DynaPaul
04-10-2006, 05:00 PM
www.profootballtalk.com
POSTED 12:52 p.m. EDT, April 10, 2006
NEW OWNERS WON'T BE BARRED FROM REVENUE SHARING
A league source with knowledge of the discussions regarding the potential factors that will influence a team's eligibility for supplemental revenue sharing, but who has asked not to be identified due to the sensitivity of the information (sorry, we were just reading Newsweek) has told us that there are no current plans to disqualify new owners of NFL teams from getting an extra piece of the pie.
Per the source, the only discussions that have occurred to date regarding supplemental revenue sharing and changes in ownership relate to the extent to which the league would be entitled to recoup past payments made to a low-revenue team whose balance sheet has been artificially enhanced by the subsidies from the pool of traditionally unshared monies into which the teams with the highest revenues will be paying.
In other words, if after Ralph Wilson passes his estate attempts to sell the team for, say, $800 million, someone (whether it's Wilson's estate or the buyer) could be required to make a payment back to the league as a reflection of the reality that supplemental revenue sharing has inflated the book value of the team.
And this isn't a new concept, we're told. The notion of the league potentially being reimbursed has been part of the G-3 program, through which the NFL provides money for the construction of stadiums. If an owner is going to sell the team and the stadium, it's only fair for the league to get back some of the money, since league money has put the owner in position to finagle the final price to be paid.
"Fair" is the key word here. If Ralph Wilson gets extra money for the next five years due to his franchise's financial woes in Western New York, Wilson's estate shouldn't be permitted to keep the additional profit, from the sale of a team that Wilson bought for $25,000, that traces directly to the extra money he has gotten from the supplemental revenue sharing program.
It's not clear whether Wilson's claims regarding the disqualification of a new owner from supplement revenue sharing is the result of misinformation, or misrepresentation. Either way, Wilson's contention is way off base.
POSTED 12:52 p.m. EDT, April 10, 2006
NEW OWNERS WON'T BE BARRED FROM REVENUE SHARING
A league source with knowledge of the discussions regarding the potential factors that will influence a team's eligibility for supplemental revenue sharing, but who has asked not to be identified due to the sensitivity of the information (sorry, we were just reading Newsweek) has told us that there are no current plans to disqualify new owners of NFL teams from getting an extra piece of the pie.
Per the source, the only discussions that have occurred to date regarding supplemental revenue sharing and changes in ownership relate to the extent to which the league would be entitled to recoup past payments made to a low-revenue team whose balance sheet has been artificially enhanced by the subsidies from the pool of traditionally unshared monies into which the teams with the highest revenues will be paying.
In other words, if after Ralph Wilson passes his estate attempts to sell the team for, say, $800 million, someone (whether it's Wilson's estate or the buyer) could be required to make a payment back to the league as a reflection of the reality that supplemental revenue sharing has inflated the book value of the team.
And this isn't a new concept, we're told. The notion of the league potentially being reimbursed has been part of the G-3 program, through which the NFL provides money for the construction of stadiums. If an owner is going to sell the team and the stadium, it's only fair for the league to get back some of the money, since league money has put the owner in position to finagle the final price to be paid.
"Fair" is the key word here. If Ralph Wilson gets extra money for the next five years due to his franchise's financial woes in Western New York, Wilson's estate shouldn't be permitted to keep the additional profit, from the sale of a team that Wilson bought for $25,000, that traces directly to the extra money he has gotten from the supplemental revenue sharing program.
It's not clear whether Wilson's claims regarding the disqualification of a new owner from supplement revenue sharing is the result of misinformation, or misrepresentation. Either way, Wilson's contention is way off base.