Wealthier teams to dish out more

Discuss your favorite team: the Atlanta Falcons. As well as all NFL and pro football-related topics, including fantasy football.

Moderators: Capologist, dirtybirdnw, thescout

User avatar
PB21
Superstar
Superstar
Posts: 2902
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 9:53 am
Location: Arab, Alabama

Wealthier teams to dish out more

Postby PB21 » Thu Mar 09, 2006 9:50 am

First off,...there were two owners that voted against the new CBA,...one was the Bills owner,...

AP reports Buffalo Bills owner Ralph Wilson was one of the two owners who voted against the new collective bargaining agreement. Wilson claimed he was unable to understand the proposal. Wilson said, "It is a very complicated issue and I didn't believe we should be rushing to vote in 45 minutes. I'm not a dropout ... or maybe I am. I didn't understand it."

Am glad we don't have this guy as an owner. And here is how the new plan levels the playing field between wealthier and not-so-wealthy franchises,...

AP reports the 17 lowest revenue teams will not contribute to the player pool, as part of the new collective bargaining agreement. The pool will be funded by the top five teams in revenue contributing the most, the second five contributing less, and the third five teams contributing less than the top 10. Low-income teams claimed high-revenue franchises should contribute proportionately to the player pool because they can earn more income through advertising and local radio rights.

Okay,...I have a question. The deal is for 6 years. What happens if a franchise starts making more money through advertising and radio rights? Will all 32 franchises be regrouped every year? If they aren't reranked every year, this doesn't seem like it'll work the way this report reads.

I can't seem to find out who the other owner was that voted against the agreement.

User avatar
dirtybirdnw
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 4526
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 2:11 pm
Location: Vancouver, WA
Contact:

Postby dirtybirdnw » Thu Mar 09, 2006 10:55 am

I think what they mean by the "Top 15" revenue teams will pay to the pool is just that. Each year the 15 highest revenue teams will need to pay into the pool.

So say New England is the 15th team and Atlanta makes $1,000 more going into the new season. Atlanta would then be forced to pay into the pool as the 15th highest grossing team and New England would not.
Fear the BEARD!

User avatar
dirtybirdnw
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 4526
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 2:11 pm
Location: Vancouver, WA
Contact:

Re: Wealthier teams to dish out more

Postby dirtybirdnw » Thu Mar 09, 2006 10:57 am

PB21 wrote:I can't seem to find out who the other owner was that voted against the agreement.


SI is reporting that the two lowest revenue generating teams voted against it. Which is a surprise to me you would think the higher grossing teams would have been against it. Of course Jerry Jones, Al Davis, and others also recognize that even with revenue sharing the NFL revenue stream is growing in massive leaps each year.
Fear the BEARD!

User avatar
Truman
Role Player
Role Player
Posts: 37
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2005 6:54 am

Postby Truman » Fri Mar 10, 2006 7:03 am

From what I've seen this is a very positive step for the future of the league if it is to remain the world leader in sports.

User avatar
Pudge
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Purveyor of Truth & Justice
Posts: 26397
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 1:03 pm
Location: North Carolina
Contact:

Postby Pudge » Fri Mar 10, 2006 11:23 am

Mike Brown, owner of the Bengals was the other owner to vote against it.
"Vincere scis, Hannibal, victoria uti nescis" -- Maharbal, 216 B.C.E.


Return to “The Huddle”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest