NFL ending $100M in revenue sharing

[TTP77]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4718965&campaign=rss&source=twitter&ex_cid=Twitter_espn_4718965

IMO this is terrible news for NFL fans. I'm really worried about what's going to happen in the next few years.

[pookha]

this could get incredibly ugly very fast.
it may also be a tactic to use against the players.
in an uncapped year there also insnt a spending floor and significant number of players could be stuck on teams paying very little.
or maybe that is what the owners want the players to ponder.
of course the players are challenging all this.

[Yvette]

The NFL as we know it may be done so I'll continue to enjoy each of our games, one at a time.

[pookha]

i dont think they are that stupid.
suspect a lot of this is scare tatics stuff.
jerry jones isnt the whole nfl..
but he is good boogey man to pitch out there.

they may have this one uncapped season but there are so many nasty clauses to go around i still suspect something will be worked out.

[Sect309Fan]

Just remember that this the "extra revenue sharing" not all revenue sharing. The NFL teams are still splitting TV and merchandise revenues equally, which is billions of dollars.

The Titans can definitely survive without it, but a team like Jacksonville might have to lower their payroll to under the floor levels to stay profitable.

One good thing that might come out of it is that teams won't have to have a certain ticket revenue anymore. So if the Titans and Jags want to keep their prices competitive for their markets, they can.

[TitansFan23]

Just remember that this the "extra revenue sharing" not all revenue sharing. The NFL teams are still splitting TV and merchandise revenues equally, which is billions of dollars.

The Titans can definitely survive without it, but a team like Jacksonville might have to lower their payroll to under the floor levels to stay profitable.

One good thing that might come out of it is that teams won't have to have a certain ticket revenue anymore. So if the Titans and Jags want to keep their prices competitive for their markets, they can.

Jacksonville probably wouldn't survive.

An extended vacation in LA maybe?

[BJShan]

Jacksonville probably wouldn't survive.

:boohoo

[315]

Jacksonville probably wouldn't survive.

An extended vacation in LA maybe?


:boohoo

:boohoo

[Mcnair2Wycheck]

I'm pretty sure that article is from a few months ago haha. But at any rate whenever a CBA is decided upon I guarentee that it will include revenue sharing, most of the owners won't stand for getting rid of it. In fact other than the Cowboys, Skins, and a couple of other teams, who else would really be for it? The biggest problem is in the immediate future and getting a deal done.

[pookha]

the article is brand new and is a reference to the supplemental revenue sharing not the total revenue sharing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/07/sports/football/07labor.html

supplemental is the all important word..


owners will not share a $100 million fund. Nine teams at the bottom of the revenue pecking order drew from that pool this season.

The $100 million represents a tiny fraction of the $6.5 billion — much of it money generated from television contracts — that all 32 teams share. The decision was first reported by ESPN on Sunday.



i have to admit i didnt think this through better with my above post.
mostly this was for a few teams like the bills(who dont share their toronto revenue) and the bengals who were way down the money rung..


owners will not share a $100 million fund. Nine teams at the bottom of the revenue pecking order drew from that pool this season.

The $100 million represents a tiny fraction of the $6.5 billion — much of it money generated from television contracts — that all 32 teams share. The decision was first reported by ESPN on Sunday.



sections reference to ticket prices was to a clause that to drink from this revunue pool teams had to contribute a certain percentage of revenue to sip.
and that ment keeping ticket prices in line with the rest of the teams,

[TTP77]

Adam Schefter reporting this


NFLPA conference call

In a continuing effort to unify players and keep them abreast of any progress toward a new collective bargaining agreement, NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith will hold a conference call with NFL agents Wednesday. This will mark Smith's second conference call with agents. On the first one, he debriefed agents about the potential lockout/work stoppage issues that the NFL faces in 2011. It is expected to be more of the same Wednesday, with additional discussion of how the NFLPA plans to move forward.

Players really need to start putting the pressure on. They are going to get screwed if the CBA deal doesn't get done.

[pookha]

one wonders if some of the big agents are willing to sacrifice some of their players due to dreams of what a few big name players will reap.

[TTP77]

i wonder too pookha. Agency in the NFL is filled with conflicts of interest like that and it's a shame. Given the limitations that will be in place due to years of service and stuff like that we are talking about a very small percentage of FA's who will benefit though. IDK maybe 5% if that? It will be interesting to see what happens next offseason.