1 plus 1 equals Very Interesting

This could easily be a case of covering lal your bases. If I’m the Iggs and I want a C, I talk to everyone. Even if I’m 99% sure I’m getting the one I want, I want to have a backup plan. I wouldn’t expect them to make a play on Mawae. It’s not like Dan Snyder runs the team.

The fact that we keep discussing this subject suggests that there are more than a few of us who think this is a pretty important position for next year.

At this point I would be happy with either one. If we got Mawae he’d be a solid veteran who can get the job done against the bigger DT’s. If AJ has a breakthrough and shows that he’s the man to start, then nothing is terribly damaged because Mawae would likely be signed to a shorter term deal due to his age and AJ would still get his chance. If AJ regresses, like many of us believe he did from 2004 to 2005, then the position is still in capable hands for a year or two.

If Bentley were signed, he’d make an immediate impact on the middle of the line. I think the running game and goal line/short-yardage situations would be improved drmatically at a bare minimum. Like with Mawae, if AJ steps up and proves himself as a starter then Bentley could slide over to play Guard, a position where he also played in the Pro Bowl once. That takes some of the immediate pressure off of finding an eventual relacement for LA or Rivera should they suddenly drop off entirely. Yeah, I know he’s expensive, but he also provides flexibility which is worth a lot, IMO.

I know the team has other needs. No one is disputing that. We all want a Kicker and a veteran RT. OLB is going to have to be sorted out somehow between new and old faces. There just happens to be a lot of us around here who think this is an important key to the O-Line playing better than they did last year. Or at least not as BAD.

Yeah, I would also sign Bentley for what it’s worth, we all want the best for our team. Let’s see if by Thursday we receive some answers or just another delay…

guys ..i want him to ..but you gatta let bentley go … i would be wiling to bet 100% against us even looking his way…parcells will sign half of the jeyts that got cut…and lavar would be an amazing upgrade to our D….

i also read an article saying…owens wants to come to a team were he csn punish the eagles…so prepare yourselvs…cuz my bet is he will be with us next year…weather your with it or against it…personally….im torn…but w’e bp and jj do …i think is the rite thing…

also ..talks with hte broncs. were done after his visit…and nothing has been sid since bp had lunch with rosenmouth.. the article also said.. if dallas were to go after him.it would only be after the eagles cut him…because they dont want him in the east….so ..maybe he wants to be a cowboy….cuz you have to know jj wants him to be…i can almost garentee…jj made bp go to that lunch with to’s agent..what you guys think?

but i cant immagine…lavar on D and to on O…its so much talent…but time bombs ticking all over dallas…you just cant tell what jj will do …so im ready for anything

Iron Man,

I’m not advocating Bentley. He’s a nice idea, but there has been no official word or even unofficial word that Dallas would pursue him.

That said, they’re going to get a center, either by re-signing Gurode or pursuing a lower price guy like Mawae to act, as somebody else has already said, as insurance if Johnson does not develop further or has another injury.

IRON MAN:

You keep saying that you don’t really know if you want T.O., but then you keep bringing the issue up and saying that it’s going to happen because of all these little tidbits. It sounds to me like you kind of want it to happen.

Let me just give you two bits of information that dispute your claims that it will happen. One is on ESPN this morning one of their football insiders said that T.O. sold his house in Atlanta and is buying a new one in Miami. Now, that doesn’t mean that he won’t play for a team outside of Miami (he never played for Atlanta, obviously), but it is a strange bit of timing to move to a more expensive real estate market that also is the home city of a team that he has been linked to.

The second point is a bit more telling, IMHO. That is a quote from Jerry Jones in response to a question about Owens joining the Cowboys:

“There are so many issues there that I can’t put that in the equation.”

Now, I don’t know if the “issues” he is referring to are T.O.‘s past behavior problems, or just that JJ feels he has more pressing conerns (which is totally obvious). Either way, as cryptic as the statement otherwise sounds, "I can’t put that in the equation" sounds like T.O. isn’t in the equation.

Sterling,

To change gears here briefly, I’ve run into two good stories on tomorrow’s owners meetings and the consensus, and I agree with them, is that Upshaw scored a minor coup by simply getting his proposal put before the owners. Significant for several reasons:

1. If the commissioner agreed to bring it up for a vote, one week after he convened an emergency meeting to tell the assembled owners why they should slam the last proposal, which they did 32-0, HE has some belief in it, at least in parts of it. He wouldn’t go through this trouble to urge another whitewash;

2. Most significant, this finally brings the factions into the open. I don’t know if WE will get to know the final votes, but people like Jerry are going to learn who their friends are tomorrow.

If that vote goes, say 16-16 or 18-14 one way, it’s a major headache for Tagliabue, who seems unable to build a consensus for one plan or another.

3. So even if the proposal is rejected, and I think it will be, if ther is something of a split vote, we’ll learn how close or how far the owners are willing to move football to baseball. And I think that is Upshaw’s hope, that a vote goes with a plurality for ratification, which will scare the “gang of 9” of whom Jerry is a part, into negotiating.

From what I’ve seen, on ESPN and in the Boston Globe, there seem to be two hard factions:

A. The gang of nine. New owners, many with heavy debt loads. I see Philly, Dallas, Washington, New England, Houston as definites here;

B. The older guard. Numbers on this group fluctuate between 10 to 12, but they’re equally as hard on their demands.

The problem for Tagliabue is that these factions have wildly different agenda and each has the votes to block any deal they see as favorable to the other faction, with 24 votes needed to ratify.

What we don’t know is who the swing votes are? And how much solidarity does the gang of nine have? Because losing just one member can get a contract they don’t like rammed down their throats.

To repeat, THIS is what Upshaw has managed to get — a clear demarcation of which side each owner is on and who their friends are. It might not work immediately, but it looks like a baby step towards divide and conquer, especially if the vote comes through, say, 20-12 or 22-10 in favor. Then, the ten to twelve in the minority have to wonder if they should compromise or lose all THEIR bargaining position. (OTOH, a vote of 20-12 against would throw the ball back in the NFLPA’s court, but leave the owners looking badly divided in the process.

I saw Jerry on ESPN tonight saying he would be shocked if the vote was for ratification. Since he was being so open about anticipated votes, something counter to what we’ve seen the past few days, I wondered if he wasn’t lobbying fellow owners through the press?

We’ll find out tomorrow.

Pastabelly does not think it will get approved either, judging from his latest column. He had the thought that tags stepped back and said that he would present the proposal to the owners-but that he had not endorsed it. Tags looked like he was trying to take cover before all the “friendly fire” started.

I wonder if JJ’s comments about not putting TO in the equation just means he know’s TO’s still under contract and he doesn’t want to go down the tampering road.

For the record, no way I’d sign TO

StillHateTheGiants:

I’m not sure if the tampering thing can still be considered at this stage of the game. The Eagles have already given T.O. and Rosenhaus permission to talk to other teams, etc. I take his statement at face value, that there are too many “issues” there and that JJ has bigger things on his mind at the moment with regard to the team and its future.

Raf,
I wouldn’t expect gurode back. We made no effort with him before free agency, why would we start now. As far as Bentley, he says he wants to play center, so i doubt philly is trying to get him as a guard. However, i don’t know if mawae wants philly either. he says he wants a super bowl contender which i don’t know if philly is anymore. lol…sort of

Rafael:

Thanks for the information. That’s all very interesting. I have heard a couple of things that support what you are saying. One is that Tagliabue is not happy with the owners at the moment because of the negative publicity this labor impasse is bringing the league. I can imagine by that he is particularly not happy with the JJ, Snyder, Kraft types. Tha Gang of Nine, or whatever they are called.

The second thing was the interview you mentioned with JJ. By the words he chose to describe the situation, and by the tone of his voice, he sounded to me like he thought this new proposal was D.O.A. I wondered as you did as to whether he had been appointed by his allies amongst the owners to make those remarks, or whether he was freelancing on his own. I guess that is one of the things about JJ…you never can tell what he’s doing.

I think the gambit for JJ and the ‘Gang of Nine’ (which could actually be a lot more than nine, but we won’t know until tomorrow probably), now shifts to putting the pressure back on the NFLPA and its allies in the Old Guard owners. That means fashioning a compromise out of this current proposal that truly puts the ball back in their court to give in a little. So far, it looks like the NFLPA and the Old Guard are getting everything they want with 59.5% and total revenue in the new proposal. The Gang of Nine (or 12/15) would be the only ones truly compromising under the new proposal, and the rest would make out like bandits at their expense.

Tagliabue, Upshaw, and the other owners surely realize who is getting the better of things in this agreement. It looks like they are willing to sacrifice the well-being of their high revenue franchises in order to divide and conquer as you put it, as long as it means getting an agreement in the end. I think this is foolish, and will stifle the growth and innovation in the league in the long run, but then again the NFL did something quite similar in the last CBA that hurt teams like the Cowboys. Tagliabue and Upshaw have different consituents than just JJ and similar owners. I think they also take Cowboys, Redskins, Browns, and Raiders fans for granted, because they know that we will always support our teams and that we are already firmly in their back pocket. Their concern is about getting some guy in Northern Florida or other parts of the country to find an NFL team that he will support as much as us and other Cowboys fans do our team.

You know if TO is smart, which I don’t think the guy is a dumb guy. He looks at the league’s situation, and his own and he says OK I will be a true GUN FOR HIRE in the uncapped season. Imagine if he comes to Dallas or wherever. Signs a one year deal with some incentives……the only way any team should sign the jack leg…….and he comes out has a great year. Which he did his first year in Philly…..and like he says he wasn’t the tired one at the end of the game. Some of his criticism of McNabb are very true. Bad Clock Management and no sense of urgency…….however it should never be uttered by a teammate. Like the Playmaker says you want your QB with high confidence and you don’t ever want to give him any reason not to throw you the ball.

TO ain’t the answer at WR anymore than Glenn and KJ are. TO came in the league a long time ago and despite his incredible athleticism….he too is getting old. I don’t think he is a solution. However, if like JJ says……we want to WIN NOW….and BP wants to WIN NOW……a hired gun or two (not the whole team) can imrove things. Rivera, Henry, and Ferguson were such acquisitions last year. Funny all three had injuries….and possibly only Henry despite his injury earned his paycheck. But at any rate…..TO can be a cancer in the locker room, to a young QB, and to an offensive staff.

But to a Coach like Parcells? To a QB like Bledsoe? I mean wasn’t it Bill himself shoving his offensive assistant Haley last year? Wasn’t it Bledsoe going after KJ and not the other way around? TO ain’t going to be ripping on Romo or Henson. Vick said this is my team, if he comes here it is still my team. Guess what Drew Bledsoe feels the same way. He showed it plenty last year……leadership is an X factor not to be taken lightly especially in a backfield full of youth and inexperience……and a couple of WRs already known for being problematic. Yet has KJ or Glenn been an issue for Bill or Jerry? Wasn’t it Jerry Jones that said that IF TO scores touchdowns as a COWBOY he can DANCE on the STAR anytime? Jerry likes superstars. Jerry likes endorsements and sharpie commercials. Hech he has had to go make commercials himself cuz we didn’t have anymore superstars. I mean don’t you think Jerry saw the Chad Johnson River Dance and laughed and said “Gosh Darn, he can irish step all over our end zones if he puts a Star over that tiger stripe!”

Michael Irvin, Joey Galloway, Ismail, Deion, Haley, Peerless Price, and Antonio Bryant……add in the current WRs of Terry Glenn and Keyshawn Johnson……..those are all guys Jerry Jones paid well……..despite the perceptions about them……some worked out……others not so well…..AB and Galloway were busts in Dallas……..Ismail had one good season…….Price could not beat out a lame duck Patrick Crayton to get time on the field…….

I ain’t so sure TO is or is not part of the equation. But do I think two guys like Bill and Jerry that both want to win now might sign on a hired gun……take a chance and roll the dice…..pay him week to week…..lay it out in the contract….and I expect TO to play next year and be actually rather quiet. I think Jerry would rather take a risk on TO than a Levar. Not so sure about Bill…….he and Pasquolini might want an Arrington to add to the LB corps…….

TO has only done the things coaches, teams, and QBs allowed him to do. Any of those teams SF, or Philly could have stopped it. Mariucci and Reid are the Holmgrem chips off the old block. Bill Parcells only rivals are guys like Bob Knight. He is old school. He lets a player know what he can and cannot get away with. LT makes TO look like a choir boy. Which other than his mouth on ESPN he is. America loves a comeback, and they love redemption………and a little revenge agains the Eagles….well they love that too………America loves and Hates the Cowboys……the brash talking Jimmy Johnson, the perrenial Playoff contending Landry Legends, or the Devil and Mr. Jones……..TO is more linked with the Dallas Cowboys than we may know or like. He talks a talk, but he also walks a walk. If you can get him to shut up and just play…….well then would be the biggest FA acquisition in the history of the Dallas Cowboys.

All WRs are selfish driven me first atheletes. By nature. They compete against one another constantly. There is very little team concept at the position, and only the great ones ever learn to block. The good ones never had to really play special teams other than to run a kick back and get more glory. TO is more typical of the position than atypical.

I don’t care either way, I trust in Bill and Jerry to do the right thing. I don’t think what happened in Philly or SF would happen in Dallas….and I don’t see him being here longer than 2 or 3 years. Bill leaves….so does TO. With a couple of Super Bowl rings that say Dallas Cowboys. We don’t need TO to win, we still need an OT much more than a TO. However, if Bill and Jerry decide to have both…..well then look out. Butch Johnson’s six gun salute might be in for an update.

to, to, to, to

Sterling,

If the Commissioner and Upshaw succeed in framing this as “innovation vs. competitive balance” they win, because everybody sees how innovation in baseball has worked. The Yankees have their own network and they’re the only ones happy about it.

This will get the gang of nine pilloried in the sports press and a great number of smaller markets (which also happen to be older markets) as greedy and uncaring about the league as a whole.

Which is why, again, I think just getting the proposal voted on was a win for Upshaw.

i’d take TO for a reasonable price. Parcells would keep him in check and our offense would improve immensely (assuming we fix holes in the offensive line as well). Small upgrades at K, FS, LB and voila! super bowl!

N O to T.O.
N O to T.O.
N O to T.O.
N O to T.O.

Fellows,
I am not in favor of NFLPA (communist) union’s proposal.. If Jerry doesn’t like it… I don’t like it. This, taking it from rich and giving it to poor (AKA less rich) is atypical of socialist systems (refer to “failed” soviet union)… I got news for you… we are a capitalist.. it works! I hope owners reject this proposal. We will be okay this year. But Watch out for next year and following years of uncapped NFL… You will see the true capitalism in action.. Let the DYNESTY begin… again.

Uh, Toast, you’re missing the plot here. If the system is rich vs. less rich, what you have then is a case of owner vs. owner, with owner vs. players being a much less important subplot.

Also, you notice how the NFL got to be the biggest league? It’s because they pooled TV revenue and split it evenly, or that so-called socialist system you speak of. BTW, the Soviet Union was not a socialist system but a totalitarian one…

But I’m digressing. You can call it what you want, but the reason I don’t call it innovation is that the sum total of all of the gang of nine’s changes mean a more gentrified game where only corporations can afford good tickets.

I’m not likely to attend more than one game a year as it is because of cost and if these “innovations” succeed in pricing the game that much farther out of my hands, then I can’t muster much sympathy for Jerry or his friends at all.

Raf I usually agree with you but in this case you are wrong. The TV money and such is already shared ; its the money that JJ and others are making by working harder then Bidwell and the other losers. Carolina is a small market but they are doing well because their owner works hard. IT is TOTAL BS that losers like BIdwell and Benson expect to be carried by the other owners. YOU should be raising hell about forcing the losers to either work harder and do better or sell out. NOT criticising the owners that ARE working their butts off.

Raphael, let me ask you a similar question…if you get a second job, and work your tail off to get a little ahead-do you want to be forced into sharing those profits with YOUR next door neighbor, JUST because he has less money than you?

Why, in a business world, do you want to chance a person’s career status just because we enjoy a sporting venue and want a self-gratifying stance that rewards our own individual sense of worth, and not always in alignment with integrity, and earned ends to what is received. To say that all should be equal in human nature, doesn’t approach the complexity that exists in truth. As to a socialist country, or even way of life, have you ever found a social unity that did NOT end up in some sort of extreme authority or group that controlled most aspects that give life to individual effort AND satisfaction?

Raf,
If I had a dollar for every â€Å"uh Toast” you said, I’ll have 2 dollars.. burmafrd said what I was going to say about the TV revenue.. so I’ll address the other issue.. No owner in NFL is losing money! it is the matter of how much one makes that has the (less) rich owners up and arm.. The soviet union remark was to highlight the fact that folks didn’t have any initiative to be innovative or work harder to get ahead and make more money, since they got what they got no matter how hard or not hard they worked (hence; Bidwell and his kind). NFL survived well before the salary cap and will again. This is America; any owner (like Panthers owner) can work hard/smart and do well. It is not Jerry’s or Snyderâ€â"¢s fault they make more money.. They want to win, which breathes more success and therefore more revenue. As far as cost of attending the games go… it is expensive no matter if there is salary cap or not, whether Dallas or New Orleans.. it is a costly proposition. Jerry is not the one who raises the ticket prices it is the whole league thing, and as long as we pay to fill the stadium, they will raise the fee.

Rafael,

My communist friend, viva la revolution…dang, these guys are ripping you.

Your point about revenue sharing making the league what it is, is dead on. The sport makes the money, not an individual team, for the most part.

The money the others are talking about that some owners “work harder” for is the local revenue. Problem is, most of it is through corporate boxes seat licenses. That directly affects the affordability for the average fan.

By sharing all, maybe the incentive to charge the fans would be eliminated. Let Jerry & Co. keep some local marketing stuff, like stadium rights, ads, etc, while making it non-productive to tax the fans…

Utopia…ooooohhhmmmm

lavar said he dosent wont to play for the cowboys. Foxsports

Rafael:

I understand what you mean about Steinbrenner and his network, etc. Actually the NFL seems to be going forward with putting games on their network too. I don’t know how the revenue from the NFL Network will be split, but I can see how the NFL can have a network, not an individual team. There are 165 games in a baseball season and it lasts from February to early November now with a vibrant hot-stove league in December and January. Football is really only August to February and is a lot harder to make a network out of because of so fewer games, but the NFL as a league network seems to be doing ok so far. An individual NFL team could never pull it off, IMHO. It doesn’t matter though, because the NFL has already beat them all to the punch. Besides, if Steinbrenner’s ratings drop because the team does poorly, all that money he’s currently making will evaporate and he’ll be saddled with debt payments and a quarter billion dollar annual payroll.

The thing about revenue sharing with ticket revenue and broadcast rights makes sense to me because it takes two teams to have a game. Since each team gets the same number of home and away games, and they have to play against another team in each one…this makes sense to me. Both teams have to get paid for playing, and the best way to split the money is by league agreement, not spending hours after each game trying to figure out who should get what on that particular Sunday.

My point about the “innovators” is that Jerry Jones, in the tradition of Tex Schramm and others that preceded him, has cleverly found ways to cut deals with shoe companies, et al to augment the money his team makes. He has leveraged the brand name and historic successes of his franchise to bring in extra money that he can use for further marketing exploits, signing expensive free agents, or just to bribe the local politicians to build a new stadium for his team. Whatever he chooses to do with the money, I think it should be up to him, because it was gained by his own initiative and business acumen, and not as the result of any one single game against an NFL competitor. Having observed JJ over the years, I also don’t believe he is one to sit on hordes of cash in a miserly fashion like Bill Bidwell. Also, if anything, engaging in these type of business practices should help to keep ticket and parking prices lower since he won’t have to raise prices there as much to keep the revenue flowing in. Teams like the Colts that don’t have owners that have figured out how to make this extra side revenue are far more at risk to see ticket prices skyrocketing to pay for the right to see Peyton Manning and Marvin Harrison.

I agree though, Upshaw and Tagliabue are sitting in the catbird seat by virtue of who they have singled out to punish in this agreement. Yet another case of concentrating the burden and costs, to disperse the benefits. It’s a noble idea, but it’s not much fun if your team is among the ones having to carry the burden.

Fighterman,
I love Raf Raul.. Anybody making it possible for us to come in here and talk Cowboys is/are my hero’s. I disagree with you about owners charging less because of passing the fee to guy in the luxury boxes. The money made by the owners on their own (local/national level) is the perk of being the owner and inheriting the risk of buying and operating the team. Itâ€â"¢s kind of like saying give the same amount of contract to Bush and the last guy picked in the draft..lets share the revenue..hence socialism. Anyway I’ll get of this social/communist soapbox.
Raf/Raul.. Thank for this forum.

Fighter15:

Actually it is just the reverse of what you say. Those corporate box seat licenses are exactly what does help keep general seating tickets and parking prices lower for the average fan. It is kind of like how first class airline tickets help the airlines make more money so that they don’t have to raise prices on the coach tickets. The fact that a team can go to their deep pocket corporate pals and charge steep luxury box season leases helps them offset their costs in other areas so they don’t have to raise ticket prices so much. Same with giving them preferred parking at a high cost. That means they don’t have to raise prices on the regular guy.

NFL owners want the seats filled with fans and they want their team to get the biggest advantage of home field and crowd noise, etc. That’s part of the reason they started this whole luxury box thing. If they hadn’t done it that way, they would have inevitably had to raise ticket prices on the regualr fan because of their costs and the huge increases in player salaries, etc. The fact that they can extract huge sums of money out of the rich big boys to watch the same exact game as someone who payed far less to sit a lot closer to the action is something the average fan should be happy about, because that is the most progressive form of “tax”, as you call it.

Sure, Sterling, but if those revenues are shared, then having 40 boxes at Texas Stadium or 400 does not change the competitive landscape.

And with those revenues part of the overall cap figure, the players get the largest portion, thus there is no advantage. A little extra cha-ching, sure, but nothing that affects excess profitability.

The point was that by keeping those revenue streams out of the overall sharing equation, Dallas (with 400 suites) is making a boatload more than Arizona (with 40). Thus, Arizona has to find a way to increase local revenues and start putting seat licenses on the average Joe.

Why should owners have to share hard earned money like getting some company to pay you for using their name for your stadium. Local revenue should stay with the owner. You don’t see NFL players that get endorsed by Nike or Reebok share the money they get with other players. They keep it. Players make extra money with commercial deals, shoes, clothing, etc. Just because the high profile players get this extra money doesn’t mean that they are forced to share it with the other players. Exactly why bigger market owners like JJ should be able to keep local money he makes.

lilbeast,
Well said my friend.. There is no revenue sharing between Haves (players) and have not (Players)… Union is hypocritical besides being communist and socialist and all the other listssss..

The Cowboys are nothing without the NFL, and vice-versa.

It’s about the sport.

I’m not saying take all local revenue, just those that need the whole NFL…such as luxury boxes, seat licenses, etc.

Marketing deals should be local if they are solely representative and targeted to the local market.

But even those are dependent on a competetive product of the entire NFL.

eh, comrades?

Fellows,
upshaw and his scum-sucking lawyers are coming to Hawaii for their own conference (they couldn’t do it in Missouri.. too much money to be spent to come to Hawaii)… Anyway, if you see a guy protesting and throwing red flag with hammer and sickle at them… well look for me.

I don’t agree with any of this revenue sharing stuff. Ya’ll have done a great job of explaining the issue. I just see local revenue as coming from the community and it should stay there. People who like the Cowboys buy tickets, boxes, merchandise, etc and list to the games. The other NFL teams have no right to make money solely off another teams success.

The TV deals are completely different. The stations buy them as a package. Yes, some games draw more interest than others, but you are watching NFL games nationwide, not just Cowboys games. If one station was buying exclusive rights to one team’s games, that would be a different story.

I just thing that anything that is sold as a team’s product- ie tickets, merchandise, or whatever- should not benefit other teams. That is why teams sell for different values. If they share all their revenues it becomes less of team ownership and more of an NFL stock.

I also think it gives a ton of motivation to underachieving owners and teams. If all revenue is shared, do you really think Ari or NO will put out even as much effort as they currently are? There are definitely owners who will see this revenue sharing as an excuse to not spend as much money. Why does Ari need a buy name FA when they don’t have to worry about filling the seats or selling jerseys?

Just so you know what kind of reporting you get from CNBC…

So I saw them talking about the CBA stuff a few minutes ago so I stopped to see if there were any developments. They talked about how there were 2 factions of owners and how there were guys on each side that wouldn’t ever agree with the others. They said there were maybe 5 on each end of the spectrum and that the other 22 were the middle ground. Then they went on to say that Art Rooney would be the chief spokesman for the undecided middle ground. Art Rooney???? They then went on to say that the proposal should be ratified because it was basically what the NFL has been doing and what made them successful, the revenue sharing that is. Total hogwash!!!

It depresses me when I see regular, blue collar-type guys getting worked into a tither about multi-millionaires not pocketing every dime they can. “Its not fair! You communist sissies can’t make it on your own!” Gimme a break. Its not like all revenue will be put into a pot and split 32 ways, nor do a few counterexamples of poorly managed teams (Ariz, McCombs’ Minn, Cincy) invalidate the larger point that its not unreasonable that the lower revenue teams would want to address some of the basic market inequalities (mainly, the raw capital avaliable in their cities) that make it more difficult and for them to field competitive teams each year while turning a profit. I agree that Jones should not have to subsidize Ralph Wilson’s eponymous stadium, but at the same time, Jones—even without his aggressive pursuit of capital—still benefits from the fact that his team plays in a corporation- rich city. Dallas could dominate again in a cap-free environment, but at what cost? As in baseball, player salaries would go up while the number of actually competitive teams goes down. Look at the Marlins’ roster this spring, compared to the Yankees’. Its a joke and its bad for the sport.

Finally, what’s with all this “communist”/soviet rhetoric? … some patriotic, uninformed blather left over from the cold war? Lets get over this propagandistic view of history. Our own gov’t and economy is hardly a true free market (and thankfully so.) Moreover, we actually have many socialist programs in this country still. And if you like the 5 day, 40 hour standard work week (rather than 6 or 7 days and 60-70 hours), worker’s comp, and social security, then you owe some recognition to the labor movement of the early 20th century—one motivated by socialist thought.

mr. toast: please don’t assume i’m saying this in a condescending manner, ‘cause i’m not – this is only my 2nd post to a site i frequent religously for c’boys insight and info, including your own (thanks rafael and the gang of 2 :-)) – but…

unions are not inherently communist OR socialist entities, though communist movements throughout the brief history of our nation have, of couse, sought to alligh themselves – to the point of expoitation – with the working man: the cog in the wheels of capitalism. historically, unions were formed to protect the rights of grossly exploited workers, in many cases. and it’s not exactly revisionist or unpatriotic or anti-capitalist to say that our country’s history, as tenacious, great and inspirational as it is, is literally paved with the toil – once again, to the point of gross expoitation – of the finacially weak and under-privileged. even a man that calls all unions “communist” (typically us southern, “open shop” types) would have to admit, after a brief historic review of the facts, that unions have achieved some – maybe even a lot – of good things for the working man.
 
so, to misuse these words (communist, socialist) in describing the machinations and in-fighting of a group of ‘haves’ (the multi-millionaires) vs. a group of ‘have-mores’ (the billionaires); or to characterize the nflpa’s striving to maximize the rewards of ITS multi-‘thousand-aire’ and millionaire gladiator-constituency as communist…well, if anything, i’d call it downright capitalist.
 
btw, virtually all governments, at all levels, icorporate so-called ‘socialist’ programs to a greater or lesser degree: see everything from the wpa to foodstamps, through norway’s 50% (or so) taxation and subsequent paid-for medical care for all citizens despite their economic bracket…

btw 2: i’m down w/kicker, safety, ot and l-backer help via free agency – if it ever starts; and the drafting of the best olb and/or o-line help, high; mid-round te, and a sleeper qb.
 
bls

jsdoty,
Not to belabor the socialist, etc. conversation… But like you said the union worked well early 20th century! and it served its purpose well (THEN)…it hasn’t worked in more recent history and on the contrary it has parallelized our country and it is doing the same to the NFL.

Amen to jsdoty.

I’ve wanted to post something similar all day reading these, in some ways well-meaning, but largely reductionist, and inaccurate portrayals of how hardworkin high-revenue owners are being cheated by the their welfare-dependent low-rev owner brethren.

You can’t tell me the Packers, where the is team owned by its fans, don’t work hard enough up there to generate local revenues. Without question that team and its fans, per capita, produce at least at the level of the high revenue teams. Yet they’re dealing with a market that is so much smaller in relative terms than any revenue sharing percentage being floated to make up a fraction of the difference.

Also, its just not consistent to split off the TV revenues an claim that this is not revenue sharing because it is. You could structure the broadcast rights so that each team was paid based on how its games were rated. If you truly think that any sharing of local revenues is socialist then you should similarly demand that the broadcase contracts be scrapped for a system that pays each team its due for how sucessfully it attracts viewers.

Anyways how bout a real question, read JJT’s new article on CowboysPlus and tell me what you think of this: dump Larry Allen and sign Hutchinson. (The Seahawks only transitioned tagged him so all they can do is match, and if no new CBA gets done, the Hawks are against teh cap, so you could structure a deal where the Hawks couldn’t match in the first year).

I also think there is no way we try and outbide the 10 teams Chris Mortensen thinks will be serious players for Lavar.

I saw an article, stating that Giants are after Lavar… How much $ do giants have under cap? Hard to believe they are going after some high profile plyers like Madison from Miami..

Fighter15:

What you forget is that those stadiums and the luxury box leases apply to more than just NFL games and they constitute real estate contracts between the city and the companies that lease them. Since the stadiums are being built with money from sales tax revenue and/or municipal band guarantees from that metropolitan area, then any revenue that comes from the leases is not rightfully the exclusive property of the NFL or any other NFL city. The NFL may be one of the premier draws to the lease because under normal conditions they are guaranteed 8 home games, but there are many other special events, concerts, etc. that are included in the lease of a corporate suite. At any rate, in your (slightly exaggerated) example of 40 suites versus 400 in another city, there would probably also be more costs associated with building a stadium with 400 luxury suites. As you know, labor, construction, and real estate costs vary vastly between different metro areas. Those costs and some sort of adjustment to account for the differences between different metro areas would also have to be considered as part of the equation to make everything fair. Can you see how going down this path can get very, very complicated? A city like New York can charge more for its luxury suites because of the wealth of the metro area, but it will also be more expensive to build a stadium there than a place like Phoenix, for example.

Look, Fenway Park has a big green monster in left field instead of seating there. That’s their choice to forgo that ticket revenue to have that thing there for whatever reason. It doesn’t mean they should ask the people of Miami to pay for that lost ticket revenue. If one city wants to contruct their stadium different than another city for whatever reason, that’s up to them. Same with luxury suites.

To everyone on both sides talking about socialism and all this political junk:

Everyone has the right to their opinion, no? We’re here to talk about the Cowboys and the NFL CBA talks, not espouse any particular political cause. I could care less about the supposed triumphs of socialism over the free-market in this country, nor do I think Upshaw or the NFLPA are communists. If they were they’d definitely be in the politburo wining and dining on caviar and not standing in the bread lines with the common folk.

Besides, true fairness means not taking things from others that do not belong to you, IMHO.

jsdoty,

I am on the other side of the revenue sharing issue. Just wondering, what is your definition of “large market” and “small market”. … Now I have said that I believe in revenue sharing. But the current system in place is working, has worked in the past!! So why “fix” it?

Eric R:

That’s a simple answer: GREED!!

I’m so tired of watching and listening about revenue sharing and labor disputes. I hope the rumor mill starts getting hotter soon because I want to hear some news about the Cowboys looking at free agents.

Just let the parties fight it out. If and when both sides agree to agree, then we, as spectaters, should presume their settlement to OK with both sides. The agreement does not have to be ‘fair’, it just has to be the ‘Agreement’.

On the “communist” thing. I can’t believe that anyone really believes that Upshaw is a communist, but especially the demand to “force” owners to share all of their revenues is a basic “communist” stamp. .. You can do 3xs the amount of work as another, yet at the end of the day you are both going home with one slice of bread. … Please lets not get all “political” over a simple comment or two. He made a point, and a good one at that. Throwing in the political crap gets boring very fast.

Eric R:

Exactly. Thank you for saying that!!

Sterling,
I suppose I started all this socialist/communist talk… It was not suppose to be political.. just a reference to the way business is being done by NFLPA. Like you said.. it is not fair to take things from others that do not belong to you… and that.. I concur with and that is what I have been preaching.

Toast,

Thanks for the good words about the site. Nothing personal has ever been implied by my posts, just happy to debate.

Now, it seems there are some basic problems with nomenclature here. I’m going to sidestep the communist/socialist distinction because in the end I think there’s a red herring. I do want to say, though that I resent the implications that I think Jerry shouldn’t keep some of his money.

But the key is some. And to point out why, I want to point you to baseball. See the John Helyar book I discussed in a earlier post or get an early Bill James book on the history of baseball. Look at the ‘50s and you’ll notice something radically different from the way leagues are run today.

That was the decade of the Yankees. They had the biggest farm system, the biggest scouting system, the biggest budget, the biggest radio network, everything. They won six world series in those ten years. They played in eight world series.

But here’s the downside of that dominance — their attendance sucked. They only sold out Yankee Stadium during the World Series. I don’t think they drew 2 million in any year of the greatest run in the game’s history.

What’s more, ALL of baseball’s attendance sucked. There was no drama, so fans might go to see Mickey Mantle and Yogi Berra when they hit town, but they were not going to spend much cash or time at the ball park.

Why? Because the league they played in sucked. Why would you pay top dollar to see a game knowing the Yankees were going to win the pennant, and when half the games were against AAA teams masquerading in big league uniforms? It was a watered down version of the Harlem Globetrotters vs. the Washington General some of the time, especially when the Browns or As were in town.

And that’s why pro football blew their doors off in the ’60s and since. Because of TV revenue sharing all franchises were stable and you had real competitive balance. If you drafted well, you got to be good.

It was a meritocracy. The smart organizations won. The innovative organizations, which improved on scouting and made shrewd trades won.

Now, back to baseball. You can knock labor movements all you want but the abolition of the reserve clause, which allowed free agency, made baseball far more competitive. Look at the last 30 years. Almost every team has gone to the World Series. Even the so-called small market clubs like the Twins, Royals and Padres have done it.

The common draft and the ability for players to move produced this. It wasn’t of revenue sharing, because baseball doesn’t have any. Sure, they share network TV monies, but their take is about 5% of what football draws. Free agency is probably what’s kept baseball growing in popularity, in spite of a lack of revenue sharing, because it’s improved competitive balance.

And that’s the big one with me. That’s what I care about more than anything else. I’m not invested in how much Jerry shares or doesn’t share UNLESS is messes with the competitive balance on the field.

Because if his or any other owners screws this up, intentionally or not, he’s not a friend of the game. And ultimately, he’s short sighted financially. Because if the NFL devolves in college football, where you have a handful of good teams who have maybe three tough games a year and play cupcakes who they blow out 50-10 the other weeks, revenue will go down. Ratings will suffer. Fans in cupcake cities will tune out.

And come TV renewal time, the league will face reductions in their take. Look at Monday Night Football. ESPN will pay Billions to televise it, but it moved to cable because it no longer was winning the Monday time slot, after 30 years of being a slam dunk winner. It can happen. Fans can suffer football fatigue, if the product sucks.

I know friends who have the Sunday Ticket who already complain that there are some weekends where there just are not good games. Are you going to pay the price for it if the number of competitive games drops significantly?

And what is a championship worth then? The Cowboys of the ’70s won in an era of super teams like the Steelers, Raiders and Dolphins. The ’90s teams joined the pantheon because the elbowed aside some excellent 49ers teams.

If it’s you lunching on a bunch of pushovers you’ll get tired. The Cowboys could become the Yankees of football but then we wouldn’t care until late December.

And that’s a shame because I live for the Sunday rush. We all do. It’s why we’re here every day in February and March.

So back to the original point. I think the NFL can find some formula that keeps some money in Jerry’s pocket and Dan Snyder’s pocket. But if they insist on all, they may win a technical point, but they’ll lose more than they keep.

Because we’ll only care about them as much as we care about their rivals.

Toast:

I know, I wasn’t offended by what you said because I knew you were engaging in hyperbole. Unfortunately, certain hot button words can touch people off. I knew all along you didn’t literally mean that Upshaw was going to send KGB agents after Jerry Jones because JJ violated the annual kolkhozy collectivist wheat crop program. ;)

Ref,
Excellent points.. Thanks.
P.S. if we stop talking about communist and socialist.. the rating will fall.. Just kidding. I do agree with you though. I don’t want to watch a boring league either, where one team dominates; parity is good for the game.
Sterling,
Obviously you haven’t seen the documents on uphaw! He is Stalin youngest.. if you write his last name backward its “wahspu” an old Russian name.. Seriously, I do enjoy reading your inputs, well put with solid support behind each point.. kind of like Raf’s.

Rafael:

Great points. I would also add that whatever ends up being the basis of the new CBA and what constitutes “total revenue” will likely be irrelevant within a few more years anyway. That is because I have total faith that whatever agreement is reached, and whatever limits are placed on Jerry Jones, Bob Kraft, and Dan Snyder, they will eventually figure out new ways of making yet even more money that the union and other NFL owners won’t be able to get their hands on. That is because they are smart, they are aggressive, and they are innovators.

Guys like JJ figured out new ways around the salary cap by structuring contracts and bonuses in creative ways. JJ was the first owner I know of to sell stadium advertising rights to a shoe company, and because he owned the stadium the NFL couldn’t stop him. He’s consistently coming up with new ways to leverage his brand and monetize his asset into new revenue streams. The league has had to create new rules to stop people like him, and no matter what they do, he keeps outwitting them.

So I’m not worried, whatever happens, he’ll find a new loophole or way to circumvent the system. That’s how guys like him get to own a team like the Cowboys. He didn’t inherit it like Mike Brown. He is a wealth creator, and he’s smart enough to overcome whatever obstacles they put in his way. He’s a winner.

Rafael,

What you write proves the point I have made on the issue. If it ain’t broke, then don’t fix it. The NFL is thriving with TV revenues and because of competative balance. So why change that?

I wonder if the owners meeting is anywhere near as interesting as the debates going on in the blogosphere?

I think what the players will have to come to grips with is white and blue collar workers at General Motors just gave up their pensions. They have accepted cuts in their medical benefits, pensions, insurance and other packages. Retired Union members benefits are getting cut all the time. You telling me some factory worker with 30 years is going to feel sympathy cuz some RB wants a bigger pension in his retirement after playing NFL for five or six years? The non salary guys at GM are all Card Carrying UNION members……but I can guarantee you they will show ZERO sympathy for the likes of NFL players walking away from millions to play a sport that many of those same card carrying Union members played in their youth….and would love to have had the chance for those friday night lights to have become Saturday Rivalry games and Sunday paychecks. All they need do is ask the baseball family which took the Sosa McGwire summer bash to gain back any of the american interest. America loves the NFL…….and I remember the scabs of the late 80s. I thought one of those WRs was pretty good……might have even stayed around afterwards.

Owners, big and little market, players both highly paid and special teamers……..should work all this stuff out if they know what is good for all their pocket books.

Sterling, Toast, et. al.,

I don’t begrudge Jerry his dollars, but man, if he was half the GM he is a businessman, he’d have half a dozen Super Bowl trophies.

Maybe that’s what got him so jazzed up. He, Snyder and Lurie are making money hand over fist and yet Kraft’s winning all the silver.

Eric R.,

From what I’ve read the union would not be too upset with the current system, but many small market owners feel they will lose competitive balance if it continues. Which is why they’re going deep into tomorrow.

BTW, Nick Eatman actually had a good article up for a change. (He actually has an article up PERIOD, which is a welcome change.)

Anyway, he quotes a Giants official who says he was brief, blunt and as animated as he’s ever been before the owners, saying the future of the game was in their hands for the next 24 hours.

Sterling, what did you say a couple of days ago, he’s going to crack some skulls together? I think they’re shipping some Tylenol in.

The debate about revenue sharing is interesting but the concept is totally one sided. The other side of the increased revenue seen by the Cowboys is risk taking as well as innovative revenue generation. However, no one seems talks about sharing JJ’s risk, just about sharing his revenues.Bidwell is anxious to increase his profits with JJ’s efforts but there is no suggestion he should share the risk he is incurring by building a $650 million stadium where he is providing half or more of the money/debt.

While I agree that some level of competitive balance is critical, if the NFL wants to grow its revenues it needs innovation as well and this will not happen if the innovators are not rewarded. Accordingly, clubs must be able to keep sufficient local revenues to reward the effort. Second, to the extent local revenues are shared, risk should be shared as well. Thus, whatever formula is adopted must account for risk and debt load. I have not heard that JJ and the gang of nine are unwilling to share any local revenue but rather that the battle is over how much and how calculated, i.e., consideration of debt and other risk factors.

Finally, there needs to be something done to force old gang owners to work to grow their revenues. It is not lost on me that Bidwell left St. Louis for Phoenix because St. Louis was unable to support his franchise but the then L.A. Rams have found St. Louis to be better than L.A. and no one now discusses St. Louis as small market. Seems whereever Bidwell goes is small market. Makes me wonder if the problem is the market or the owner. Green Bay on the other hand refuses to sell naming rights to its stadium which should be very valuable. The value is not in the local exposure associated with the name but in the national exposure accompanying televised games and news reporting mentioning the stadium. Thus, the small nature of the community does not necessarily relate to the value of the naming rights and other “local” assets of a team.

My sympathy is with JJ and the gang of nine in this face off.

The debate about revenue sharing is interesting but the concept is totally one sided. The other side of the increased revenue seen by the Cowboys is risk taking as well as innovative revenue generation. However, no one seems talks about sharing JJ’s risk, just about sharing his revenues.Bidwell is anxious to increase his profits with JJ’s efforts but there is no suggestion he should share the risk he is incurring by building a $650 million stadium where he is providing half or more of the money/debt.

While I agree that some level of competitive balance is critical, if the NFL wants to grow its revenues it needs innovation as well and this will not happen if the innovators are not rewarded. Accordingly, clubs must be able to keep sufficient local revenues to reward the effort. Second, to the extent local revenues are shared, risk should be shared as well. Thus, whatever formula is adopted must account for risk and debt load. I have not heard that JJ and the gang of nine are unwilling to share any local revenue but rather that the battle is over how much and how calculated, i.e., consideration of debt and other risk factors.

Finally, there needs to be something done to force old gang owners to work to grow their revenues. It is not lost on me that Bidwell left St. Louis for Phoenix because St. Louis was unable to support his franchise but the then L.A. Rams have found St. Louis to be better than L.A. and no one now discusses St. Louis as small market. Seems whereever Bidwell goes is small market. Makes me wonder if the problem is the market or the owner. Green Bay on the other hand refuses to sell naming rights to its stadium which should be very valuable. The value is not in the local exposure associated with the name but in the national exposure accompanying televised games and news reporting mentioning the stadium. Thus, the small nature of the community does not necessarily relate to the value of the naming rights and other “local” assets of a team.

My sympathy is with JJ and the gang of nine in this face off.

Whoops! Sorry about double posting,

I don’t know if I’m just dense, or what, but I don’t understand all this about how “competitive balance” would be lost if we continue on the same formula. The salary cap will be the same for every team, right? The cap is in place to make sure that every team makes money, right? So the only difference is who makes more money.

I guess for me it comes down to two points that I don’t think you covered Raf. First, all these rich guys bought there teams based on a valuation formula. The Vikings sold for less because they don’t have much local money. The Texans sold for more because they were supposed to make more local money. So on and so forth for the rest of the teams sold within the last dozen years. Basically, this new formula will change the valuation of NFL teams. When you’re getting into the billion $$$ range, that is a HUGE thing to mess with.

I know what alot of you think, it’s millionaires, who cares. To me, anytime you straight up take money out of someone’s pocket, no matter how rich or poor they are, it’s wrong. The instant change in revenues will basically do that.

Secondly, and maybe more to the point, this is not a “market” debate, it’s a money debate. Some of the teams that “want” have some of the biggest markets, ie NY, NE, Atl, Det. Some of the “haves” are from small markets, ie Cle, Car, Den. The issue is not how much they can make, but how much they do make. There is absolutely no reason that Pitt, NY and NE aren’t at the top of the league in local revenues, outside of their owners lack of effort. This deal would actually punish ingenuity and creativity within the league management.

I would even go so far as to say that it may even hurt those “small market” teams. If the owners don’t push their team brand now, what will they do when there is next 0 reward for it. Teams like Ari, Bal, NO, etc could get no local push since there is no reward for it to the owner. I just don’t think a total revenue sharing agreement is good, and yes, what they want is total. I doubt they would let owners keep more than 25-40% or local revenue.

Smidge,

A couple of notes on the stadium. I believe JJ is only puttin up 1/4 of the price tag. I return he is getting the right to buy thousands of acres of surrounding land for the market price BEFORE the stadium plas started. Not a whole lot of risk there, but I guess there is a tiny bit.

Where the heck do you think he’s getting his loans? The bank?

The rest? Thank that 1 cent sales tax and $10 beer that gives Arlington a nice source of revenue for the next 30 years.

The labor argument and comparison to workers’ rights is b.s. There is no comparison. Any analogy is based on ignorance.

And I love red herring, mein fuhrer. I want everyone to live in peace and harmony. Utopia for everyone.

Now give me my damn football.

Where the heck do you think he’s getting his loans? The bank?

The rest? Thank that 1 cent sales tax and $10 beer that gives Arlington a nice source of revenue for the next 30 years.

The labor argument and comparison to workers’ rights is b.s. There is no comparison. Any analogy is based on ignorance.

And I love red herring, mein fuhrer. I want everyone to live in peace and harmony. Utopia for everyone.

Now give me my damn football.

Where the heck do you think he’s getting his loans? The bank?

The rest? Thank that 1 cent sales tax and $10 beer that gives Arlington a nice source of revenue for the next 30 years.

The labor argument and comparison to workers’ rights is b.s. There is no comparison. Any analogy is based on ignorance.

And I love red herring, mein fuhrer. I want everyone to live in peace and harmony. Utopia for everyone.

Now give me my damn football.

whoops…was getting an error

I still want my damn football, though.

I guess I fall somewhere in the middle on all this, yet lean towards the capitalists. I agree in some revenue sharing but also think creative owners like JJ should be richly rewarded for their inovations.

One point that should not be lost in all this. Small market teams CAN be successful. Look at Pittsburgh and Buffalo. COMBINED their TV market is 4 times smaller than New York’s, yet the Steelers and Bills have been to 10 Super Bowls while the Jets have only been to 1.

I guess I fall somewhere in the middle on all this, yet lean towards the capitalists. I agree in some revenue sharing but also think creative owners like JJ should be richly rewarded for their innovations.

One point that should not be lost in all this. Small market teams CAN be successful. Look at Pittsburgh and Buffalo. COMBINED their TV market is 4 times smaller than New York’s, yet the Steelers and Bills have been to 10 Super Bowls while the Jets have only been to 1.

Sorry, I spiked it while Rafael was creating a new thread.

Rafael,

Last season each team “shared” revenues close to $4 billion. This year its estimated to be near $5 billion. Each team had approximately $130 million and $150 million to work with. Now if we compare that to baseball, the lowest salary teams were at around $30 million, with the Yankees at $210 million. The balance is way out of wack. $85 million compared to about $70 mil, that is pretty balanced. If the Tampa Bay Devil Rays annual revenue is about $40 million, then close to $30 million of that went to players’ salaries. But if the Arizona Cardinals annual revenue is $40 mil, then they received $90 million last year and are set to receive $110 million this year, with $70 – $85 million going to salaries last year and approximately $80 -$100 million set toi go to players’ salaries this season. .. What I am saying is if Arizona’s football franchise is nearly in the same ballpark as Tampa’s baseball team, then the high revenue NFL owners are already dipping deep into their pockets to keep a competative balance.

Eric R & Rafael:

Let’s also not forget that “competitive balance” also helps out that other multi-billion dollar ‘cottage industry’ known as sports betting.

I mean, the cliche “any given Sunday” does more to help sports books attract more gamblers to pro football than just about any other sport except for horse racing and prize fighting. That has to help the NFL’s ratings and the overall popularity of the sport, I would think.

Besides, if the point spreads were too lopsided because of lack of competition in the league and a preponderance of bets on the superior team, that would eventually hurt bookies’ profits by driving a lot of prospective gamblers either out of betting that week or into the one or two games with the smaller point spreads. It’s better for the guys making books to have at least 8-10 closely competitive games every week.