Five teams added to revenue-sharing committee

[G. Host]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2421584

[b]Tagliabue appointed Houston, Green Bay, Cleveland, Detroit and St. Louis to the committee in a memo issued around the NFL on Monday, league spokesman Greg Aiello said Tuesday. Aiello said two more teams, representing the league's lower-revenue franchises, will be added soon to complete the eight-member committee.[/u]

Cinci, Tampa or Jacksonville are my guesses. Oakland, New Orleans and Vikings will be too much controversy.

Buffalo was the first team appointed last week after Bills owner Ralph Wilson complained the new collective bargaining agreement reached last month, which added a new revenue-sharing model, threatens the financial viability of his and other small-market teams.

Wilson's concerns prompted Sen. Charles Schumer (D, N.Y.) to meet last week with Tagliabue, who expressed reassurances that the new labor deal would not hurt or force small-market teams to relocate.

Schumer was pleased with the additional teams selected to the committee.

"It appears that the overall makeup of the committee will be sympathetic to small markets," Schumer said in an e-mail sent to The Associated Press. "This is another big step in our crusade to keep the Bills in Buffalo."

Ralph opened mouth otherwise committee would be very different.

The committee will be split evenly among the league's higher- and lower-revenue teams. Houston, Green Bay, Cleveland and Detroit each had revenue above the league average over the last few seasons. Buffalo and St. Louis represent the bottom fourth revenue-generating franchises.

St. Louis with the sweetheart deal they got? Surprises me.

And I would not say higher- revenue teams. I would have said mid-level teams for the true powerhouses which are forcing salary cap to skyrocket are New England, Dallas and Washington and to a lesser extent NY Giants.

[G. Host]

Re: Five teams added to revenue-sharing committee

The committee will recommend how supplemental revenue-sharing money will be distributed. The recommendations must be passed by at least 24 of the league's 32 owners. If not approved by owners, the commissioner has the authority to make the final determination.

So nine teams can block deal and have commissioner decide unilaterally. Got to make sure the commissioner appointment fight is on top of Buffalo list.

[ddaryl]

Re: Five teams added to revenue-sharing committee

Surprised Cincy was left off the list.

the Houston choice is suspicious to me, but I don't trust anything coming out of Texas.

[The_Philster]

Re: Five teams added to revenue-sharing committee

Surprised Cincy was left off the list..

2 more teams to be selected..

[Jan Reimers]

Re: Five teams added to revenue-sharing committee

With two more lower revenue teams to be added, we'll have a very favorable mix of small and medium market teams. It's nice to see Green Bay and Cleveland representing the higher revenue teams, rather than Dallas or Washington. GB and Cleveland are really smaller market teams which may be a little more sympathetic to our plight than a Jerry Jones or a Daniel Snyder would be.

[ICE74129]

Re: Five teams added to revenue-sharing committee

Dallas, Washington, NE, NYG, Carolina, Oakland will almost certainly block whatever comes out of that meeting. Only 3 more to force the new commish to make a decision.

So in reality this all may be moot.

[Jan Reimers]

Re: Five teams added to revenue-sharing committee

The commish doesn't always have to side with the greed mongers.

[Michael82]

Re: Five teams added to revenue-sharing committee

The commish doesn't always have to side with the greed mongers.

EXACTLY! I for one am pleased with the comittee. It definitely looks favorable for the Bills. I was so worried that we'd see the NY Jets, Washington Redskins, Dallas Cowboys, and the New England Patriots on it.

[Saratoga Slim]

Re: Five teams added to revenue-sharing committee

EXACTLY! I for one am pleased with the comittee. It definitely looks favorable for the Bills. I was so worried that we'd see the NY Jets, Washington Redskins, Dallas Cowboys, and the New England Patriots on it.

right. one step at a time. win this round, then worry about the next.

[ICE74129]

Re: Five teams added to revenue-sharing committee

EXACTLY! I for one am pleased with the comittee. It definitely looks favorable for the Bills. I was so worried that we'd see the NY Jets, Washington Redskins, Dallas Cowboys, and the New England Patriots on it.

LOL you seem to forget 30 owners agreed to the CBA, 2 didn't. now my math is bad but doesnt' that mean all but 2 of the owners (and cinci isn't even on the board yet) that is on that board voted for the CBA as it was?

And who will be our next commish? Someone that the big time teams back which means he sides with them? Maybe he is 'New age' NFL in thinking?

Ralph hasn't acomplished anything yet.

[Dr. Lecter]

Re: Five teams added to revenue-sharing committee

Ralph hasn't acomplished anything yet.

For all of the *****ing you have done towards Pat and his bull-headedness on VD or DraftBoy on Huff you are just being as stubborn here.

To say Ralph has accomplished nothing is asinine. Without his *****ing (publically), Schumer, Russert, etc. would not have been involved. They would not have met with Tagliabue. This comittee woudl not have STARTED with Ralph. It would not be a split of small and big market teams. There would not be the pressure on the NFL to right the ship.

Further, while only 2 teams voted against the initial deal it was composed under pressure from the union. The teams did not have time to fully digest the deal and really read it.

Has Ralph fixed the problem? No, not yet. Does he have a good start? Yes.

Come on and open your eyes.

[Saratoga Slim]

Re: Five teams added to revenue-sharing committee

LOL you seem to forget 30 owners agreed to the CBA, 2 didn't. now my math is bad but doesnt' that mean all but 2 of the owners (and cinci isn't even on the board yet) that is on that board voted for the CBA as it was?

to my understanding, this committee isn't set up for the purposes of voting on whether to keep the CBA "as it was." The owners voted 30-2 to approve the CBA "as it was." Thus, the structure voted upon already is here to stay.

the CBA the owners approved allocated a pool of shared revenue to benefit small market teams, but did not set forth the details regarding what a team has to do to qualify for that pool, or exactly how it is to be shared. this committee is now working out those details.

thus, even some of the owners that voted for the CBA as a general framework may side against the high-revenue teams with regard to the yet-unformalized details of revenue sharing.

[ICE74129]

Re: Five teams added to revenue-sharing committee

I will say this again and stand by it, Ralph has acomplished NOTHING to this point. One team out of 8 on the board.

And I have yet to see anyone including Schumer come out and say ralph had legit concerns esp after meeting with Tags. Ralph still may have been crying wolf when he in fact stated he didn't understand the CBA.

nothing has been done yet. Hell Littman may sit there and find out there was nothing to worry about after all when they actually sit down and go over all of it and get clarifications on their questions.

What I think is hillarious is the absolute blind faith you guys have in Ralph. the man may actually have been 100% incorrect about this whole thing just as easily as he could have been correct.

Nothing has been decided yet. Even after the Board meets, possibly comes to a decision, then it has to pass owner approval then possibly Commish approval.

Lets let it play out before declaring victory or defeat.

[ICE74129]

Re: Five teams added to revenue-sharing committee

to my understanding, this committee isn't set up for the purposes of voting on whether to keep the CBA "as it was." The owners voted 30-2 to approve the CBA "as it was." Thus, the structure voted upon already is here to stay.

the CBA the owners approved allocated a pool of shared revenue to benefit small market teams, but did not set forth the details regarding what a team has to do to qualify for that pool, or exactly how it is to be shared. this committee is now working out those details.

thus, even some of the owners that voted for the CBA as a general framework may side against the high-revenue teams with regard to the yet-unformalized details of revenue sharing.

Or may side with them. 9 teams are all that is needed to block the decisions of this board. Then the new Commish has to make a decision.

[Stewie]

Re: Five teams added to revenue-sharing committee

LOL you seem to forget 30 owners agreed to the CBA, 2 didn't. now my math is bad but doesnt' that mean all but 2 of the owners (and cinci isn't even on the board yet) that is on that board voted for the CBA as it was?

And who will be our next commish? Someone that the big time teams back which means he sides with them? Maybe he is 'New age' NFL in thinking?

Ralph hasn't acomplished anything yet.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Not unusual.

The CBA "as it was" calls for this committe to be created, to define and to implement details of revenue sharing.

Then, the owners will re-visit the issue before the 2009 season. If they do not agree on the terms, it could mean another potential work stoppage after the 2008 season as the owners regroup and redefine their agreement.

Ralph HAS accomplished something. All those people who complained that Ralph was stupid, old and senile had no idea that he was playing the politician. And it worked. He got on the committee.