Bengals vote against new stadium... for NY

[LesterLyles]

I read that the loan program was implemented in 1999 and each stadium built since then benefitted from such loan. I assumed PBS was included b/c it opened in 2000 but perhaps it didn't qualify b/c contstruction started b/f 1999.

[ckj414]

And the rich get richer.

Are you really expecting us to believe that the largest media market in the world can support two professional football teams, two professional baseball teams, two professional basketball teams, and two professional hockey teams, but can't afford to build a modern stadium without help from the NFL?

Next you'll be telling me Daniel Snyder needs a housing allowance because it's expensive to live in D.C.

If the Giants and/or Jets were threatening to leave the area then maybe you could make the argument that this helps the league. But then we haven't had a team here in L.A. for 10 years and the league seems to be doing just fine.

Don't know enough about the CBA to have a strong opinion on it, but considering it was the same vote talley for this idiotic manuever, I'm starting to think Mikey was on the right track.

First off, and I need to make this clear, the New York teams are not rich by NFL standards. Below average in fact. Pretty sure the last I saw they both had less revenue than the Bengals. The Giants are even by far the least profitable team in their division.

Why shouldn't the New York teams go to the NFL for financing? Its within their rights, and I'm sure they arent the first teams to take advantage. 28 of the other 30 owners didn't seem to mind a bit. Why the ire over this decision? Seems like a lot of irrational anger to me.

[ckj414]

[i read that the Mara family (owner of the Giants) made a big plea to the owners saying that their father Wellington was largely responsible for the league's revenue sharing structure that is curently in place. When you think about it, Wellington mara sacraficed a lot for the better of the league w/ revenue sharing yet he pushed hard for it. T/f one theory is that yesterday's vote was a "thank you" and "we owe you one" from the league to Wellington and the Giants organization.

This is true. Replace Wellington Mara with, say, George Steinbrenner or Little Danny Snyder, and the Giants would have stood between the NFL and shared TV revenue. Today we'd have a league structured more like major league baseball. Pretty worthy of a big thanks if you ask me. I don't think a loan really even qualifies. Putting The Duke on NFL balls this year was a nice gesture though.

[jjakq27]

SMALL-MARKET WOES: The NFL approved a measure earlier this month to give the New York Giants and New York Jets a $300 million low-interest loan for the building of a new stadium for the two teams.

The vote was 30-2, with Bills owner Ralph Wilson and Bengals president Mike Brown casting the only no votes. It was the same alliance in March, when they were the only two nay votes against the extension of the collective bargaining agreement.

"The Giants and Jets stadium, with 200 boxes at $250,000 a box, will gross $50 million a year," said Wilson, referring to the luxury box revenue, which does not have to be shared with other teams.

"We're fighting to gross $7 million (a year)," Wilson said of the Bills' luxury box revenue. "What chance have you got long-term?"

From today's Enquirer.....

[HairOnFire]

The ballpark is projected to cost between $1.1 billion and $1.2 billion.

Those types of costs used to be reserved for space programs or developing whatever new strategic bomber would eventually replace the B-52.

[jjakq27]

From this morning's Enquirer....

Bills owner Ralph Wilson accused the league of dragging its feet on a revenue-sharing plan, an issue critical to the survival of small-market franchises.

"The high-revenue clubs are not going to give teams like Buffalo any revenue sharing," Wilson said. "They haven't done it. They stalled it for years. And I'm sick and tired of hearing about it."

NFL owners approved the concept of heightened revenue sharing when they ratified the collective bargaining agreement last spring, extending labor peace through 2012. Not resolved was how such a system would work to help the lower-revenue clubs.

The Bills and Bengals were the only teams that voted against the CBA. And both teams were also the only ones to vote against the league providing $300 million loans to the New York Giants and Jets to build a new stadium.

"My new nickname is 30-2," Wilson said.

[HoosierCat]

PFT weighs in...

SOME OWNERS JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND REVENUE SHARING

We know that the business issues relating to the NFL are at times as interesting as hearing your Uncle Ralph talk about the time that he drove his car from Poughkeepsie to Pawtucket on a half tank of diesel fuel and a pack of stale HoHo's, but the manner in which the guys who make the millions can (or as the case may be, can't) work together regarding issues like revenue sharing will likely have a direct impact on the long term viability of the sport.

And the debate that currently is raging among 32 of the richest folks in the country is how the excess riches generated by the richest of the really, really, really rich teams will be distributed to the less rich of the teams that are only really, really rich.

Complicating the discussions is that guys like Bills owner Ralph Wilson are popping off in the media about the manner in which revenue sharing is (or as the case may be, isn't) occurring. Said Wilson on Sunday, "Hey, listen, don't talk to me about revenue sharing. The high-revenue clubs are not going to give teams like Buffalo any revenue sharing. They haven't done it. They stalled it for years. And I'm sick and tired of hearing about it."

But the truth is that the owners are ready to redistribute the wealth. Either $90 million or $100 million (the final number is still up in the air) will be funded by teams with the most revenue, and given to teams that need it the most.

The problem, however, is that revenue and profit are two very different concepts. There are plenty of teams that are making less revenues than other franchises. But because those teams have little or no stadium debt and/or little or no purchase debt and/or little or no operating expenses, they remain extremely profitable business enterprises.

The example we repeatedly have heard in this regard is the Bengals. They paid nothing for their stadium, they have no purchase debt, and they pocket the entire amount of their Personal Seat Licenses. So even though the Bengals were 27th in revenues in 2005, they were one of the most -- if not the most -- profitable franchise in the sport.

Indeed, low revenues aren't keeping teams from spending money. Per a league source, the Cardinals were last in the league in 2005 revenues, but to date have spent $115.3 million on player expenses in 2006. (Though the salary cap was only $102 million, teams routinely spend "cash over cap" via signing bonuses, etc.)

The Colts, at 29th in revenue in 2005, have spent a whopping $135.4 million in 2006 cash on players. The Vikings, 30th in revenue for 2005, have forked over $128.1 million in player pay.

Even the Bengals, with their No. 27 ranking in revenues, managed to scrape together the fifth highest total payout to players in 2006, at $113 million.

So the top three teams in 2006 player expenses (Colts, Vikings, Cardinals) were 29th, 30th, and 32nd in 2005 revenues, respectively.

We're told that, in conjunction with the recent vote on the league's loan to the Jets and Giants for their new stadium, Jaguars owner Wayne Weaver added an amendment that would have redistributed the supplemental revenue to teams that spend more than 65 percent of their revenue on players, regardless of any other factor. Under this plan, the so-called "qualifiers" for supplemental revenue sharing would have been wiped out of the equation -- meaning that profitable teams like the Bengals would have gotten free money, even though they don't really need it.

This plan would have reduced the amount of money available to teams who need it (like the Bills) by giving money to teams who don't (like the Bengals). Still, several of the seven votes in favor of the stripped-down revenue sharing proposal came from teams who, in the absence of qualifiers, would qualify for less money.

This dynamic raises concerns that the revenue-sharing debate is devolving into an us-against-them fight, with the low-revenue teams voting on any and all proposals in a block, regardless of whether the specific proposal in question helps or hurts on an individual basis. With the CBA possibly being reopened as early as November 2008, the league is dangerously close to losing the 24-vote minimum necessary to adopt a new labor agreement.

We think that this is an issue that won't be resolved unless and until each and every owner makes a commitment to fully understanding the issue, and uninformed rhetoric from guys like Ralph Wilson will do nothing to promote across-the-board enlightenment. In our view, revenue is a far too narrow basis on which to determine whether and to what extent financial inequities exist, and whether such disparities should be smoothed over.

We've got a proposal in this regard, and we'll post it after we wake up from the nap that proofreading this item has induc . . . . . .

[HairOnFire]

PFT weighs in...

I sorta like the idea that a website best known for it's habit of saying the word "TURD" on a near daily basis is now offering financial insight.

Poopie, says I.