A Good Read on Ownership Issue(s).

[Farm Implement]

http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/story/8504227

Pertains to many teams actually...

[spjets]

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Ralph Wilson, you may have your wish.

Ralph Wilson wants all teams to have a near-equal chance to field a winner. (Getty Images)

Owner of the Buffalo Bills since their inception, Wilson has been one of the voices crying out for a settlement by NFL owners on revenue sharing, and until this week he believed he wasn't heard.

But then came Wednesday, and now there seems to be sufficient progress on the subject to give Wilson hope.

"I think we have a more broad consensus where one or two or three structural changes could work," said commissioner Paul Tagliabue.

In essence, all would involve compromises to accommodate small-revenue clubs like Buffalo, which tries to stay competitive despite a shrinking population and a depressed local economy.

It hasn't been easy, but the Bills manage on the field -- barely missing the playoffs last year after an 0-4 start, losing out only when they dropped their season finale.

But Wilson wonders how the Bills remain competitive if, under a future labor accord, big-revenue owners such as Dallas' Jerry Jones or Washington's Daniel Snyder not share portions of locally generated money.

After hearing what Tagliabue had to stay after this week's annual spring meetings he may not have to worry.

"The sharing I envision," Wilson said, "is not Russia where every team makes the same as the other team, but where every team should be able to make enough money so it can field a competitive team."

Jones and Snyder have different perspectives on the subject, and that, folks, is where we had an impasse. While the league's players association wonders why it can't start hammering out an agreement with the league, NFL owners came to this week's meetings wondering why they couldn't hammer out an agreement among themselves.

The problem is this: Some of the NFL's clubs, one owner said, spend as little as 40 percent of their gross revenues on player costs, while others spend as much as 65 percent. The Bills' Wilson believes that's unfair and will disrupt the league's competitive balance, and he's not alone. Kansas City's Lamar Hunt is behind him. So is Pittsburgh's Dan Rooney. And the Colts' Jim Irsay.

But the Cowboys' Jones wonders why, in a league where he said 85 percent of the profits are shared, he must split profits from locally produced revenues. After all, if he's working harder than, say, Cincinnati to sell jerseys or corporate sponsorships why should he share money that could exceed $100 million over another clubs.

Wilson has an answer.

[PFSIKH]

I would have to agree with the big market owners on this.

If the league is looking at giving the visting team, in all games, a slice or a bigger slice of the gate, that only seems fair. In theory the larger markets would have some profits trimmed as they should generate more as oppossed to the smaller markets.

However, if it is looking at tapping the big markets to give more money, then that is a bad idea. This is not baseball where the national TV deal does not create a level playing field in conjunction with a salary cap. The NFL's TV deal and salary cap allows Green Bay and Buffalo to be on the same level with New York.

I would have to agree with Jerry Jones on this one and the Patriots are the perfect example. I would be willing to guess that prior to 1993, they were perennially in the bottom 5 of annual merchandise sales (jerseys and stuff), but Kraft has marketed the team very well. Since, they have been in the top 5 - 10 in sales depending on their on field success. If 85% of the profits are shared like the article quotes Jones as saying, then the Ralph Wilson's of the league need to woth that much harder.

It does not matter if the Patriots generate more money then the Bills, they can only spend the same amount.

[Ryno the Jet]

It does not matter if the Patriots generate more money then the Bills, they can only spend the same amount.

I don't think player's salary is the issue here. Yes, they all have the same cap number, but it is more difficult to attract the big time players with a low budget team. Facilities, coaching staff, etc.. all play a factor into where you sign. I'm not saying I like the idea of revenue sharing, but it is a tad bit unfair, but on the other hand, that's what you get for trying to field a team in Buffalo!

[PFSIKH]

I don't think player's salary is the issue here. Yes, they all have the same cap number, but it is more difficult to attract the big time players with a low budget team. Facilities, coaching staff, etc.. all play a factor into where you sign. I'm not saying I like the idea of revenue sharing, but it is a tad bit unfair, but on the other hand, that's what you get for trying to field a team in Buffalo!

I know.

Like the argument used in baseball arguments on this board, if they give Mike Brown in Cincinnati a check for 30 million (pulling the figure out of my azz), there is no gurantee he will spend it on the team.

Corey Dillon has said the meals the Patriots provide range from lobster to steak. Basically what ever the players want. By comparison the Bengals provide bologna sandwiches. I am only kidding on that, but the Bengals do not provide the same thing the Patriots provide according to Dillon.

Yet, they have a new stadium largely funded by the local government. They should be rolling in money, but they are not passing it down to the players. If the league wants to favor the small markets more, so the Buffalos and KCs can upgrade/replace their 30-40 year ols stadiums, fine.

However, like in baseball, especially with an economic structure in place to make things fair, why should Kraft, Jones and Lurie cut checks to the Mike Brown's and Lamar Hunt's of the league if they do not plan to reinvest it on the team? Lamar Hunt has had 10+ years of sellouts and yet he is trying to turn the local government there for every penny he can get to build a new stadium.

I am not whole heartedley against the idea, but why should Kraft have his marketing staff work there ass off to be the one of the best marketed teams when others do not and take things for granted.

To me this seems like a league wide issue that the league should fund, not individual teams.

[Sperm Edwards]

Another thing to consider is the investment the big-name owners put into their teams, particularly the actual purchase of the team. Like, for example...the New York Jets.

One of the reasons the Jets sold for so much $$$ is b/c of the potential to make so much more than with another team. Now far be it from me to feel sympathy for a billionaire's wallet, but it's a legitimate beef. As it stood at the time of purchase, the Jets weren't nearly profitable enough to warrant the $700M or whatever that Woody paid. Now before he can recoup some of that investment through luxury boxes etc, the league wants him to share that revenue with the other teams. If this was going to be the way of things, the team would've sold for far, far less.

So now, before this owner can begin to get a return on his (considerable) financial investment, the league wants to tell a new owner: "GOTCHA, SUCKER!!!"

Every team generates enough money to max out on the salary cap. Beyond that, an owner who decided to purchase a more expensive franchise in a major market has every right to expect more $ than the owner of the Buffalo Bills. That is, unless the league is planning on reimbursing owners of more valuable franchises for the newly depressed value of their commodity.

Again, it's hard to feel financial sympathy for a billionaire, but still - right is right.