PDA

View Full Version : A Serious Problem Looming for the Steelers



NorthCoast
01-31-2010, 02:20 PM
While we are all focused on the next six months and what it will bring to the Steelers, there are things brewing that should be of more concern (these comments were made a few months ago):

Sources: Jones fined at least $100KComment Email Print Share By Chris Mortensen
ESPN
Archive
Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones made a comment about revenue sharing and now he's sharing his revenue with NFL commissioner Roger Goodell.



Jones

Jones has been fined at least $100,000 for violating a gag order on labor issues last week, according to league sources.

Jones stated on Sept. 4 that revenue sharing is "on its way out," while doing a media interview originally intended to support Minnesota Vikings owner Zygi Wilf's quest for a new stadium.

Revenue sharing is considered a critical component of the NFL's pending collective bargaining talks since the owners exercised an option in May 2008 to terminate the deal after the 2010 season.



Goodell

The union has maintained that the owners' biggest issue is amongst themselves because of the revenue sharing model and Jones' comments seemingly emboldened that position.

Goodell had issued a gag order for all owners and team executives from discussing any aspect of the pending labor issues. Jones crossed the line, drawing a "six-figure" fine, sources said, as the commissioner distributed a memo Friday to all 32 owners, along with a reminder that the gag order remains in effect. Goodell did not disclose the specific amount of Jones' fine in the memo.


A league spokesman declined to confirm or deny the fine, labeling such an issue as an "internal matter."

Jones didn't apologize for his comments in a statement released Sunday.

"If my comments in Minnesota were viewed as being over the line, then so be it," he said. "The comments were made in an effort to assist a fellow NFL owner and his team's pursuit of bringing a new stadium to the fans of the Twin Cities. Having just completed the process of stadium construction, and knowing how much it means to an NFL market, this is something that I would do for any of my ownership partners. It just goes to show how intertwined labor issues are with the construction of new stadiums -- from a positive perspective."

When he was last heard from in Minnesota as the Cowboys wrapped up the preseason, Jones tried to send a message to assist Wilf's efforts for a new stadium. He made himself available to the Minnesota media as a favor to Wilf, according to a Cowboys source.

"Right now, we are subsidizing this market," Jones said. "It's unthinkable to think that the market you've got here, with 3.5 million people, and have teams like Kansas City and Green Bay subsidizing this market. That will stop. That's going to stop. That's called revenue sharing. That's on its way out."

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4469721

Jones would like nothing better than to be the Steinbrenner of the NFL. This is his plan and this is the only way he can see the Cowboys returning to the big game. The Steelers, in particular, will suffer the consequences of this outcome. They will go from being a perennial contender to a second tier team in the span of a few seasons. Jones' ego will end what has been one of the most balanced leagues in sports. I hope Rooney can muster enough votes to veto the Snyders and Joneses.

Mister Pittsburgh
01-31-2010, 03:01 PM
Does it have to be all 32 owners voting yes or no or does majority rule? Meaning, just because there are douchebags like Jones & Snyder, can they ruin the whole thing just to get what they want or could the majority of the teams vote one way whether Jones likes it or not and if he wants a team in the NFL, then he has to play by what the majority of the NFL owners want?

Seems pretty ridiculous if one or two douchebags can ruin the whole league.

Chadman
01-31-2010, 09:41 PM
not to defend the jones' and snyder's of the world, but the nfl really is a business to these guys- so it is not only inevitable, but also understandable that they would look to be part of a system that produces the most financial return for them.

there has to be some knd of amicable resolution put in place to keep the lower revenue earning teams competitive, but you can't look to lambast the rich owners trying to get the better deal for themselves.

in the end, pretty sure we'll get a resolution before the nfl shuts down.

Jooser
02-01-2010, 07:00 AM
not to defend the jones' and snyder's of the world, but the nfl really is a business to these guys- so it is not only inevitable, but also understandable that they would look to be part of a system that produces the most financial return for them.

there has to be some knd of amicable resolution put in place to keep the lower revenue earning teams competitive, but you can't look to lambast the rich owners trying to get the better deal for themselves.

in the end, pretty sure we'll get a resolution before the nfl shuts down.

You just wait until the Obama justice department gets a hold of Jones, Chadman! Evil rich people trying to turn a profit is just....well it's EVIL!!!! :D

BradshawsHairdresser
02-01-2010, 10:11 AM
not to defend the jones' and snyder's of the world, but the nfl really is a business to these guys- so it is not only inevitable, but also understandable that they would look to be part of a system that produces the most financial return for them.

there has to be some knd of amicable resolution put in place to keep the lower revenue earning teams competitive, but you can't look to lambast the rich owners trying to get the better deal for themselves.

in the end, pretty sure we'll get a resolution before the nfl shuts down.

You just wait until the Obama justice department gets a hold of Jones, Chadman! Evil rich people trying to turn a profit is just....well it's EVIL!!!! :D

Maybe Obama will initiate a government takeover of the NFL. Then, he'll fix the league by starting up a new "cash for clunkers" program--the government will simply pay off the
eight lowest revenue-generating teams to fold up, and a panel of hand-chosen bureaucrats will decide how their players get divvied up to all the rest of the teams.
There will follow a whole slew of new rules designed to make the game less violent.
In a couple of years, there will be player quotas for women and gays that each team will have to meet.

Northern_Blitz
02-01-2010, 11:59 AM
not to defend the jones' and snyder's of the world, but the nfl really is a business to these guys- so it is not only inevitable, but also understandable that they would look to be part of a system that produces the most financial return for them.

there has to be some knd of amicable resolution put in place to keep the lower revenue earning teams competitive, but you can't look to lambast the rich owners trying to get the better deal for themselves.

in the end, pretty sure we'll get a resolution before the nfl shuts down.

I think these owners look at the league the wrong way. Revenue sharing may hurt the Cowboys bottom line, but it helps the league (by creating a competitive league the people want to watch). With no league, there are no Cowboys. They are franchises, not stand alone corperations.

I think I'd be done with the NFL if there was no revenue sharing and it turned into the MLB.

When I was a kid, I really loved baseball (I was a huge Blue Jay fan). Unfortunetely, the league is structured so it is virtually impossible for the Jays to ever make the playoffs. Now, I can't bring myself to watch a game on TV, and I only go maybe 1 game a year because I can get tix for like $20. It's not worth getting emotionally invested.

NorthCoast
02-01-2010, 01:49 PM
not to defend the jones' and snyder's of the world, but the nfl really is a business to these guys- so it is not only inevitable, but also understandable that they would look to be part of a system that produces the most financial return for them.

there has to be some knd of amicable resolution put in place to keep the lower revenue earning teams competitive, but you can't look to lambast the rich owners trying to get the better deal for themselves.

in the end, pretty sure we'll get a resolution before the nfl shuts down.

I think these owners look at the league the wrong way. Revenue sharing may hurt the Cowboys bottom line, but it helps the league (by creating a competitive league the people want to watch). With no league, there are no Cowboys. They are franchises, not stand alone corperations.

I think I'd be done with the NFL if there was no revenue sharing and it turned into the MLB.

When I was a kid, I really loved baseball (I was a huge Blue Jay fan). Unfortunetely, the league is structured so it is virtually impossible for the Jays to ever make the playoffs. Now, I can't bring myself to watch a game on TV, and I only go maybe 1 game a year because I can get tix for like $20. It's not worth getting emotionally invested.


At least you get it NB. There is a well-known theory (Prisoner's Dilemma) which basically says that if two or more non-cooperative parties attempt to optimize their own decision, then NONE of the parties will win.

It really comes down to the value of the business. Why are football teams the most valuable sports franchise in the world? The answer is because the audience is there for it. Why is the audience there? Because it is a quality product with competitive balance. It is television that drives the value, without it, teams aren't worth near what they claim today.
Now turn it into a league of 'haves' and 'have-nots' and you end up with the Steelers = Pirates and the Cowboys = Yankees. What the Joneses fail to understand (mostly because of ego and greed) their maximum franchise value can't improve be attained unless there is balance.

SanAntonioSteelerFan
02-01-2010, 02:04 PM
not to defend the jones' and snyder's of the world, but the nfl really is a business to these guys- so it is not only inevitable, but also understandable that they would look to be part of a system that produces the most financial return for them.

there has to be some knd of amicable resolution put in place to keep the lower revenue earning teams competitive, but you can't look to lambast the rich owners trying to get the better deal for themselves.

in the end, pretty sure we'll get a resolution before the nfl shuts down.

You just wait until the Obama justice department gets a hold of Jones, Chadman! Evil rich people trying to turn a profit is just....well it's EVIL!!!! :D

Sounds like you mock Obama, but presumably are in favor of the very thing you would mock him for - preventing the richest owners from seeking the maximum profit, which would be to the detriment of other teams (read: Steelers).

I don't think it can be both at once - protect the smaller markets but let the rich owners do what they want. If that's the case - which one do you want?

Oviedo
02-01-2010, 02:21 PM
not to defend the jones' and snyder's of the world, but the nfl really is a business to these guys- so it is not only inevitable, but also understandable that they would look to be part of a system that produces the most financial return for them.

there has to be some knd of amicable resolution put in place to keep the lower revenue earning teams competitive, but you can't look to lambast the rich owners trying to get the better deal for themselves.

in the end, pretty sure we'll get a resolution before the nfl shuts down.

You just wait until the Obama justice department gets a hold of Jones, Chadman! Evil rich people trying to turn a profit is just....well it's EVIL!!!! :D

Sounds like you mock Obama, but presumably are in favor of the very thing you would mock him for - preventing the richest owners from seeking the maximum profit, which would be to the detriment of other teams (read: Steelers).

I don't think it can be both at once - protect the smaller markets but let the rich owners do what they want. If that's the case - which one do you want?

You can actually do both in the NFL as long as you put the mechanisms in place to protect those teams not trying to buy championships. That is where MLB has failed. Some ideas:

1. Keep the cap. With a cap you can make all the revenue you want but you can't spend it
2. Set up a realistic compensatory draft system unlike the joke in MLB. For example; Have teams forfeit picks for the number of FAs they sign based on the status of the pick, e.g. Pro Bowl player you lose Round 1 pick for each one signed and the team you got that player from gets yoiur pick.
3. Let teams protect a certain number of players on their roster and if you sign a player from a small market team they get to select a unportected player from your roster or get a draft pick in return.
4. Allow teams that lose a free agent to get additional roster spots either on the active roster or on the practcie squad.

Big market teams may get more money but there are ways to avoid the disaster that has occurred in baseball.

SanAntonioSteelerFan
02-01-2010, 02:31 PM
not to defend the jones' and snyder's of the world, but the nfl really is a business to these guys- so it is not only inevitable, but also understandable that they would look to be part of a system that produces the most financial return for them.

there has to be some knd of amicable resolution put in place to keep the lower revenue earning teams competitive, but you can't look to lambast the rich owners trying to get the better deal for themselves.

in the end, pretty sure we'll get a resolution before the nfl shuts down.

You just wait until the Obama justice department gets a hold of Jones, Chadman! Evil rich people trying to turn a profit is just....well it's EVIL!!!! :D

Sounds like you mock Obama, but presumably are in favor of the very thing you would mock him for - preventing the richest owners from seeking the maximum profit, which would be to the detriment of other teams (read: Steelers).

I don't think it can be both at once - protect the smaller markets but let the rich owners do what they want. If that's the case - which one do you want?

You can actually do both in the NFL as long as you put the mechanisms in place to protect those teams not trying to buy championships. That is where MLB has failed. Some ideas:

1. Keep the cap. With a cap you can make all the revenue you want but you can't spend it
2. Set up a realistic compensatory draft system unlike the joke in MLB. For example; Have teams forfeit picks for the number of FAs they sign based on the status of the pick, e.g. Pro Bowl player you lose Round 1 pick for each one signed and the team you got that player from gets yoiur pick.
3. Let teams protect a certain number of players on their roster and if you sign a player from a small market team they get to select a unportected player from your roster or get a draft pick in return.
4. Allow teams that lose a free agent to get additional roster spots either on the active roster or on the practcie squad.

Big market teams may get more money but there are ways to avoid the disaster that has occurred in baseball.

These sound like wonderful ideas, and support my gut feeling that unbridled capitalism in the NFL is the death knell ( :wft is a "knell", anyway?) of the smaller market teams - some regulation is necessary for a healthy NFL. Or, at least, for a healthy Steelers!

Chadman
02-01-2010, 07:47 PM
not to defend the jones' and snyder's of the world, but the nfl really is a business to these guys- so it is not only inevitable, but also understandable that they would look to be part of a system that produces the most financial return for them.

there has to be some knd of amicable resolution put in place to keep the lower revenue earning teams competitive, but you can't look to lambast the rich owners trying to get the better deal for themselves.

in the end, pretty sure we'll get a resolution before the nfl shuts down.

I think these owners look at the league the wrong way. Revenue sharing may hurt the Cowboys bottom line, but it helps the league (by creating a competitive league the people want to watch). With no league, there are no Cowboys. They are franchises, not stand alone corperations.

I think I'd be done with the NFL if there was no revenue sharing and it turned into the MLB.

When I was a kid, I really loved baseball (I was a huge Blue Jay fan). Unfortunetely, the league is structured so it is virtually impossible for the Jays to ever make the playoffs. Now, I can't bring myself to watch a game on TV, and I only go maybe 1 game a year because I can get tix for like $20. It's not worth getting emotionally invested.


Completely understand & agree with what you say- but Chadman's point was you can't look upon Snyder, Jones et el & say they are doing the wrong thing. As far as business goes, they are in it to maximise their profits. It makes sense they would want to push to get the most revenue they can.

In the end, a resolution must be made that doesn't JUST assist the low market teams, but ALSO the high market teams. You can't penalise Jones, Snyder & co for being successful.

And from the little understanding that Chadman has of it all, it would seem that the biggest problem comes from the Player's Union having too much power over where the money is distributed.

Yes, the players put their bodies on the line to play, but it's what they love to do. And it's the owners who have to pony up the cash for them to play. They risk millions of dollars in this game- that's not an easy thing to let slide.

Mel Blount's G
02-01-2010, 10:34 PM
not to defend the jones' and snyder's of the world, but the nfl really is a business to these guys- so it is not only inevitable, but also understandable that they would look to be part of a system that produces the most financial return for them.

there has to be some knd of amicable resolution put in place to keep the lower revenue earning teams competitive, but you can't look to lambast the rich owners trying to get the better deal for themselves.

in the end, pretty sure we'll get a resolution before the nfl shuts down.

I think these owners look at the league the wrong way. Revenue sharing may hurt the Cowboys bottom line, but it helps the league (by creating a competitive league the people want to watch). With no league, there are no Cowboys. They are franchises, not stand alone corperations.

I think I'd be done with the NFL if there was no revenue sharing and it turned into the MLB.

When I was a kid, I really loved baseball (I was a huge Blue Jay fan). Unfortunetely, the league is structured so it is virtually impossible for the Jays to ever make the playoffs. Now, I can't bring myself to watch a game on TV, and I only go maybe 1 game a year because I can get tix for like $20. It's not worth getting emotionally invested.
Yeah, same here. Also contributing to a decision like this for me is the trend of goodell et. al. changing it to a "pansy game" with the introduction of new rules. A, lsothe potential of another football league, a alternative to the NFL, being created holds some hope for me if the NFL deteriorates too much

Djfan
02-01-2010, 11:05 PM
If a market decideds to build itself by sharing revenues, it is much different from the Government doing this.

I agree that if the revenue sharing is gone I'm done. I grew up a Padres fan. It just gets old.

steeler_fan_in_t.o.
02-02-2010, 01:40 AM
understandable that they would look to be part of a system that produces the most financial return for them.

I understand their desire to earn more, but do not agree with them. Jerry Jones entered a league with revenue sharing...he knew that. He has no right to expect that to change. It is like buying a house next to a garbage dump then expecting the city to move the dump.

SanAntonioSteelerFan
02-02-2010, 02:05 AM
understandable that they would look to be part of a system that produces the most financial return for them.

I understand their desire to earn more, but do not agree with them. Jerry Jones entered a league with revenue sharing...he knew that. He has no right to expect that to change. It is like buying a house next to a garbage dump then expecting the city to move the dump.

Nice analogy, except Jerry Jones is somehow the dump too.

hawaiiansteel
02-02-2010, 02:10 AM
If a market decideds to build itself by sharing revenues, it is much different from the Government doing this.

I agree that if the revenue sharing is gone I'm done. I grew up a Padres fan. It just gets old.



I know what you mean, I grew up a Pirates fan. It really does get old rebuilding every year watching your best players sign bigger contracts elsewhere.

SteelCrazy
02-02-2010, 02:12 AM
Ruling bars owners from ending pool

The NFL Players Association won a decision Monday from Special Master Stephen Burbank that will prevent league owners from dismantling the supplemental revenue sharing (SRS) pool in 2010, as management had planned. The pool was valued at $210 million in 2009 and $220 million for 2010.

Burbank rejected an interpretation from the NFL Management Council that an owners resolution in March 2006 determined the supplemental revenue sharing pool was only required during years in which the NFL was operating under a salary cap.

The league notified its member clubs and the NFLPA in December that the supplemental program which funded approximately 8-to-12 lower revenue clubs would no longer be in effect in 2010, the final and uncapped year of the labor agreement that was reached between owners and players in 2006.

"...We find no explicit distinction between capped and uncapped years or between capped years and The Final League Year," Burbank wrote in his ruling, which ESPN acquired Monday night.

Burbank agreed that the labor agreement required the union's approval of any changes made to the supplemental revenue sharing pool.

"The Special Master basically rejected every single argument that management made and regardless of how the league characterizes the decision, this is a victory for players, for low revenue clubs and the fans," said Jeffrey Kessler, the lead counsel for the union in the case.

The league said it would appeal Burbank's decision to the presiding U.S. District Court Judge, David Doty.

NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said, "Today's decision involves a small sliver of the NFL's overall commitment to revenue sharing. The NFL for decades has shared more than 80 percent of league and club revenues. In the 2006 Collective Bargaining Agreement that expires in 2011, the NFL clubs also agreed to a small percentage of additional revenue sharing because of the new CBA's significantly increased salary cap. The agreement calls for no salary cap in 2010 and that additional piece of revenue sharing to which the clubs had agreed in 2006 is therefore no longer required in our view. Although the Special Master disagreed with our interpretation on that issue, we are hopeful that Judge Doty, who will look at the issue anew, will see it differently."

Kessler said that the ruling, if upheld, should motivate low-revenue clubs to participate in spending on its own players and potential free agents, regardless of whether those free agents are restricted by any means allowed in an uncapped year.

"These clubs can now budget for beyond 2010," said Kessler. "The union was concerned about their incentive to spend with an uncapped year and a looming lockout by the owners in 2011. [Management] can try to diminish the value of the supplemental pool but it represents a significant dollar amount for those affected clubs. This means a more vibrant outlook for players, teams and fans and now we'll monitor how the market behaves."

The New York Times reported that another negotiating session between management and the union is scheduled to be held this week in an effort to reach a new labor agreement. However, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell conceded in an interview Sunday with the NFL Network that he expects the league to operate in 2010 with an uncapped year.

Asked if the ruling would only further exacerbate their dealings with management, Kessler replied, "I think my view and the view of the union is we hope the parties can come together on a new CBA. If this ruling helps, that's great. If not, we hopefully can find something else that is agreeable. Everyone wants to make a deal. We just have to figure out how to get there."

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4878750

hawaiiansteel
02-02-2010, 03:07 AM
Post-salary cap, teams will proceed at their own peril

Posted by Mike Florio (PFT) on February 1, 2010 11:00 PM ET

We've received several questions over the past few weeks regarding the operation of player contracts after the evaporation of the salary cap.

And the answer to all questions is simple -- once the cap goes away, any further rules relating to the operation of the salary cap will hinge upon the collective bargaining process.

As NFL spokesman Greg Aiello explains it, there will be no "transition rules" unless and until the league and the NFLPA agree to such measures via collective bargaining. Thus, any team that decides to sign players to big-money deals will be assuming that risk that, eventually, they'll have to scramble for cap space, if/when a cap is reapplied.

This reality could cause some teams to be even more cautious when it comes to spending money in 2010.

Meanwhile, existing contracts can be dumped by trading or cutting players with no cap consequences in 2010. Presumably, there would be no lingering ramifications in future years covered by the deals, subject again to the collective bargaining process.

So, basically, the removal of the salary cap will plunge the entire player payroll system into uncertainty, and there will be no clear answers until the league and the union reach an accord regarding the next compensation scheme.

Oviedo
02-02-2010, 11:12 AM
understandable that they would look to be part of a system that produces the most financial return for them.

I understand their desire to earn more, but do not agree with them. Jerry Jones entered a league with revenue sharing...he knew that. He has no right to expect that to change. It is like buying a house next to a garbage dump then expecting the city to move the dump.

Problem is Jones is now trying to figure out how to pay for "his Taj Mahal." This is really about paying for stadiums or protecting revenues you get from sweetheart stadium deals and not sharing that. Unfortunately for the Steelers they are in a city that has a very liberal government who sees every business as a potential cash cow and therefore their stadium deal pales in comparison to other teams.

This is why not selling the Steelers to the billionaire who wanted to buy them will hurt the team. Someone who is a outside of football billionaire doesn't need to make a dime on his sports operations and he is still a billionaire. That lets him spend like crazy to "buy" titles for reputation and ego purposes because at the end of the day they are still billionaires.

Unfortunately for the Rooney's their net wealth and income is primarily based on the Steelers. Not a level playing field.