PDA

View Full Version : Gretz...ALL FOR ONE


Kerberos
03-30-2005, 08:53 AM
http://www.kcchiefs.com/news/2005/03/30/gretz_all_for_one/

:hmmm:


GRETZ: All for One?
Mar 30, 2005, 8:19:44 AM by Bob Gretz


At last week’s NFL meetings in Hawaii, the proceedings began with an address by author Michael MacCambridge, who penned “America’s Game” a lengthy look at the growth of professional football that was published last fall. In his book MacCambridge traces the key moments in the histories of the NFL and AFL.

Without a doubt one of the major reasons the AFL survived and the NFL grew was the decision by both leagues to pool their television money and divide it equally among all the league teams. The AFL did so with its very first TV contract in 1960 with ABC. The NFL followed the next year in its deal with CBS. Before that time, NFL teams negotiated individually with the network, with big market teams like Chicago, the New York Giants and Washington pulling down much larger revenues than clubs like Green Bay and Pittsburgh.

I don’t know the nature of MacCambridge’s comments, but I hope he reminded today’s owners of key decisions like those that made the game great. Apparently, there are some among the group that have completely forgotten the idea of one for all, and all for one, or never learned it in the first place.

Right now, the biggest obstacle to the continuation of the NFL’s long streak of on-field and off-field success is the ownership group itself. To find labor peace with the NFL players, the league itself must come up with ways to even the playing field when it comes to revenue beyond television and gate receipts.

There’s a growing gap between the teams at the top of the league’s revenue list and the bottom. Only the salary cap has kept this from creating a league of haves and have nots. But like oceans waves hitting a beach, the sands underneath the level playing field are slowly being eroded.

The players want more of a share of that extra money that each team is making, which comes as no surprise. As Pittsburgh owner Dan Rooney said last week: “The players always want more money.”

What the league must do is get its own house in order before being able to effectively deal with the players. To do this, they must bring together a fractured ownership group. It’s become divided into four recognizable cliques:

* Old-Guard (14): New York Giants, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Cincinnati, Detroit, Indianapolis, Chicago, Green Bay, New Orleans, Kansas City, San Francisco, San Diego, Tennessee, Arizona.
* New-Old Guard (4): Carolina, Jacksonville, Miami, Denver.
* New-Guard (12): New England, New York Jets, Philadelphia, Washington, Atlanta, Tampa Bay, Cleveland, Minnesota, Dallas, Seattle, Baltimore, Houston.
* Wild-Cards (2): St. Louis, Oakland.

The new guard owners have something the old guard does not: huge debt service to pay off on their acquisitions. This must be taken into account as the league gets its house in order. New-guard owners also complain about money the old guard leaves on the table in their cities by not being aggressive in marketing and sponsorships. That too, must be addressed by the league owners.

In his book MacCambridge relates an incident that is now more than 50 years old. It happened at a meeting of organized baseball in Arizona in the winter of 1952. Bill Veeck, then the owner of the St. Louis Browns, introduced the idea of shared television revenue to his other baseball owners. “It’s my contention that the Browns provide half the cast in every game they play,” Veeck said. “Therefore, we’re entitled to our cut of the TV fees the home club receives for televising games.”

Some of the other owners called him “a damned Communist” for introducing the idea and the media thought Veeck was a kook.

He was anything but, more like a prophet. To this day, baseball does not share local television revenue and it has created the two-tiered system of big-revenue/small revenue teams that has destroyed the balance of the game.

In explaining himself, Veeck went on to say about the then current system in major league baseball: “Under this system they want to continue the rich clubs get richer and the poor clubs continue poor. With all the television money they’re getting the Yanks can continue to keep outbidding us for talent. They’ve signed $500,000 worth of bonus players in the last couple of years, paying for ‘em out of the TV money we help provide. We poorer clubs are helping cut our own throats. None of us is ever going to catch up with the Yankees at that rate.”

Veeck was right about baseball then, and 50 years later he’s been proven even more correct.

NFL owners share TV revenue now. But the extra money they make also comes to them because they are part of a professional football league. If Jerry Jones gets a naming rights deal for his stadium in Dallas, it’s because he is part of a group called the National Football League.

The strong, future of football depends on all for one, and one for all, whether all likes it or not.

The opinions offered in this column do not necessarily reflect those of the Kansas City Chiefs.

Lzen
03-30-2005, 09:26 AM
Good article. I agree with the one for all, all for one mindset. I don't want to see the NFL end up like MLB.

keg in kc
03-30-2005, 10:15 AM
Interesting read.

Chiefnj
03-30-2005, 10:42 AM
"If Jerry Jones gets a naming rights deal for his stadium in Dallas, it’s because he is part of a group called the National Football League."

Kind of interesting to make this point. Peter King wrote this week that Jones argued that if he goes out by himself and negotiates a deal to name Dallas stadium why should he have to share that revenue with owners who aren't willing to do the same thing. I think he pointed out Cincy and "Paul Brown Stadium" saying that if you want to name it after your dead parent, that's great, but don't expect to share in my hard work for my stadium. I think Jones has a point.

shaneo69
03-30-2005, 10:45 AM
I'm torn on the cap issue. In one sense, I should be glad we have one so that the Chiefs can compete with the big market teams. On the other hand, we haven't won a playoff game since they started using a cap, so it hasn't helped us one iota.

shaneo69
03-30-2005, 10:48 AM
"If Jerry Jones gets a naming rights deal for his stadium in Dallas, it’s because he is part of a group called the National Football League."

Kind of interesting to make this point. Peter King wrote this week that Jones argued that if he goes out by himself and negotiates a deal to name Dallas stadium why should he have to share that revenue with owners who aren't willing to do the same thing. I think he pointed out Cincy and "Paul Brown Stadium" saying that if you want to name it after your dead parent, that's great, but don't expect to share in my hard work for my stadium. I think Jones has a point.

You're right, but if he had no other teams to play against, no one would pay him for naming rights, and he wouldn't have a stadium. Maybe Jones should break off from the NFL and start a new league with just the "new-guard" owners. And they could all keep whatever revenue they were able to bring in.

AirForceChief
03-30-2005, 10:53 AM
I'm torn on the cap issue. In one sense, I should be glad we have one so that the Chiefs can compete with the big market teams. On the other hand, we haven't won a playoff game since they started using a cap, so it hasn't helped us one iota.

I'm confused...what's one (the cap) got to do with the other (Chief's playoff victories)? Apples and oranges. I can only give you the legos, I can't build the cool dinosaur for you...

Chiefnj
03-30-2005, 10:54 AM
You're right, but if he had no other teams to play against, no one would pay him for naming rights, and he wouldn't have a stadium. Maybe Jones should break off from the NFL and start a new league with just the "new-guard" owners. And they could all keep whatever revenue they were able to bring in.

If they want him to share it, then all NFL stadiums should have to sell their name and the money put into a pot and split. Do you want Jones to keep his 20 million or do you want the Chiefs playing at Kotex Field??

Kerberos
03-30-2005, 10:57 AM
I'm torn on the cap issue. In one sense, I should be glad we have one so that the Chiefs can compete with the big market teams. On the other hand, we haven't won a playoff game since they started using a cap, so it hasn't helped us one iota.


Big market teams will always have a draw to players more than the smaller market teams with or without salary cap. Big market teams that are based in Metropolis sized cities have tons more to offer and usually have more things and places at thier (players) disposal.

We havn't won a playoff game since the cap and "IT" (the cap) isn't the culprit here, its King Carls shitty track record at drafting. If you look at laws of averages ... most teams would have put SOMEONE else in charge of player evaluation and drafting after the first few blunders... but hey I guess Lamar is happy with paying for Never-Will-Be's! :hmmm:



.

shaneo69
03-30-2005, 11:01 AM
If they want him to share it, then all NFL stadiums should have to sell their name and the money put into a pot and split. Do you want Jones to keep his 20 million or do you want the Chiefs playing at Kotex Field??

Good question. Should the NFL owners force Hunt to sell naming rights to Arrowhead? Personally, I don't think Hunt can bitch about being in a small market, older stadium with fewer luxury suites if he's not trying to bring in money through other avenues (like naming rights). Wouldn't bother me if the Chiefs played at Kotex Field.

Kerberos
03-30-2005, 11:05 AM
Wouldn't bother me if the Chiefs played at Kotex Field.


You'd have to Pull a few Strings to get tickets though !

:)

shaneo69
03-30-2005, 11:17 AM
I'm confused...what's one (the cap) got to do with the other (Chief's playoff victories)? Apples and oranges. I can only give you the legos, I can't build the cool dinosaur for you...

I guess I'm of the obviously radical belief that had there not been a cap in place, we would've been able to do something to improve our woefully inept defense at some point during the past 4 years.

Hope this does not confuse you any further.

Lzen
03-30-2005, 11:19 AM
If they want him to share it, then all NFL stadiums should have to sell their name and the money put into a pot and split. Do you want Jones to keep his 20 million or do you want the Chiefs playing at Kotex Field??

Ok, let's exaggerate beyond reason just to make our point, shall we?
:rolleyes: Kotex Field? :shake:

BigChiefFan
03-30-2005, 11:19 AM
Sounds like Gretz is a communist.

whoman69
03-30-2005, 11:28 AM
I wouldn't think naming rights would be amongst the things that are shared. Only media revenue and part of the gate are shared. They want to go for no revenue sharing, KC will not even get to the playoffs in the future. You will have teams like in baseball that are in the same boat. Without revenue sharing, the cap is out of the question. What is the point of a cap if teams can't even afford to get up to that point?
I certainly don't think that its the league's business to tell individual owners how to run theirs. The teams that are making less money are hurting themselves, but its their decision to do so. The league certainly helps everyone generate revenue by threatening moves if new stadiums are not built.

Chiefnj
03-30-2005, 11:29 AM
Ok, let's exaggerate beyond reason just to make our point, shall we?
:rolleyes: Kotex Field? :shake:

Do you want Hunt to sell the naming rights to Arrowhead?

shaneo69
03-30-2005, 11:32 AM
Do you want Hunt to sell the naming rights to Arrowhead?

If he would use the money to sign FA's......yes.

Lzen
03-30-2005, 11:34 AM
Do you want Hunt to sell the naming rights to Arrowhead?


Frankly, that really would not bother me. We live in a corporate world. Everything is about naming rights anymore. I just thought your use of Kotex was pretty stupid.

StcChief
03-30-2005, 11:53 AM
Hallmark Stadium

Sprint Stadium

Who else would buck up in KC?

keg in kc
03-30-2005, 11:55 AM
I'd love to go to Boulevard Beer Field at Arrowhead Stadium.

Kerberos
03-30-2005, 11:57 AM
KC Masterpiece BBQ Field?

Chief Chief
03-30-2005, 12:20 PM
How does one get an e-mail to re-Gretz? I'll burn his eyes when he reads what I've got to say...

Logical
03-30-2005, 12:43 PM
Good article. I agree with the one for all, all for one mindset. I don't want to see the NFL end up like MLB.:thumb::thumb::thumb:

Mike Grose
03-30-2005, 12:51 PM
First of all, Hunt couldn't sell the naming rights to Arrowhead, because he does not own it. That would be part of the problem for teams of playing in publicly owned stadiums.

Second, since the whole point of naming rights is for exposure, the league can just tell Jerry to go ahead. However, the name of the stadium will not be broadcast on any release of any game played at the stadium. I suspect the naming rights money will dry up in a hurry.

htismaqe
03-30-2005, 12:57 PM
Hallmark Stadium

Sprint Stadium

Who else would buck up in KC?

Therein is part of the problem.

Smaller cities don't have the naming rights opportunities that larger cities do.

mcan
03-30-2005, 02:13 PM
Total revenue sharing? That will take power out of the owners' hands really. What motivation would they have to build a bigger stadium, or even to win games? Seems like they would get MUCH tighter with their money if they know that they are going to get hooked up with everybody else's money too...

Individual teams should share most of what they make, but the incentive to win is provided by a higher revenue in parking, merchandise, luxury boxes, etc... Those things don't sell if you don't win...

whoman69
03-30-2005, 02:28 PM
Therein is part of the problem.

Smaller cities don't have the naming rights opportunities that larger cities do.
Don't I know it. Our city did this to raise revenue, but found out that they were legally bound to pay for the name change on the arena. It cost more to make those changes than what they got from the company.

go bowe
03-30-2005, 03:02 PM
Total revenue sharing? That will take power out of the owners' hands really. What motivation would they have to build a bigger stadium, or even to win games? Seems like they would get MUCH tighter with their money if they know that they are going to get hooked up with everybody else's money too...

Individual teams should share most of what they make, but the incentive to win is provided by a higher revenue in parking, merchandise, luxury boxes, etc... Those things don't sell if you don't win...good point...

very good point...



(sorry vlad - this is a backslapping post, you're right...)

shaneo69
03-30-2005, 03:07 PM
Total revenue sharing? That will take power out of the owners' hands really. What motivation would they have to build a bigger stadium, or even to win games? Seems like they would get MUCH tighter with their money if they know that they are going to get hooked up with everybody else's money too...

Individual teams should share most of what they make, but the incentive to win is provided by a higher revenue in parking, merchandise, luxury boxes, etc... Those things don't sell if you don't win...

The big question is.......will a total revenue sharing plan give Lamar even less incentive to try and win a Super Bowl, or will it give him the money he needs to offer upfront cash to free agents?

Chiefnj
03-30-2005, 03:19 PM
The big question is.......will a total revenue sharing plan give Lamar even less incentive to try and win a Super Bowl, or will it give him the money he needs to offer upfront cash to free agents?

You don't think Lamar has money to offer free agents cash upfront?

shaneo69
03-30-2005, 03:47 PM
You don't think Lamar has money to offer free agents cash upfront?

I wouldn't dare ask Lamar to spend any of his oil money on football players. But apparently the $30 mil football profit he makes each year wasn't enough to keep him from being "cashed out" last offseason, which is the excuse I heard DV repeatedly use. Has Lamar/Carl ever given more than a $5.5 mil upfront bonus to a UFA? You're never going to get the elite guys without going higher than that.

Even on Bell's contract, which supposedly was a $3.5 upfront SB with $10 mil in guaranteed money, most agents wouldn't let their clients sign that contract. Because now when that agent tries to get the good college players to sign with him, other competing agents tell the players, "hey look, he only got Kendrell Bell a $3.5 mil SB; I got my client a $10 mil SB." That's why Carl always seems to be at odds with certain agents. He wants to do the contract on his terms, while the agent is trying to get the biggest SB. Bell's agent, who also happens to be Priest's agent, signed off on the (apparently) below-market deal because he knows that CP will reward Bell if he plays well in KC, like he did with Holmes.

htismaqe
03-30-2005, 04:00 PM
I wouldn't dare ask Lamar to spend any of his oil money on football players. But apparently the $30 mil football profit he makes each year wasn't enough to keep him from being "cashed out" last offseason, which is the excuse I heard DV repeatedly use. Has Lamar/Carl ever given more than a $5.5 mil upfront bonus to a UFA? You're never going to get the elite guys without going higher than that.

Even on Bell's contract, which supposedly was a $3.5 upfront SB with $10 mil in guaranteed money, most agents wouldn't let their clients sign that contract. Because now when that agent tries to get the good college players to sign with him, other competing agents tell the players, "hey look, he only got Kendrell Bell a $3.5 mil SB; I got my client a $10 mil SB." That's why Carl always seems to be at odds with certain agents. He wants to do the contract on his terms, while the agent is trying to get the biggest SB. Bell's agent, who also happens to be Priest's agent, signed off on the (apparently) below-market deal because he knows that CP will reward Bell if he plays well in KC, like he did with Holmes.

Chester McGlockton got $7.5M in 1998. Considering what's happened to NFL contracts, that's about the equivalent of $12-$14M this season...

tk13
03-30-2005, 04:04 PM
The "operating income" from Forbes last NFL report for the Chiefs was $24 million dollars, which is a big difference than $30 million dollars profit when you're talking about these top FA's getting double-digit signing bonuses. That number always seems to get inflated.... I don't really think Lamar is totally cashed out but he clearly doesn't make as much as these high-spending teams, and I don't think we're in deep trouble yet but it'll just get worse as these signing bonuses start going into the $20 mil+ range and all these other teams have new/renovated stadiums while following the Dan Snyder/Jerry Jones model.

Brock
03-30-2005, 04:07 PM
Chester McGlockton got $7.5M in 1998. Considering what's happened to NFL contracts, that's about the equivalent of $12-$14M this season...

That's a pretty good argument against ever doing it again.