- Joined
- Feb 8, 2005
- Messages
- 43,716
- Reaction score
- 24,321
Calm down, man. You're practically frothing.
I'm quoting the NFL figures for TOTAL revenues.
I am calm. This conversation was had LAST YEAR during all the talks about the CBA.
Now, would you care to actually provide a true quote? You have claim you did, but you haven't provided them.
I can provide you with the numbers from the NFL contracts and the numbers that those contracts provided last year.
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.
Really? So want everyone to believe that the Bills didn't make anything on concessions? Anything on sales of merchandise?
What's so hard to understand? Why are you confused by this?
There is nothing hard to understand. What you clearly missed is that the Bills have to spend very little, if any, of the money they make outside the TV contracts on the actual paying of player's salaries.
See, the difference here is that I don't count the TV revenue that each team gets because each team gets it. That makes them even in that aspect. I'm talking about the contracts from ESPN, DirecTV, ABC, and CBS. That is what pays the player salaries. Not ticket sales.
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.
This isn't well thought out by you. Advertisers pay the TV Netowrks. Its through them that the NFL gets its lucrative contracts. Those contracts are divided evenly. So, in essence, advertisers are paying the same for the Pats as they are for Buffalo because the money they provide is going into the same pot.
Now, for individual advertisers, I agree to an extent. But, one of the things that Kraft has done is invest locally. And that helps bring in advertising dollars. And there is nothing that says that Ralph Wilson can't come to an agreement on naming rights that include his name. Like, for instance, HSBC's Ralph Wilson Stadium.
Toronto isn't a small city and they do like football up there. What says that Wilson can't work with the NFL to develop a marketing campaign for that area. That would increase the size significantly.
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.
There are revenue disparities in Baseball because teams like the Yankees are still allowed to own their own TV network and generate millions from that because they have exclusive rights to it and it generates hundreds of millions of dollars. That isn't allowed in the NFL. The Cowboys and Patriots both tried to do it and were told they couldn't.
Last edited: