared by the league because otherwise the product on the field will suffer. Make no mistake. The NFL has always been a collective (call it a Commie operation if you like) and I think this has been to its vast benefit over baseball.

Buffalo is a good test case because it is supported well in the community, has always been top 10 in attendance, and has been profitable. But the new CBA threatens that. Your argument is a good one in the sense that they should perhaps move to a more profitable city. But that assumes there is a more profitable place for them to move to.

I don't see one anywhere.

Well, they have been saying for years that they are going to "move" from New Orleans. I don't see it happening any time soon. They threaten that all the time. However, I assure you Tom Benson is making big bucks with them, believe me, that snake oil salesman would have either sold or relocated years ago. He has threatened with moving to San Antonio. It was all smoke and mirrors to get a better deal with the Superdome or a new stadium. The new stadium is NOT going to happen. The Superdome was renovated after Katrina. New Orleans, despite being one of the "smaller markets", has a rabid fan base that spends a lot of money on the Saints. I don't see the Saints going anywhere, any time soon. Trust me, I live out here, and I guess anything is possible, but I don't see it happening.


I see what you are saying, and in regards to my "welfare check" statement, is that you should have to "produce" and not sit back and just collect a check from the more profitable clubs. At some point, you have to "pull the wagon" yourself to a degree. Yes, you are right, the overall health of the league is dependent on ALL clubs being able to "contribute" and stay afloat. But, you can't have a "sink hole" either. At some point if a club just can't cut it and be profitable, the rest of the league should NOT be forced to subsidize it, just so it can "exist". They would either have to relocate, or find some other solution. So, I think we are agreeing more than we are disagreeing.


JMHO


EZ76

 

[Jimke]

I'm one of the senior citizens on this panel. I don't suggest for a

minute that the Bills move to another city. I would be quite unhappy

if the Pats were a low revenue team.

I just question why Ralph Wilson can't set his ego aside and collect

two or three million dollars a year for naming rights to the stadium.

Also, why can't he raise ticket prices a little to be more in line with

the rest of the NFL. Buffalo may be a depressed area with relatively low

wages but I know that the fans who pay over $100 a ticket to watch the

Pats play aren't all doctors and lawyers. They're mostly regular guys.

 

[upstater1]

Well, they have been saying for years that they are going to "move" from New Orleans. I don't see it happening any time soon. They threaten that all the time. However, I assure you Tom Benson is making big bucks with them, believe me, that snake oil salesman would have either sold or relocated years ago. He has threatened with moving to San Antonio. It was all smoke and mirrors to get a better deal with the Superdome or a new stadium. The new stadium is NOT going to happen. The Superdome was renovated after Katrina. New Orleans, despite being one of the "smaller markets", has a rabid fan base that spends a lot of money on the Saints. I don't see the Saints going anywhere, any time soon. Trust me, I live out here, and I guess anything is possible, but I don't see it happening.


I see what you are saying, and in regards to my "welfare check" statement, is that you should have to "produce" and not sit back and just collect a check from the more profitable clubs. At some point, you have to "pull the wagon" yourself to a degree. Yes, you are right, the overall health of the league is dependent on ALL clubs being able to "contribute" and stay afloat. But, you can't have a "sink hole" either. At some point if a club just can't cut it and be profitable, the rest of the league should NOT be forced to subsidize it, just so it can "exist". They would either have to relocate, or find some other solution. So, I think we are agreeing more than we are disagreeing.


JMHO


EZ76

I think we largely agree. But as I said, this is about future concerns. The Bills aren't a sinkhole right now. They will not be able to maintain their current level of pay with the current CBA. And there lies the problem.

By the way, I know that in Mass. the last thing a pol would do is subsidize a rich guy like Kraft. Well, Wilson is very rich too. And let me tell you, my tax dollars go toward subsidizing the Bills to the tune of $10 million a year. That's $10 for every soul living in Erie County. So, when you look at ticket prices being low, consider the fact that we're already paying a high ticket price collectively for having the Bills. As a matter of fact, the Bills $10 million shortfall in ticket revenue (compared to the Patriots) is entirely made up by the Erie County tax.

This is all a question of luxury boxes and broadcast rights. Boston has a bigger market. I don't think many of you are arguing that Boston fans are a lot more passionate than Buffalo fans.

 

[BigEZPatsFan76]

I'm one of the senior citizens on this panel. I don't suggest for a

minute that the Bills move to another city. I would be quite unhappy

if the Pats were a low revenue team.

I just question why Ralph Wilson can't set his ego aside and collect

two or three million dollars a year for naming rights to the stadium.

Also, why can't he raise ticket prices a little to be more in line with

the rest of the NFL. Buffalo may be a depressed area with relatively low

wages but I know that the fans who pay over $100 a ticket to watch the

Pats play aren't all doctors and lawyers. They're mostly regular guys.

Oh, I agree with you, Jim. I would hate to see that as well. You know, I think the greater problem in all of this, is of course the ridiculous salaries today, which has esclated ticket prices through the roof. Of course, the Players' Union (to me a source of a lot of the problems), does not care until the day comes where half the league goes out of business, then they have to find REAL jobs, instead of throwing a football around for $2M a year. It is getting where, regardless of what "market" you live in, regular common folks are NOT going to be able to afford to go to a game. It is either going to be a "corporate" sponsored thing, or just for the "elite" of a community. I have no problem with people making as much money as they can, but somewhere down the line, there comes a point where it becomes a detriment to the NFL as a whole.


JMHO

EZ76

 

[upstater1]

I'm one of the senior citizens on this panel. I don't suggest for a

minute that the Bills move to another city. I would be quite unhappy

if the Pats were a low revenue team.

I just question why Ralph Wilson can't set his ego aside and collect

two or three million dollars a year for naming rights to the stadium.

Also, why can't he raise ticket prices a little to be more in line with

the rest of the NFL. Buffalo may be a depressed area with relatively low

wages but I know that the fans who pay over $100 a ticket to watch the

Pats play aren't all doctors and lawyers. They're mostly regular guys.

Gotcha. I agree with you. I stated as much in my opening posts. It's absolutely incumbent on the Bills to maximize their revenues. I don't know why the ticket prices at Bills games are low, but I also think the number is deceptive. If you've been to the Ralph, you realize that a lot of the extra seats are in the cheapo nosebleeds. When you realize that the Bills have 10,000 more seats than most other stadiums, you have to take into account that those extra seats depress the ticket price. Not to mention the fact that the citizens of Buffalo subsidize the Bills to the tune of $10 million a year. That's a net loss when you think about it, since few of the Bills live here year round, and they aren't paying property taxes.

 

[DaBruinz]

I think both of them have a point.

Wilson has no excuse in not selling naming rights.

On the other hand, the NFL is headed toward baseball's 3 tier system if something isnt done, because the recently negotiated salary cap took the player's percentage from the mid 50s to over 60%. It's bad enough that the cap is rising astronomically but now it will skyrocket from here on, well above the revenues of many football teams.

If the Patriots can use 30% of gross revenues (i.e. not the revenues defined by the CBA) to pay their players, and Buffalo has to use 60%, well then guess what? The Patriots are the new Red Sox, and the Bills are the new Royals.

This is such BS. 90% of the money for each team uses for salaries comes from the TV revenue (which is 2.4 billion last year and I believe around 3.2 billion this year - averages to about 100 million a team, imagine that) Ralph Wilson crying poverty because he has to use some of his own money to pay players is a farce. This disparity you mention is a crock of garbage because it doesn't exist.

I used to be a much bigger baseball fan growing up, the 86 World Series was excruciating for me compared to the 85 Super Bowl, but I lost interest in baseball after the strikes and the fact that the league is so heavily tilted toward the big market teams. Curt Schilling is a mercenary, I mean come on. I hope football doesn't make the same mistake.

That being said, Ralph Wilson needs to take care of his own house first, and then I think he'll have a valid complaint, because despite the fact that the Bills are top 10 in ticket sales year after year, there is now way they are going to sell million dollar luxury boxes, nor region wide preseason TV and regular season radio rights.

Buff, Jax, Cincy, KC, Minnesota, St. Louis, New Orleans, Oakland, all these teams are going to be in rough shape with the new CBA.

On the next tier, the middle tier, Indy, Green Bay, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Tennessee, San Diego, maybe Phoenix, will start feeling the heat soon.

Sorry, I disagree. With most of the money for salaries coming from the TV revenues, the teams have to shell out money for signing bonuses and that's it.

Also, why is there no way that these teams aren't going to sell million dollar luxury boxes, nor regional tv rights or regular season radio rights? You haven't offered up squat for an argument as to why they won't be able to do that.

 

[CTPatsFan]

C'mon now, Buffalo is a much bigger city than little ol' Foxborough

 

[upstater1]

This is such BS. 90% of the money for each team uses for salaries comes from the TV revenue (which is 2.4 billion last year and I believe around 3.2 billion this year - averages to about 100 million a team, imagine that) Ralph Wilson crying poverty because he has to use some of his own money to pay players is a farce. This disparity you mention is a crock of garbage because it doesn't exist.






Sorry, I disagree. With most of the money for salaries coming from the TV revenues, the teams have to shell out money for signing bonuses and that's it.

Also, why is there no way that these teams aren't going to sell million dollar luxury boxes, nor regional tv rights or regular season radio rights? You haven't offered up squat for an argument as to why they won't be able to do that.

Calm down, man. You're practically frothing.

I'm quoting the NFL figures for TOTAL revenues.

I have no idea what numbers you're looking at. But the total revenues for the Bills last year were $150 million, and that includes TV rights fees, obviously. They made about $28 million in ticket sales. They also made $10 million in tax from the city. That means, with a 102 million cap, they spent $60% of revenues on player costs. The Patriots, who make twice as much revenue, spent 30% on player costs. That's well and good. The Patriots deserve to make more of a profit because they are a big market team. But if you take this scenario into the future with the new CBA with a salary cap that's rising much much faster than the revenue growth of small market teams, it's easy to see that a bigger and bigger chunk of the Bills' revenues will have to go toward paying its players.

What's so hard to understand? Why are you confused by this?

As for this quote: "Also, why is there no way that these teams aren't going to sell million dollar luxury boxes, nor regional tv rights or regular season radio rights? You haven't offered up squat for an argument as to why they won't be able to do that."

The Patriots market to 6-10 million people, the Bills to 2 to 3 million people. let me know the next time an advertiser agrees to pay just as much for a market that's 1/3rd the size of the 5th biggest market in America. In short, Boston is a big fish. One of the biggest markets in the US. You can't ask Buffalo to compete against that unless you want to move to a Major league Baseball model.

And by the way, Baseball shares its national TV package, But they still have revenue disparities, huge ones. Yankees pay players $210 million, the Royals pay $35 million. Good luck.

 

[sdaniels7114]

This is assuming that the big-market teams will continue to find new revenues well into the future. Won't they max-out at some point(maybe now or very soon) and then only have inflation to push their revenue up? There's only so many luxury boxes that can be built/sold before your stadium capacity drops to like 6000 people.