pakowitz

Revenue-sharing plan up for vote
By TOM SILVERSTEIN
tsilverstein@journalsentinel.com
Posted: March 27, 2004

The most important vote the National Football League owners take this week when their meetings take place in Palm Beach, Fla., probably will be one of the least publicized.

Chances are it will be buried beneath the annual hoopla involving instant replay, excessive celebration and one-possession overtimes, but in terms of long-term health of the league, the 15-year master agreement on the table reigns above all else.

On Wednesday, the NFL's legal agreement known as the "NFL Trust" expires, ending a 22-year pact stipulating that the NFL serves as the licensing agent for all of its teams. Under the trust, revenue from all trademarked merchandise is split equally among the teams.

The agreement is part of the revenue-sharing structure that has allowed small-market teams like the Green Bay Packers to survive.



for the rest of this NFL information, click here:


http://www.jsonline.com/packer/news/mar04/217565.asp



revenue sharing also helps out the saints very much b/c like the packers, we are in one of the smallest markets in the NFL

dberce1

there\'s discussion over instant replay also, if it will be permanent or not. i\'m all for instant replay, always have been. great way to correct mistakes, which all officials are prone to make sooner or later. they\'re only human, you try to make a call about if a guy has possession, both feet in, football move, ect. at the same time.

Euphoria

I am ok with instant replay the way it is. I think the bigger issue they need to address is keep this league competitive. NFL should own the logos ect and sharing of revenue. What they need to address is the freakin signing bonous\'. Teams in large markets are able to drop bank on a player and not count against the cap. The cap is in place to help the smaller market teams survive and be competitive.

no_cloning

What happens if onlyvery few owners - say Snyder and Jones - refuse the new agreement? I\'m guessing a decision would have to be unanimous or is there a 3/4 or 4/5 majority that could force the Redskins and Cowboys to honor the agreement as well?
The deal up for renewal only pays each team 4 million each year (did I read that right?). If that\'s true I can see quite a few teams wanting to test their market value and frankly it\'s questionable if the NFL exec(s) did such a good job - although there is always risk of overexposure.

pakowitz

24 of the 32 teams have to approve the license for it to be put into effect

this is untrue. signing bonus\' do count againts the cap but in a different way from a players \"salary\". the bonus money is divided by the # of the years of the deal and counts against the cap in increments

pakowitz

Some teams want NFL to add expand playoffs to 14
March 29, 2004
SportsLine.com wire reports

PALM BEACH, Fla. -- A proposal to let two more teams into the NFL playoffs could have a chance at passing at the league meetings after all.

The Kansas City Chiefs will propose an increase in postseason qualifiers from 12 to 14 at this week\'s meetings. The NFL Competition Committee is against it, and the committee carries much sway.

But several team officials said Sunday they would like to see more playoff teams.

\"I\'m for anything that gives my team a better chance to make the playoffs,\" San Francisco 49ers coach Dennis Erickson said.

\"I think two more teams in the playoffs would increase the excitement in those cities,\" added Miami Dolphins president Eddie Jones.

Bob Kraft, owner of the Super Bowl champion New England Patriots, co-sponsored the proposal a year ago, when it was voted down. He has indicated he still favors it.

But Rich McKay, co-chairman of the competition committee and general manager of the Atlanta Falcons, doesn\'t expect passage of the proposal.

\"We feel like the current system has worked very well,\" McKay said. \"The playoff number at 12 is a good number and, for competitive reasons, we don\'t recommend expansion.\"

The biggest concern is that with 14 teams, only the team with the best record in each conference would get a first-round bye.

\"Yes, that would create a potential unreasonable advantage for the No. 1 seed,\" McKay said. \"When you look at the advantage for the bye of the one and two seeds, certainly you see it. To then give it to the No. 1 seed alone definitely is a concern to all of us.\"

Increasing the playoff field requires 24 of 32 votes. So does making permanent instant replay to aid officials, which also is on the agenda.

That is considered more likely to happen than adding two playoff berths. If it doesn\'t pass, well ...

\"There\'s always plan 1-B,\" said John Mara, executive vice president of the New York Giants. \"We think we have more than enough votes to get it in permanently, but if we feel there\'s enough opposition, we\'re open to compromise.\"

That compromise probably would be approving replay for five years. It was first used to help officials in the 1986 season, but was voted out in 1992. It returned, with the current system of coaches\' challenges, in 1999.

In 2001, the format was approved for three years. Now, the competition committee has voted 8-0 for permanent installment.

\"I have my reservations, because we\'ve been hurt by replay a couple of times,\" Indianapolis Colts president Bill Polian said. \"So yes, I\'m for it, but I can see some people still wondering.\"

Replay could include a third coaches\' challenge, too, but only if a team is successful on its first two challenges. That must be voted on by the owners, too.

Other items on the agenda
requiring each team to have at least one possession in overtime;
discussing upcoming negotiations to extend the collective bargaining agreement with the NFL Players Association beyond its expiration date after the 2007 season
discussing negotiations on a new television contract. The current one has two seasons left and commissioner Paul Tagliabue already is preparing to talk with the networks about the next deal
adding a 15-yard penalty for excessive on-field celebrations, particularly those involving more than one player and those that appear choreographed
extending the revenue-sharing agreement for logos and other licensed items
extending by two days the one-week postseason period to interview assistant coaches for head-coaching positions
adding an interview process for front-office personnel during that time period.




http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/story/7215427

I Live In Beastmode!

Euphoria

I ment that if a player gets a 30 million signing bonus, he gets it NOW, and it does count on the cap but years down the road. Small market teams can\'t fork over a 30 million check all at once.

[Edited on 30/3/2004 by Euphoria]

pakowitz

true larger market teams my be able to dish out more money up front, but down the road it hurts them b/c it puts them in cap hell if the player declines in production and/or they want to trade him... take the skins for example, in about 3 years... they will be in super cap hell and my not be able to get out of it...