Flecther Cox gets paid

[Manster7588]

But wouldn't the tv revenue structure change if there was no profit sharing in the NFL?

Killing the cap doesn't get rid of profit sharing, just means teams aren't handcuffed on signing players.

 

[PDay8810]

Can you say lash out?

PDay8810 "A childs face can say a 1000 words. Especially the mouth part". Another gem from our favorite Cowboy fan.

just one problem...PDay never said it.

but as a man, this guy wants to help me? God O Mighty that's funny....least to me


we both know how this goes from here, so I'll be tapping out now

 

[PDay8810]

yes sir it would but it's still about the number to total games for advertisers

 

[SonnyCID]

Killing the cap doesn't get rid of profit sharing, just means teams aren't handcuffed on signing players.

You don't think that killing the cap would mean also killing profit sharing? They kind of go hand in hand imo. Teams aren't going to be willing to share the profits if the competitive tables tilt in favor of large market or deep pocket teams.

 

[SonnyCID]

yes sir it would but it's still about the number to total games for advertisers

Total games, or total viewers per individual advertisement?

 

[Manster7588]

You don't think that killing the cap would mean also killing profit sharing? They kind of go hand in hand imo. Teams aren't going to be willing to share the profits if the competitive tables tilt in favor of large market or deep pocket teams.

Nope because the sharing is based on NFL revenue not team profit.

 

[NWPATSFAN]

You don't think that killing the cap would mean also killing profit sharing? They kind of go hand in hand imo. Teams aren't going to be willing to share the profits if the competitive tables tilt in favor of large market or deep pocket teams.

I could those small market teams wanting to still get a piece of the revune sharing pie. That would be a interesting debate for owners.

 

[PDay8810]

Total games, or total viewers per individual advertisement?

total games

sorry...it still gets back to 162 Vs 16

shoot....think of parking and concessions as well as broadcasts

 

[SonnyCID]

I could those small market teams wanting to still get a piece of the revune sharing pie. That would be a interesting debate for owners.

I could totally see the small teams wanting a piece. But if you're the owner of the Giants or Cowboys, and negotiate your own tv deals worth exponentially more than the deals of KC or TB, you wouldn't want to share that money. Especially considering that without a cap, you'd be financing them to compete with you.

 

[chf]

You don't think that killing the cap would mean also killing profit sharing? They kind of go hand in hand imo. Teams aren't going to be willing to share the profits if the competitive tables tilt in favor of large market or deep pocket teams.

Jerry for one wants both. It doesn't do him much good to get rid of the cap if he doesn't have increased revenue to go along with it.

Because for NFL teams things like concessions and the like are just pocket change. Their money is coming from the TV deals.

In a free-for-all TV deal world, the Cowboys would make a LOT more money than most other NFL franchises. Kind of the way that the big University programs that have their own TV deals leave the others in the dust.

 

[SonnyCID]

total games

sorry...it still gets back to 162 Vs 16

shoot....think of parking and concessions as well as broadcasts

I just don't think that volume of ads is more important than total viewers. Just look at the SB, companies spend more for that one 30 second spot, than they spent all year.

 

[chf]

I just don't think that volume of ads is more important than total viewers. Just look at the SB, companies spend more for that one 30 second spot, than they spent all year.

The cost per/ad depends on eyeballs, so, no - ads running on a Milwaukee Brewers game on a Tuesday night aren't going for a million a pop. But they're still able to sell at least a portion of those ads, and there are a shvt ton of them. So when you add them all up - you get Fox regional offering up half a billion dollars for X years of regional coverage of Texas Ranger games.

You are correct though in this sense, ad time on TV is all about eyeballs. Thus in larger markets, even TV news can be wildly profitable. We were the #3 station in DFW when I was there, and our GM routinely pulled in multiple millions in BONUS money every year - and a health chunk of that profit came from local news. So top media market are going to have the advantage in terms of potential eyeballs. DFW was (and still is I'm pretty sure) the #6 media market in the country.

Nope, here's the current top ten according to Wikipedia:

• New York (#1)
• Los Angeles (#2)
• Chicago (#3)
• Philadelphia (#4)
• Dallas-Fort Worth (#5)
• San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose (#6)
• Washington, D.C. (Hagerstown) (#7)
• Boston (Manchester) (#8)
• Atlanta (#9)
• Houston (#10)

Pittsburgh down in the mid twenties. KC and Cincinatti in the 30's.

So you can see which teams would be able to sign big TV deals. And which wouldn't.

 

[jarntt]

But wouldn't the tv revenue structure change if there was no profit sharing in the NFL?

No. Not necessarily. They are going to have some type of National tv contract and each team will get a share. Doesn't mean they need a cap. Now if teams are also allowed to start contracting out for their own tv contract you may see some crazy 6-1 ratio. But I don't think that is going to happen. In baseball they split up the ESPN, network tv packages and they keep all of their local package (ignoring luxury tax). In Football I assume no local tv package so no change

 

[Manster7588]

I could totally see the small teams wanting a piece. But if you're the owner of the Giants or Cowboys, and negotiate your own tv deals worth exponentially more than the deals of KC or TB, you wouldn't want to share that money. Especially considering that without a cap, you'd be financing them to compete with you.

I doubt the Cowboys or Giants or any other team with money wants to completely price other teams. I'm pretty sure the rich teams need the others to continue making money. I'll say this one last time IMO some teams will spend more, but I doubt the highest paid TEAM even doubles the lowest paid TEAM.

 

[PDay8810]

I just don't think that volume of ads is more important than total viewers. Just look at the SB, companies spend more for that one 30 second spot, than they spent all year.

cool....agree to disagree works for me

 

[eaglesnut]

This. They are making a really strong push for stupidest franchise in the NFL. Unbelievable.

Hmmmm but then they win the Super Bowl in only one more year.
Unbelievable!

 

[Across The Field]

Hmmmm but then they win the Super Bowl in only one more year.
Unbelievable!

Did you have a point here?

 

[YankeeRebel]

LMAO at the Eagles between this contract and the Wentz contract the Eagles just assured themselves to be cellar dwellers in the very near future. Idiots.

 

[eaglesnut]

Did you have a point here?

Nothing much.
Just gow quickly your prediction went completely ass up.
That's all.

 

[handicappers]

2015 LA Dodgers 301,735,000
2015 Florida Marlins 63,590,000

Same thing would happen in football.

Derpy fuck. You’re wrong