Chiefs Mellinger: Clark Hunt must stand up to big-market NFL owners - Page 2

**Tribal Warfare** · 06-20-2011, 04:00 PM

Clark Hunt must stand up to big-market NFL owners
By SAM MELLINGER
The Kansas City Star

Cross your fingers and knock on wood and maybe even throw some change into a fountain. These things have a way of turning with frustrating quickness, you notice, but there is real reason to expect an end to the NFL lockout that will hit its 100th day this week.

Good signs: they’re bickering less in public, holding overnight meetings, and leaking hints this whole thing will be over soon. People in the know can imagine an agreement in place as soon as the end of the month.

When and if that happens — keep those fingers crossed — you will see NFL commissioner Roger Goodell and players union chief DeMaurice Smith in a predictable photo op, brothers in arms, celebrating a good day for the league and the country.

But, really, in Kansas City there will mostly be two reactions.

Hooray for football!

Is this good or bad for the Chiefs?

The Chiefs are honoring the NFL’s gag order on public comments, but with the help of a league source and a few players, the answer to that question starts to materialize.

Some of it may surprise you.

And it’s disproportionately on one person to make sure the outcome is good for Kansas City.

• • •

Leave your politics at the door. Maybe you’re rooting for the owners because the players have it good enough and you don’t want higher salaries passed along to you through hikes in ticket prices and such.

Or maybe you’re like me and hope the players get every dollar possible plus 10 percent because they are the ones we want to watch and the ones risking their health.

Whatever. Forget it. To paraphrase Obama, for the rest of this column, we are all Kansas City football fans.

If you can get yourself to that point then Chiefs fans might be motivated to root for the owners against the players, but more importantly the right owners against everyone else.

This is an oversimplification of an incredibly complex process, but strictly from a selfish Chiefs point of view, the percentage of revenue given to the teams instead of players is inconsequential compared to how the teams distribute revenue among themselves.

And because Chiefs’ owner Clark Hunt just happens to be heavily involved in negotiations, Kansas City’s interests will be represented in both debates.

Here’s how it works: if the owners get the large annual credit for investing they’re demanding, then that is more revenue available to distribute. More money generated in Minnesota or St. Louis, to pick two places that could use new stadiums, means more money shared throughout the league.

This is especially important in places like Kansas City, where even after the heavy renovations to Arrowhead Stadium, local revenues are still in the league’s bottom 25 percent.

The Chiefs rely more on revenue sharing than most teams, so it’s in their interests for as much revenue to be shared as possible.

The key point of this, though, is that the owners agree to continue the most equal revenue sharing system in major professional sports. More money to share doesn’t help the Chiefs if it’s shared unequally, and this is a battle that is much less players union vs. owners than it is Clark Hunt vs. Jerry Jones.

Jones, the outspoken Cowboys owner constantly pushing for individual teams to control more of their own revenue, is influential enough throughout the league that any deal probably needs his approval before enough other owners agree.

So in that way, the key part of the negotiations for the Chiefs’ future will be Hunt and others representing smaller markets to keep Jones and others in larger markets true to the NFL’s traditional all-for-one and one-for-all revenue system.

There is a reason the Packers were able to win the Super Bowl out of the smallest market in major American professional sports, and why places like Pittsburgh, San Diego and Kansas City can field winning NFL teams but mostly sorry Major League Baseball franchises.

The Steelers’ best years in sponsorship and media revenue are dwarfed in-state by the Eagles, for instance, even though the Steelers are perhaps the league’s most successful franchise.

Continuing to allow those teams an equal chance of winning games is critical to the Chiefs, and should be a much bigger priority here locally than personal rooting interests for the players or owners.

Remember: what’s good for the owners is generally good for Kansas City, but what’s good for the right owners is what’s best for Kansas City.

• • •

Some of this may be hard to digest. Some of it may go against what you believe in.

Hunt, in particular, has cut pay for all Chiefs employees making more than $50,000 per year. He’s held up as an example of greed gone wild in the NFL. Some of the criticism is warranted, some of it over the top, but when this lockout is over it will be mostly true that what is good for Hunt will be good for the Chiefs and their fans.

The Chiefs have one of the deepest and most talented groups of young players in the NFL, which can partially explain why they also had the league’s lowest payroll last year.

That’s all fine, at least at the moment, but this is a critical time for Hunt. Help frame this new CBA in a Chiefs-friendly way, then spend enough to make sure the team’s young talent stays in Kansas City.

Everything is in front of him, starting with the negotiation table. Chiefs’ executives and employees like to talk Hunt up, even privately, when there’s no chance they’ll be quoted. They talk about him being a college athlete and graduating at the top of his class and the whole thing is an obvious shot at the perception by some that Hunt’s only qualification for running the Chiefs is his last name.

There are strong views on both sides of this issue, and maybe this moment right now — the lockout and its resolution — is the one that makes the best case.

Hunt is part of the owners’ core negotiating team, along with Jones and a few others. He is there ostensibly to represent the interests of the Chiefs and other small-market teams.

When this is over, we know what the important parts will be for the Chiefs.

And we’ll know who to give the credit or blame.

Brock · 06-20-2011, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

He may be an egomaniac. But he cares enough to spend a lot of money on his team and to build a stadium that might as well be Disneyland. Rather that than a cheapskate like Mike Brown that makes a boatload of money and yet refuses to spend it on players that will make the team more fun to watch.

He's just another clown who's working to price the game out of reach of real fans.

ChiefsCountry · 06-20-2011, 08:15 PM

Jerry Jones is lucky that Aikman panned out or he would have been a laughing stock as an owner.

Backwards Masking · 06-20-2011, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brock

He's just another clown who's working to price the game out of reach of real fans.

Can't entirely disagree with you there. But at least he spends a lot more on his team than most owners (like ours). He would pocket as much as he could if he truly didn't care one iota about winning. And pricing the game out of reach of the real fans ain't a good business move. Though if he calculates the cost, probability and likelihood of his transactions and the bottom line's a little higher...

Brock · 06-20-2011, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Backwards Masking

Can't entirely disagree with you there. But at least he spends a lot more on his team than most owners (like ours). He would pocket as much as he could if he truly didn't care one iota about winning. And pricing the game out of reach of the real fans ain't a good business move. Though if he calculates the cost, probability and likelihood of his transactions and the bottom line's a little higher...

I don't care how much an owner spends. I care more how they spend. Daniel Snyder spends like a drunken sailor and I would never want him to own a team I cared about.

chiefzilla1501 · 06-20-2011, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiefsCountry

You do realize that the Bengals are the source of wealth for the Browns? They don't have other business ventures to bring in more money like alot of the other owners.

He also has one of the sweetest lease agreements in the NFL and continues to con the city out of money, and then he doesn't pump that money into the team--makes a bunch of cheapskate moves on problem players and markets it to his fans as "giving guys a second chance."

It doesn't matter if you have other business ventures. It's not hard for even bad NFL owners to make money regardless of the market you operate in. It's one of the sweetest investments in the world. And by the way, given that the team was handed down from his Dad, it's not like he's investing his hard-earned dollars into the team. He's taking over an investment. That's a hell of a lot different.

chiefzilla1501 · 06-20-2011, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brock

I don't care how much an owner spends. I care more how they spend. Daniel Snyder spends like a drunken sailor and I would never want him to own a team I cared about.

That's easy to say until you see the alternative. It happens in baseball all the time. People want to crucify the Yankees, when one of the biggest problems is that there are too many owners who under-spend on their teams because they're more interested in making profit than in putting the effort to field a World Series champion.

It sucks that you have to put a salary floor incentive to get owners to spend.

Think about your luxury boxes. Expensive seats. Who sits there? Rich guys who leave in the 4th quarter. Unfortunately, most of these owners are there to make money. Jerry Jones sucks as a spender, but I appreciate that he cares about winning, even if that's because winning leads to more money in his pockets. His problem is that he's so obsessed with winning that he micro-manages, the ssame problem Steinbreiner and Cuban always had.

milkman · 06-20-2011, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

That's easy to say until you see the alternative. It happens in baseball all the time. People want to crucify the Yankees, when one of the biggest problems is that there are too many owners who under-spend on their teams because they're more interested in making profit than in putting the effort to field a World Series champion.

It sucks that you have to put a salary floor incentive to get owners to spend.

Think about your luxury boxes. Expensive seats. Who sits there? Rich guys who leave in the 4th quarter. Unfortunately, most of these owners are there to make money. Jerry Jones sucks as a spender, but I appreciate that he cares about winning, even if that's because winning leads to more money in his pockets. His problem is that he's so obsessed with winning that he micro-manages, the ssame problem Steinbreiner and Cuban always had.

These small market owners aren't making nearly as much as you seem to think, and if the salary floor gets too high, teams like Detroit and Buffalo will eventually be working in the red.

Jerry Jones, Daniel Snyder and Jerry Richardson, among others, are killing the golden goose.

chiefzilla1501 · 06-20-2011, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkman

These small market owners aren't making nearly as much as you seem to think, and if the salary floor gets too high, teams like Detroit and Buffalo will eventually be working in the red.

Jerry Jones, Daniel Snyder and Jerry Richardson, among others, are killing the golden goose.

There's no doubt that richer NFL owners have it easier in that they can fail and still turn a profit. But let me ask why it's such a big deal for an owner to operate in the red. You bring up Detroit and Buffalo. Two teams that have had almost 10 straight losing seasons. Do these owners deserve to make money for doing shitty work? I would love for those guys to operate in the red so they can be fired.

There are a handful of owners I genuinely feel sorry for. Minnesota because they are hamstrung by a shitty stadium, and Jacksonville because it's a shitty market. The others? The fact that Buffalo can post that many losing seasons in a row and still keep the ownership tells you they're not doing too bad.

And I'm not at all convinced that it's easy at all to operate in the red. They share a shitload of revenue. And the majority of them are getting sweetheart deals from taxpayers and the city to keep the team there. Not only that, but they're building them expensive stadiums on the taxpayer dime that gives them the license to charge even higher prices and make more money.

So no, I have a very hard time believing owners are struggling. How many times have you seen an NFL owner sell their franchise because of money? Even really, really bad franchises with poor attendance numbers? Sweetest gig in America--even when you're horribly bad, you can still stay largely in the black.

**wazu** · 06-20-2011, 10:39 PM

Lost in all of this debate: This is far and away Mellinger's best column ever.

Titty Meat · 06-20-2011, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiefsCountry

NFL parity is jokeable bc the QB position truly determines what teams are the best.

I'd rather have some cap to prevent a QB from leaving here to go to NY like baseball.

Titty Meat · 06-20-2011, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkman

These small market owners aren't making nearly as much as you seem to think, and if the salary floor gets too high, teams like Detroit and Buffalo will eventually be working in the red.

Jerry Jones, Daniel Snyder and Jerry Richardson, among others, are killing the golden goose.

You speak as if you've seen the numbers. Nope you're just talking out of your ass again.

|Zach| · 06-20-2011, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

Lost in all of this debate: This is far and away Mellinger's best column ever.

You haven't liked his stuff?

ChiefsCountry · 06-20-2011, 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

The fact that Buffalo can post that many losing seasons in a row and still keep the ownership tells you they're not doing too bad.

Buffalo's owner has owned the team since the very beginning. As soon as Wilson dies the team is going to Toronto.

rocknrolla · 06-21-2011, 12:01 AM

Daniel Snyder jerks off to Mark Cubans picture everyday.

**wazu** · 06-21-2011, 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by |Zach|

You haven't liked his stuff?

No. The Star has pretty much been dead since Whitlock left.

Edit: But I'm looking for a hero.

06-20-2011, 04:00 PM
Tribal Warfare Man of Culture Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Far Beyond Comprehension Casino cash: $-2777187	Mellinger: Clark Hunt must stand up to big-market NFL owners Clark Hunt must stand up to big-market NFL owners By SAM MELLINGER The Kansas City Star Cross your fingers and knock on wood and maybe even throw some change into a fountain. These things have a way of turning with frustrating quickness, you notice, but there is real reason to expect an end to the NFL lockout that will hit its 100th day this week. Good signs: they’re bickering less in public, holding overnight meetings, and leaking hints this whole thing will be over soon. People in the know can imagine an agreement in place as soon as the end of the month. When and if that happens — keep those fingers crossed — you will see NFL commissioner Roger Goodell and players union chief DeMaurice Smith in a predictable photo op, brothers in arms, celebrating a good day for the league and the country. But, really, in Kansas City there will mostly be two reactions. Hooray for football! Is this good or bad for the Chiefs? The Chiefs are honoring the NFL’s gag order on public comments, but with the help of a league source and a few players, the answer to that question starts to materialize. Some of it may surprise you. And it’s disproportionately on one person to make sure the outcome is good for Kansas City. • • • Leave your politics at the door. Maybe you’re rooting for the owners because the players have it good enough and you don’t want higher salaries passed along to you through hikes in ticket prices and such. Or maybe you’re like me and hope the players get every dollar possible plus 10 percent because they are the ones we want to watch and the ones risking their health. Whatever. Forget it. To paraphrase Obama, for the rest of this column, we are all Kansas City football fans. If you can get yourself to that point then Chiefs fans might be motivated to root for the owners against the players, but more importantly the right owners against everyone else. This is an oversimplification of an incredibly complex process, but strictly from a selfish Chiefs point of view, the percentage of revenue given to the teams instead of players is inconsequential compared to how the teams distribute revenue among themselves. And because Chiefs’ owner Clark Hunt just happens to be heavily involved in negotiations, Kansas City’s interests will be represented in both debates. Here’s how it works: if the owners get the large annual credit for investing they’re demanding, then that is more revenue available to distribute. More money generated in Minnesota or St. Louis, to pick two places that could use new stadiums, means more money shared throughout the league. This is especially important in places like Kansas City, where even after the heavy renovations to Arrowhead Stadium, local revenues are still in the league’s bottom 25 percent. The Chiefs rely more on revenue sharing than most teams, so it’s in their interests for as much revenue to be shared as possible. The key point of this, though, is that the owners agree to continue the most equal revenue sharing system in major professional sports. More money to share doesn’t help the Chiefs if it’s shared unequally, and this is a battle that is much less players union vs. owners than it is Clark Hunt vs. Jerry Jones. Jones, the outspoken Cowboys owner constantly pushing for individual teams to control more of their own revenue, is influential enough throughout the league that any deal probably needs his approval before enough other owners agree. So in that way, the key part of the negotiations for the Chiefs’ future will be Hunt and others representing smaller markets to keep Jones and others in larger markets true to the NFL’s traditional all-for-one and one-for-all revenue system. There is a reason the Packers were able to win the Super Bowl out of the smallest market in major American professional sports, and why places like Pittsburgh, San Diego and Kansas City can field winning NFL teams but mostly sorry Major League Baseball franchises. The Steelers’ best years in sponsorship and media revenue are dwarfed in-state by the Eagles, for instance, even though the Steelers are perhaps the league’s most successful franchise. Continuing to allow those teams an equal chance of winning games is critical to the Chiefs, and should be a much bigger priority here locally than personal rooting interests for the players or owners. Remember: what’s good for the owners is generally good for Kansas City, but what’s good for the right owners is what’s best for Kansas City. • • • Some of this may be hard to digest. Some of it may go against what you believe in. Hunt, in particular, has cut pay for all Chiefs employees making more than $50,000 per year. He’s held up as an example of greed gone wild in the NFL. Some of the criticism is warranted, some of it over the top, but when this lockout is over it will be mostly true that what is good for Hunt will be good for the Chiefs and their fans. The Chiefs have one of the deepest and most talented groups of young players in the NFL, which can partially explain why they also had the league’s lowest payroll last year. That’s all fine, at least at the moment, but this is a critical time for Hunt. Help frame this new CBA in a Chiefs-friendly way, then spend enough to make sure the team’s young talent stays in Kansas City. Everything is in front of him, starting with the negotiation table. Chiefs’ executives and employees like to talk Hunt up, even privately, when there’s no chance they’ll be quoted. They talk about him being a college athlete and graduating at the top of his class and the whole thing is an obvious shot at the perception by some that Hunt’s only qualification for running the Chiefs is his last name. There are strong views on both sides of this issue, and maybe this moment right now — the lockout and its resolution — is the one that makes the best case. Hunt is part of the owners’ core negotiating team, along with Jones and a few others. He is there ostensibly to represent the interests of the Chiefs and other small-market teams. When this is over, we know what the important parts will be for the Chiefs. And we’ll know who to give the credit or blame.
Posts: 43,419

06-20-2011, 08:15 PM	#17
ChiefsCountry The Insider Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Lake of the Ozarks Casino cash: $-1371248	Jerry Jones is lucky that Aikman panned out or he would have been a laughing stock as an owner.
Posts: 51,992

06-20-2011, 10:39 PM	#24
wazu ... Join Date: May 2002 Location: Kansas City, MO Casino cash: $-1477705 VARSITY	Lost in all of this debate: This is far and away Mellinger's best column ever.
Posts: 30,606

06-21-2011, 12:01 AM	#29
rocknrolla I'm the MFCEO Join Date: May 2011 Casino cash: $-1094368	Daniel Snyder jerks off to Mark Cubans picture everyday.
Posts: 2,318