|
this is a discussion within the Saints Community Forum; NFL owners still arguing over revenue sharing Story Tools: Print Email XML John Czarnecki / FOXSports.com Posted: 21 minutes ago For months now, several of the big-moneyed NFL owners have been balking at the many different revenue-sharing plans brought up. ...
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
06-10-2005, 05:43 PM | #1 |
5000 POSTS! +
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 6,941
|
NFl Owners argue over revenue sharing
Another thought, Manuel Wright for a 4th? Not so bad now that it may not be a second. |
Latest Blogs | |
2023 New Orleans Saints: Training Camp Last Blog: 08-01-2023 By: MarchingOn
Puck the Fro Browl! Last Blog: 02-05-2023 By: neugey
CFP: "Just Keep Doing What You're Doing" Last Blog: 12-08-2022 By: neugey |
06-10-2005, 05:59 PM | #2 |
1000 Posts +
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Hockley, Tx
Posts: 1,515
|
RE: NFl Owners argue over revenue sharing
I wouldn't negotiate with Benson until after the revenue sharing agreement. It will impact his revenue and there is no need to negotiate until we see what he will start getting from the NFL. Plus it seems that getting in Debt for a new stadium isn't all that great. The NFL better figure out what they want more. Getting new stadiums or keeping the owners and teams out of debt.
|
06-10-2005, 06:12 PM | #3 |
5000 POSTS! +
|
RE: NFl Owners argue over revenue sharing
I think the way they are trying to do this is all wrong! What needs to happen is the NFL needs to say hey we are the corporation, they should handle all accounting ect. The owners are essetially managers and its profit sharing. So at some point in the year most profits from the Corporation are divided amoungst the owners and there you have it. The owner of the Cardnials gets the same as the owner of the Cowboys. Is it fair maybe not but for the NFL its the best thing so the smaller teams/cities can be competitive.
|
E U P H O R I A
|
|
06-11-2005, 11:44 AM | #4 |
5000 POSTS! +
|
RE: NFl Owners argue over revenue sharing
they have a revenue sharing plan in place now... just that its time to renew the current agreement, should not affect the state-benson negociations are lack there of.
|
06-11-2005, 01:54 PM | #5 |
1000 Posts +
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Hockley, Tx
Posts: 1,515
|
RE: NFl Owners argue over revenue sharing
I think it would affect the negotiations if Benson gets to pay less out of his pocket hnd gets more from the NFL split.
quote-"However, influential Steelers owner Dan Rooney and Jacksonville owner Wayne Weaver have proposed a plan in which every team would contribute 34 percent of their local revenues that would be dumped into a pool and then distributed equally among the 32 teams and from there onto the players. Consequently, if the Washington Redskins are earning close to $100 million in local revenue, owner Daniel Snyder would have to write a check for $34 million." So if Benson made 10 million he'd write a check for 3.4 million. He'd get more from the distribution. The state would be wise to look at that and say now you are paying less into the pot and getting more back. |
06-11-2005, 05:31 PM | #6 |
100th Post
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 249
|
Re: RE: NFl Owners argue over revenue sharing
Originally Posted by Euphoria
I completely disagree.
Doing things your way, owners/managers could basically stop trying to generate local revenue. Hell, they could even stop caring if their stadium sells out - they only get 1/32 of those profits anyway. Most if not all teams in the NFL make money. It's not like the NHL or MLB where some franchises have real problems and simply can't generate enough revenue to break even. So while this may be a good idea for the NHL, it's just not necessary for the NFL. Smaller city teams are competitive because of the salary cap. Each team roughly spends the same amount of money each year. The Redskins may have spend more in recent years, but it'll come back to haunt them. We don't need revenue sharing to keep the league competitive. I know it would help the Saints (well, Benson really), but more revenue sharing beyond the TV and ticket money doesn't sit right with my definition of "fair". |
06-11-2005, 09:23 PM | #7 |
5000 POSTS! +
|
RE: Re: RE: NFl Owners argue over revenue sharing
revenue sharing is good. With it its far mare inviting for an owner to keep his team in a smaller market instead of high-tailing it to bigger markets for more money. Plus it helps keep smaller markets competitve with other teams... doesn't matter if Benson maks say 3 million a year profits, what hurts him and the Saints is when Redskins can generate 100 million and use that money on facilities and feeding the players steaks ect... when benson has to scap to get by. Saints are profitable team... one of the most profitable teams due to contracts and deals it has in place. They don't generate 100 million in local tv contracts ect due to the market. Wehn the Saints go to play in Washing DC should they desereve any of the money from that... sure they due for the fact they are an NFL francise
|
E U P H O R I A
|
|