The CBA

[The_Philster]

Ralph is saying that a team, once sold, will lose revenue sharing. Pro Football Talk is saying, basically, that he doesn't know what he's talking about. I'm not gonna say that there's no chance that Ralph could be wrong on this but PFT is hardly a reliable source. I don't know about anyone else, but I'd love to take a look at it myself.

[YardRat]

I would too. There is an older version on the NFLPA website, but I haven't been able to find a newer one yet.

[The_Philster]

I would too. There is an older version on the NFLPA website, but I haven't been able to find a newer one yet.
that's the only one I saw as well :idunno:

[socalfan]

Ralph is saying that a team, once sold, will lose revenue sharing. Pro Football Talk is saying, basically, that he doesn't know what he's talking about. I'm not gonna say that there's no chance that Ralph could be wrong on this but PFT is hardly a reliable source. I don't know about anyone else, but I'd love to take a look at it myself.


You are kidding me, aren't you Phil?!?!?!?!

Didn't you know that there is no such document written yet?!?!?!!?

Why the heck do you think Ralph is going to the politicians at this stage?!?!?!?

It is still an ongoing process. The high revenue teams are still adding rules and conditions for revenue sharing. The NFL office is still trying to figure out what exactly was agreed to during the last two days of negotiations.

When I tell people to cite a paragraph in the new agreement for the stupid statements they are making about how much money the high revenue teams will contribute, etc....I'm doing that to point out to them that look as they might, they will NOT find a copy of the new agreement because ONE HAS NOT BEEN WRITTEN YET!!!!

That's why you can help alleviate the problems being created for the Bills by writing to the politicians. If it were a done deal then what would be the use?

[socalfan]

Sorry I jumped down your throat Phil. This is what I should have said.

The negotiation between the player's union and Tag was presented as a set of points to the owners over a two day period. The owners got to ask questions etc.

On the last day the owners worked with the Tag to see if they could make the set of points presented the day before actually work for them. The 59.5% that the players were asking for was too high for some of the owners. Those owners would vote no on the CBA if they couldn't somehow see themselves as getting or generating additional revenue.

A group of owners presented a plan to share revenue during the last 3 hours of the meeting. This is the plan that Ralph said he didn't see as being helpful to the Bills, because it was really complicated. This is the plan that Ralph is continuing to complain about. But he complains about it by talking about the CBA and the 59.5%

That revenue sharing plan is not a completed document. The NFL office is still trying to figure out what the heck it means (it is not a legal document and the lawyers are trying to convert it into one so that the owners can sign it and courts would know what to do with it).

There were apparently terms in it like, revenue sharing will be stop if you are not doing your best to get attendance up. Because now, if you look at what Polian says, they are fleshing it out. That means the higher revenue teams are being ask to be more specific. So now there is a qualifier that says you qualify for revenue sharing as long as your attendance is more than the attendance of 80% of the other teams. It is a measureable statement and someone can see whether or not you met the requirement. Where as before it nothing but a big arguement....did they try or didn't they try their best... And the one that came out yesterday,...you sell the team, the new owner does not get revenue sharing. They keep coming up with measureables for vague ideas that presented. That's why Ralph said he couldn't understand it. He couldn't tell if the Bills were going to get revenue sharing or not the conditions were too vague.

There is NO TOTAL agreement because of what happened during the last three hours of that meeting with the owners. They got the points with the players, they might have a formula for the amount of revenue shared (although Ralph said he hasn't seen that yet) and they are trying to write qualifiers or conditions.

They are still writing it. That is why you can still impact the outcome by getting your governmental representatives asking them questions. They don't want to have governmental oversite. They will get the owners back together to get something fair.

[socalfan]

From a report in the Rochester D&C

If the NFL's new labor agreement is a done deal, why is Wilson still making so much noise? What are his options?

Some portions of the NFL's revenue-sharing formula have yet to be worked out. Wilson wants the Bills to stay in Buffalo, but he also wants the team to have a chance to be competitive.

How can political allies help Wilson's cause?

Politicians can exert pressure on the NFL — which comes under federal antitrust laws — to pay attention to the needs of the small-market teams. With Buffalo's fragile economy, losing the Bills would be a major blow.

Link - http://www.democratandchronicle.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060408/SPORTS03/604080334

[Ickybaluky]

Ralph is saying that a team, once sold, will lose revenue sharing. Pro Football Talk is saying, basically, that he doesn't know what he's talking about. I'm not gonna say that there's no chance that Ralph could be wrong on this but PFT is hardly a reliable source. I don't know about anyone else, but I'd love to take a look at it myself.

There is not full CBA to be published yet.

What there is is a "Terms Sheet", which outlines the major points in the agreement (basically a scaled-down version of the full CBA). The final contract language is still being worked on. The Term Sheet is what has been distributed to teams and agents so that deals could be completed.

The NFLPA has not ratified a full CBA, however they did vote to ratify the Term Sheet. I haven't seen a copy of that posted anywhere.

I haven't seen anything that referred to a franchise losing it's right to revenue sharing if sold. That isn't a concept that makes much sense, as it would make franchises harder to sell and hurt values.

I think Wilson is referring to the qualifiers that will be placed on revenue sharing. From what has been published (off what Paul Tagliabue said) the revenue sharing works as follows:

1) All revenues shared before will continue to be shared equally among all teams, this accounts for about 80% of total revenues.

2) Additionally, a pool of $500M in local revenues will be put into a pool to be distributed to lower revenue teams in the first 4 years of the 6 year agreement.

3) The incremental revenue-sharing plan, as it is called, will cost high-revenue teams (top 15) between $850 million and $900 million over the six years. The top five revenue teams will pay the most; teams between six through 10 in revenue will pay the second most and 11 through 15 will pay the lowest third of that revenue-sharing pool.

4) The pool is to be funded as follows:

- The high-revenue clubs will give up their portions from a league-wide pool of visiting-team shares of the base ticket price for club- and premium-seat receipts. Visiting teams receive 34% of such sales.

- High-revenue teams will contribute their shares of revenue generated by national deals from evolving streams that include the Internet, wireless, other digital media and various non-traditional outlets for products and services. This potentially could represent the most significant contribution to the pool.

- The five top-grossing teams will contribute $3 million a year to the pool. The next five highest-earning teams will contribute $2 million a year. Franchises ranked from 11-15 will contribute $1 million a year. The $180 million commitment of this element (over the 6 years) represents about 20% of the pool's projected total.

5) Lower-revenue teams, meeting yet to be established qualifiers, can draw from the pool to make up for the additional rise in salary cap resulting from all revenues being included in the CBA. Basically, the high-revenue teams force the cap higher, so they make up the difference to the local revenue teams with the pool.

Wilson's big issue is with the qualifiers. However, they haven't yet been established. They likely will try to ascertain if the team has attempted to market itself to the fullest extent.

The qualifiers will probably take into account things such as:

- Has the team attemplted to sell stadium naming rights?

- Has the team tried to sign agreements with "new media" (internet, wireless), which is a big growth area.

- How much of an investment has the team made in marketing? For instance, the Patriots have a staff of 40 people working on marketing. The Bengals have 3.

In the mind of bigger market owners, they aren't going to work harder than their other owners and then share the fruit of that labor. They want to be sure the other teams are trying, and if the market won't allow it then they will share the money. However, they feel many markets aren't trying. For instance, Jerry Jones has told Paul Brown he will give him $5M a year for the naming rights to his stadium because he knows he can sell them for twice that much.

[Ickybaluky]

Politicians can exert pressure on the NFL — which comes under federal antitrust laws — to pay attention to the needs of the small-market teams. With Buffalo's fragile economy, losing the Bills would be a major blow.

I'm not sure how you can make the case for an anti-trust suit.

The NFL shares more revenue than any other league, by a wide margin. All non-local revenues are shared, a number around 80% of total revenues. Additionally, a pool of $850M-$900M over the next 6 years will be created from the local revenues of the top-15 revenue producing clubs to be distributed to the lower revenue clubs. This is designed to overcome the rise in the cap due to all revenues being shared. There are certain qualifiers to be met, but those haven't even been established yet.

So, you have a league that shares more revenue than any other sports league. They have a CBA ratified by their players and agreed to by 30 of the 32 owners. That seems like a pretty difficult case to make, and I'm not sure where the government would have any business being involved in the matter.

The players made out better under the new agreement, they got a bigger piece of the pie. However, there isn't an NFL team that will lose money under this agreement, including Wilson.

[socalfan]

I'm not sure how you can make the case for an anti-trust suit.
..........

I believe what the writer of the article in the Rochester D&C, that I quoted was saying is that a political process is relevant and can be effective. The writers explanation was that the anti-trust clauses for contracts could apply. Whether or not they do, is something that the courts would have to determine. And I'm sure all of your points would be brought up in the arguements to the court.

[Ickybaluky]

Bottom line, IMO, is that the Bills situation isn't nearly as bad as Wilson is making it out to be. There is little question that Western NY has some economic issues, but so doesn't Western Pennsylvania and the Steelers do just fine. No matter what he says, the Bills are not going to lose money.

There is no reason for Wilson to cry poor like he is doing, IMO. The Bills are not nearly the best candidate for a move other than the fact they have a lease arrangement which wouldn't cost a lot to break.

I realize a lot of you worship Wilson, but my read on what he did the other day is he is exercising preliminary moves in an exit strategy. I think he has reached a point where he is ready to sell the Bills, and he knows someone who wants a team for L.A. is ready to pay $1B to find a team. He is setting it up so he can blame the new CBA, which is total crap.

That is my read. I don't see the league wanting to move the team from Buffalo, because there is a lot of history there and very strong fan support. If someone is to go to L.A., I don't think the league would pick the Bills first. There are far better candidates to move, and expansion is still a lucrative option. IMO, Wilson is getting along in years, is ready to cash out and sees the L.A. market as his golden parachute.

Sorry, from the outside that is the only scenario that makes sense to me.

[RedEyE]

best thread I've read on the topic. Well informative, and not at all filled with sofa QB speculative bull****.

:bf1:

[socalfan]

Bottom line, IMO, is that the Bills situation isn't nearly as bad as Wilson is making it out to be. ........................
There is no reason for Wilson to cry poor like he is doing, IMO. The Bills are not nearly the best candidate for a move other than the fact they have a lease arrangement which wouldn't cost a lot to break.

..........my read on what he did the other day is he is exercising preliminary moves in an exit strategy.

....... IMO, Wilson is getting along in years, is ready to cash out and sees the L.A. market as his golden parachute.

Sorry, from the outside that is the only scenario that makes sense to me.


The guy is 87 years old. If he sells for 1 billion....or even 100 million....what in the world would make you think that somehow he would need to make an exit strategy?

What's the exit strategy for??? He just sells and leaves. Why all of the publicity? There certainly isn't any need for it. NO ONE can tell him he can't sell. He DOESN'T need an excuse to sell. He just sells it and goes.

The only way his actions make any sense is if he doesn't want to sell and he wants to keep the team here. Then I can understand why he is putting himself out in front of this issue. Then I can see why he is taking the abuse. He doesn't have to take this abuse to sell. He wants the team, he wants the team here, and he wants it to be competitive.

You need to reconsider your point of view.

[Ickybaluky]

You need to reconsider your point of view.

OK, we will agree to disagree. However, I don't see the guy taking any criticism. I see him being lauded as a hero for standing up to the league. IMO, this is just an advance move so he can avoid the criticism that Modell suffered.

It also sets things up with the NFL. IMO, the NFL wouldn't choose Buffalo first to move to L.A. Not even close. The NFL is not going to want him to move, but they can't stop him because anti-trust laws forbid that (thanks, Al Davis).

I think there are several owners intrigued by the $1B carrot out there that is the L.A, and Wilson is one of them. market. I think that is one reason the league has been dragging their feet on approving an L.A. stadium plan. They are afraid if L.A. reaches a point where they are ready, some existing franchise will sell to them immediately due to how lucrative that market can potentially be. The league wants to pick the solution to L.A., but they can't control it if an existing franchise wants to move.

I don't by the argument that the new CBA has several franchises on the brink of bankruptcy. That is a rediculous argument. While there is little question the players got a much bigger piece of the pie than before, that was inevitable (they had been getting screwed in the past). Still, the league is generating record revenues and bringing in tons of money. That is why 30 of 32 teams approved the deal, because they don't want to kill the golden goose.

If Wilson is so dead set on keeping the team in Western NY, he can always approach Erie County about a new stadium agreement. The one thing that makes the Bills very attractive for an outside buyer is that their stadium lease is easily broken. I don't see him doing that.

[socalfan]

.... I see him being lauded as a hero for standing up to the league. IMO, this is just an advance move so he can avoid the criticism that Modell suffered.

.....the NFL wouldn't choose Buffalo first to move to L.A. Not even close. The NFL is not going to want him to move, but they can't stop him because anti-trust laws forbid that (thanks, Al Davis).

............I don't by the argument that the new CBA has several franchises on the brink of bankruptcy.

...............If Wilson is so dead set on keeping the team in Western NY, he can always approach Erie County about a new stadium agreement. ..............

If you listened to the press conferences that took place in Buffalo (you can hear some of them on WGR they have a website with links to audio), you would see the press savagely attack Wilson. They repeated the same questions over and over to all the parties, Governor, County Exe, and him. Then you have ESPN and others making fun of him. The fans on this site have cursed him, and look at some of the posts here, they've threatened him, they've called him a liar, and they're embarrassed by him. He isn't looked at as a hero for doing this.

I have no idea who the NFL would like to move to LA.

I don't think the CBA is the cause of the bankruptcy. I think the revenue sharing and qualifiers would do it. And I think the revenue sharing and qualifiers set up the NFL for anti-trust law suits. If a team can not pay out the same level of bonuses that Washington does in 5 years, then the players will file suit. Under the 14th admendment they are also guaranteed equal protection under the law. If the system is inherently unequal, the courts will rule for the players.

He has said the market is taped out. He has said that even if you build a new stadium it wouldn't change anything. Did you know that of all the franchises, only Buffalo has only one of the fortune 1000 companies in its region. Even Green Bay has more than that. He says he has no pricing power. Tickets prices can't be raised.

I know you view this as good reasons to leave western NY, but he apparently doesn't want to go!

[Mr. Pink]

If you listened to the press conferences that took place in Buffalo (you can hear some of them on WGR they have a website with links to audio), you would see the press savagely attack Wilson. They repeated the same questions over and over to all the parties, Governor, County Exe, and him. Then you have ESPN and others making fun of him. The fans on this site have cursed him, and look at some of the posts here, they've threatened him, they've called him a liar, and they're embarrassed by him. He isn't looked at as a hero for doing this.

I have no idea who the NFL would like to move to LA.

I don't think the CBA is the cause of the bankruptcy. I think the revenue sharing and qualifiers would do it. And I think the revenue sharing and qualifiers set up the NFL for anti-trust law suits. If a team can not pay out the same level of bonuses that Washington does in 5 years, then the players will file suit. Under the 14th admendment they are also guaranteed equal protection under the law. If the system is inherently unequal, the courts will rule for the players.

He has said the market is taped out. He has said that even if you build a new stadium it wouldn't change anything. Did you know that of all the franchises, only Buffalo has only one of the fortune 1000 companies in its region. Even Green Bay has more than that. He says he has no pricing power. Tickets prices can't be raised.

I know you view this as good reasons to leave western NY, but he apparently doesn't want to go!


Some good points here....

Thing is about the new revenue sharing system from what I read....80% of it will remain unchanged from years previous. Only 20% will be supplemental income set up to charge the richer teams to help support the lesser marketed teams. What these qualifies will be none of us know. To me, and I could be wrong, it's set up so teams in years past like ARI who did nothing at all doesn't receive the same fair shake as teams that bust their ass to make a profit. Which is NOT a bad thing. Hand outs are a bad thing, why should a team who tries to maximize it's profits by selling stadium naming rights give the same amount to a team like the Bills who's owner ego wants his name on the building? For example.

As far as the players filing suit that Buffalo can't pay out the same bonuses as say Washington.....That's easy to debunk. It's a free market system, capitalism just like every other job. Sure that may lend to some teams being able to land more of the "talented" players but it's nothing illegal. Yes, it may force some of the lesser owners out of the league who can't afford the top players, but they can sell the team to someone who can.

I may be completely off-base with this, because it's just opinion on what I've seen and read, but that's my take.

[The_Philster]

Bills who's owner ego wants his name on the building? that was Pataki's idea, not Ralph's...Ralph just didn't want a corporate name up

[Dozerdog]

that was Pataki's idea, not Ralph's...Ralph just didn't want a corporate name up

...which makes me laugh my ass off. "Rich Stadium" as it was known as for 25 years, was named after Rich Foods, inc. in 1973. It was one of the very first sports stadiums named after a corporation.

Schaefer Stadium (Foxboro) followed suit.

[Mr. Pink]

that was Pataki's idea, not Ralph's...Ralph just didn't want a corporate name up

Yes it was Patakis' idea, but Ralph agreed with it and continues to agree. To say that Ralph "just doesn't want a corporate name up" is short sighted, Ralph was the first owner to sell stadium naming rights to an outside corporation in the NFL.

[The_Philster]

...which makes me laugh my ass off. "Rich Stadium" as it was known as for 25 years, was named after Rich Foods, inc. in 1973. It was one of the very first sports stadiums named after a corporation.

Schaefer Stadium (Foxboro) followed suit.
true...I do have to wonder what exactly prompted his change of heart in that matter :scratch:

[socalfan]

Yes it was Patakis' idea, but Ralph agreed with it and continues to agree. To say that Ralph "just doesn't want a corporate name up" is short sighted, Ralph was the first owner to sell stadium naming rights to an outside corporation in the NFL.

So when Ralph says he couldn't hire a college free agent with the money he would get for replacing his name...I guess he knows what he's talking about.

[socalfan]

Some good points here....

.....What these qualifies will be none of us know. To me, and I could be wrong, it's set up so teams in years past like ARI who did nothing at all doesn't receive the same fair shake as teams that bust their ass to make a profit. Which is NOT a bad thing. .....................

As far as the players filing suit that Buffalo can't pay out the same bonuses as say Washington.....That's easy to debunk. It's a free market system, ......




If you look at my letter to Tag and the politicians you will note that I complain about one qualifier. The one that will cause any new owner of the Bills to be disqualified from revenue sharing. And in the letter I lay out why I am raising that issue.

It is not a free market. Players coming out of college do not get to choose where they play. When the signing bonus for a top five pick in the draft is upwards of 15 million....the problem will become pretty clear once the salary cap is up at 120 million.

[Typ0]

I didn't read everything here so if this was said sorry...

We should be praising RW for what he's done. He's being proactive and knows political pressure will make a difference as these things are being negotiated. He's asserting the league as a whole is dangerously close to taking a stance that the NFL's property value is too heavily weighted towards the higher market teams current cash flows. RW is saying that the Bills have built significant brand equity in the NFL and it could be detrimental to the product if it goes the watered down route of passing teams back and forth to emerging markets.

[Mr. Pink]

If you look at my letter to Tag and the politicians you will note that I complain about one qualifier. The one that will cause any new owner of the Bills to be disqualified from revenue sharing. And in the letter I lay out why I am raising that issue.

It is not a free market. Players coming out of college do not get to choose where they play. When the signing bonus for a top five pick in the draft is upwards of 15 million....the problem will become pretty clear once the salary cap is up at 120 million.

Players CAN in a way pick and choose where they play. Bo Jackson did it, John Elway did it and last year Eli Manning did it. If you're drafted by a team that doesn't like you, you just publicly state "you'll never play for them." I can't remember how many years you're obligated as that teams property and you just don't play for those seasons in the NFL. You can keep yourself in playing shape by playing in the Arena League and CFL. Or it straight out forces the organization to trade you elsewhere.

[Mr. Pink]

On the qualifiers...We don't even know what they are....Ralph might be right, he may be wrong. It's just his interpretation of them. And opinion. We all have different opinions of how the weather is let alone a CBA. Opinion is opinion and not fact. Until the CBA is published it's all circumstantial, heresay and opinion.

[G. Host]

Ralph is saying that a team, once sold, will lose revenue sharing. Pro Football Talk is saying, basically, that he doesn't know what he's talking about. I'm not gonna say that there's no chance that Ralph could be wrong on this but PFT is hardly a reliable source. I don't know about anyone else, but I'd love to take a look at it myself.

Ask ICE since he claims to know what is in it. So does Pro Football Trash so maybe he writes for it.

[The_Philster]

Ask ICE since he claims to know what is in it. So does Pro Football Trash so maybe he writes for it.
that would explain him defending them considering they've proven to the rest of us to be unreliable :scratch: