Five teams added to revenue-sharing committee

[G. Host]

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

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.

[b]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]

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]

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]

Surprised Cincy was left off the list..
2 more teams to be selected..

[Jan Reimers]

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]

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]

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

[Michael82]

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. :phew:

[Saratoga Slim]

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. :phew:

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

[ICE74129]

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. :phew:

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Dr. Lecter]

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.

Dude, you laying out half of the story. First off, half of this board is small market. So the 1 out of 8 statement is not entirely accurate. Yes the Bills are only on the board once (could they be on it twice????) but they have other teams in similar situations with them.

And I don't think anybody is blindly 100% behind Ralph. But most people realize that he has taken the first huge step to getting the proper support. Without a comittee like the one that now exists, nothing would happen. He has helped create the opportunity for improvement. At this time, that is all that has been possible.

Before you continue him a new one, take a step back and look at the big picture. One has to walk before they can run. Right now Ralph has the NFL walking.

[ICE74129]

I am taking a step back, I feel I am one of the few from day one of ralphs *****ing and whining that has.

NOTHING has been done. Is the revenue sharing finished? then nothing has been done. All he did was ***** and whine to get littman on that board. Hell he could have called tags and most likely got on there without the BS.

All I want out of this is, 1) make sure a new owner gets his cut of the Revenue sharing, 2) Buffalo even with the selling of naming rights and increase of tickets by $8.00 per game (*) Can still get revenue sharing and 3) Ralph SELLS then I am happy.

(*) there was either a DandC or Buff News article that said for us to get up to league average that we only needed to raise ticket prices $8.00 per seat per game. I remember they interviewed some local fans that said 'fine but then ralph needs to field a WINNING team' or something to that effect.

[Dont drink the water]

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.

Oakland? Oakland isn't swimming in revenue and I can not see Al Davis cutting Ralph's throat.

[Dont drink the water]

All I want out of this is, 1) make sure a new owner gets his cut of the Revenue sharing, 2) Buffalo even with the selling of naming rights and increase of tickets by $8.00 per game (*) Can still get revenue sharing and 3) Ralph SELLS then I am happy.

(*) there was either a DandC or Buff News article that said for us to get up to league average that we only needed to raise ticket prices $8.00 per seat per game. I remember they interviewed some local fans that said 'fine but then ralph needs to field a WINNING team' or something to that effect.

It would need to AVERAGE $8 per game The reason for Rockpile section at low prices was to make sure stadium sell out and it wasn't without it all games.

Buffalo certainly COULD reach goals - just constrict stadium again and blame it on other owners saying 'The idiots would rather tickets sell at higher price than getting all of the revenue the Bills could." If Bills need to raise ticket prices other teams need to raise number of seats sold even if it means expanding stadium and not selling out.

[Saratoga Slim]

I am taking a step back, I feel I am one of the few from day one of ralphs *****ing and whining that has.

NOTHING has been done. Is the revenue sharing finished? then nothing has been done. All he did was ***** and whine to get littman on that board. Hell he could have called tags and most likely got on there without the BS.



nothing has been done yet because there has been no opportunity to get anything done yet. the opportunity to get something done is this committee, which is the next step in getting "revenue sharing finished". Ralph's *****ing got the Bills on it. so, yes, Ralph has gotten something done. In fact, he's gotten everything done that possibly could be done at this point.

I'm not giving Ralph a free ride. clearly there are many things that the Bills need to do on their own to become more profitable, perhaps even raising tickets by $8.00, as you propose above. but in this context--the attempt to make sure that the yet unfinalized details of the CBA are molded to Buffalo's best advantage--I do think that Ralph's efforts are paying off.

Not only do the Bills have a seat at the committee table, but clearly, Ralph has succeeded in putting the spotlight on the workings of that committee. The other bigger-market members now know that whatever proposals they send for a vote to the owners will receive public scrutiny. I really think that Ralph has succeeded in not only getting OBD a spot at the table, but also setting the atmosphere in which the committee will be working.

[Jan Reimers]

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.
You're right, SS. This group, among other things, will be writing the detailed language of several of the revenue sharing "qualifiers." If what Tagliabue said to Schumer and Russert about the "80% of revenue" qualifier is true, i.e., that it is based on each team's local market and not the league average, we should be OK there.

And if the committee can alter the new ownership qualifier to allow the new owners of any team to be immediately eligible for revenue sharing, that should make it much easier to sell the Bills to a local group.

I think Ralph has accomplished a great deal by focusing public, media and political attentiion on these issues, and by getting fair representation on the qualifier-writing committee.

[Michael82]

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.
Another good post, Dr. Lecter. :bf1: