Mitchy moo
03-09-2006, 01:16 PM
As the CBA has just come down, much of the nitty gritty behind the new agreement is still shrouded in mystery. However, you can shoot in the dark and attempt to determine what made it in and what didn't. Prior to the new CBA, the owners were airing their concerns; small dollar teams worried aloud about the apparent unstoppable disintegration of parity, and richer owners (i'm looking at you Jerry) brought up the issue of teams that would recieve the new shared revenue and become dissuaded from pursuing every possible opportunity to make money.
Since their is a form of revenue sharing now in place, it seems that a compromise was struck between the factions. However, while the smaller owners issue is now settled (for better or worse), as the CBA is locked in, the richer owners still have the same worry on their hands: what will keep smaller teams from accepting revenue sharing as an alternative to maximizing EVERY POSSIBLE source of income? It's the equivalent of someone on welfare who figures he gets more (or close to, less his own effort) for sitting on his butt than for doing an honest days work. Now the idea had been bandied about on some sites, and I think it is almost assuredly a reality: there must be some clause or even a commitee that is going ot be assigned to make sure that smaller teams are maximizing their profits and not suckling the welfare teat.
With that conjecture (and it is assuredly conjecture) in mind, I think we are looking at the last days of the House of Ralph. As a team that will recieve a portion of the new revenue sharing, i think the edict will not be long in coming from the head brass..."Ralph, if you're going to take the money, we have to make sure you are doing everything in your power to make money yourself. So we are asking you to sell the naming rights to your stadium". Of course this will be more like "telling" than asking. But how can the NFL hand money to us when we ourselves are not maximizing our own opportunities? (is it coincedence that two small market teams with non corporate names were the only two to vote no?)
Now, make no mistake, I love that we are no "Quallcom Pepsi Interstate Yahoo Arena.com" or whatever. It is a throwback, and simply has more class. And while Ralph's interest are somewhat selfish (is is named after HIM, LOL) I admire him for being classic, and classy. I hate the commercialization of virtually everything. I hate that everything gets turned into ad space for a few bucks now.
But in reality, aren't we long overdue for this sort of thing? As a smaller market team, this is precisely the type of thing we HAVE to do to compete with the big boys on the block. And it's not like we've bee tearing up the league the past few years...every million sure does help. Naming rights have to be at least a mil or two, and IMO this is a revenue source we should have tapped long ago.
Be that as it may, I truly think the issue will now be forced upon us as a result of the new CBA. Part of me hopes I'm wrong, but only a little, because honestly, I would sell a whole hell of a lot more than just the stadium naming rights if I thought it would help make the bills a better team and a franchise.
Since their is a form of revenue sharing now in place, it seems that a compromise was struck between the factions. However, while the smaller owners issue is now settled (for better or worse), as the CBA is locked in, the richer owners still have the same worry on their hands: what will keep smaller teams from accepting revenue sharing as an alternative to maximizing EVERY POSSIBLE source of income? It's the equivalent of someone on welfare who figures he gets more (or close to, less his own effort) for sitting on his butt than for doing an honest days work. Now the idea had been bandied about on some sites, and I think it is almost assuredly a reality: there must be some clause or even a commitee that is going ot be assigned to make sure that smaller teams are maximizing their profits and not suckling the welfare teat.
With that conjecture (and it is assuredly conjecture) in mind, I think we are looking at the last days of the House of Ralph. As a team that will recieve a portion of the new revenue sharing, i think the edict will not be long in coming from the head brass..."Ralph, if you're going to take the money, we have to make sure you are doing everything in your power to make money yourself. So we are asking you to sell the naming rights to your stadium". Of course this will be more like "telling" than asking. But how can the NFL hand money to us when we ourselves are not maximizing our own opportunities? (is it coincedence that two small market teams with non corporate names were the only two to vote no?)
Now, make no mistake, I love that we are no "Quallcom Pepsi Interstate Yahoo Arena.com" or whatever. It is a throwback, and simply has more class. And while Ralph's interest are somewhat selfish (is is named after HIM, LOL) I admire him for being classic, and classy. I hate the commercialization of virtually everything. I hate that everything gets turned into ad space for a few bucks now.
But in reality, aren't we long overdue for this sort of thing? As a smaller market team, this is precisely the type of thing we HAVE to do to compete with the big boys on the block. And it's not like we've bee tearing up the league the past few years...every million sure does help. Naming rights have to be at least a mil or two, and IMO this is a revenue source we should have tapped long ago.
Be that as it may, I truly think the issue will now be forced upon us as a result of the new CBA. Part of me hopes I'm wrong, but only a little, because honestly, I would sell a whole hell of a lot more than just the stadium naming rights if I thought it would help make the bills a better team and a franchise.