Posted on Tuesday, 10/27/2009 - 2:08 p.m. PDT — by SirPiggy
Under the current collective bargaining agreement 12.5% of merchandise sales goes to the NFL for revenue sharing...33% of ticket sales are shared...Teams with large markets and state of the art stadiums have a definate advantage as luxury suites, local media agreements, sponsorships, clubs and promotions are not shared...Teams noted by the players union as having unfair competitive advantages because of revenue are Den, NE, Dal, Was, Hou, Phi, Cle & Chi...
Over the years worldwide team merchandise sales have been dominated by Raiders gear and the numbers are not even close...This has made up for lack of ticket sales over the years...But, this is changing...The current top 10 list (2008):
1. Dallas Cowboys
2. New England Patriots
3. Pittsburgh Steelers
4. Chicago Bears
5. Green Bay Packers
6. Indianapolis Colts
7. Washington Redskins
8. New York Giants
9. Philadelphia Eagles
10. San Diego Chargers
According to Forbes, as of September 10, 2008, Oakland overall value is rated 31 of the 32 teams (#30 - SF, #32 - Minn)...Although this doesn't necasarily speak to contributions to the revenue sharing pot, I assume there is a correlation...
The late, great Gene Upshaw argued in 2005, "...if they have some owners who are non-performers, they should do what they do to . . . players, and cut them."
According to Jerry McDonald, the announced crowd of 39,354 was the lowest home attendance for a game in Oakland since 1968.
Before the jets game, 3 of the 7 blackouts league wide were Oakland...
What this all means: The league eventually is going to put more and more pressure on Davis (ie: even worse officiating at the very least) to pull his weight or get off the pot...Davis will be looking to rape Los Angeles for $....
Joined: Jun 2009
Current Posts: 164
You are the man. Although I tried to explain in a earlier post the problem with this point. I do not believe Al Davis to be a money driven man. When he moved the team to LA he was obvoulsy looking to get a new stadium and make more money, granted. And when he moved back to Oakland is was because Mount Davis was built and it gave him luxury boxes, as well as the capacity to house a Super Bowl, which is a different conversation. So yes he has had money driven motives, but I do not believe that translate to his idoligy of what the game of football is to him.
What I am trying to say is by boycotting the team it is not going to make him change is ways when it come to hiring of coaches and controlling schemes or his fasination with the pure athlete. it is only going to make him want to move the team... again.
Joined: Aug 2007
Current Posts: 652
If you've followed the Raiders over the years, you know Davis is planning another move back to LA...He left out of frustration the last time...The Coliseum never provided the luxury suites promissed...Fema threatened to pull the $ from the Northridge earthquake funds if the Coliseum insisted on reinforcing the foundational structure with the specifications to later withstand the addition of luxory suites...This was not long after the NFL stepped in to kill the Irwindale deal...In my opinion, given the show of 'influence' on the Federal level (See Arlen Specter and the end of Spygate), the NFL played obstructionist against Davis' attempts for luxory suites...The Zebra treatment alone, shows their desire and willingness to stick it to Davis...But, I digress...After years of broken promises, the Coliseum caved to Fema and basically told Davis, the gigs up on luxory suites...Oakland said we got 'em and will PSL our way to more....You know the rest...Including Davis' insistence he owns the 'rights' to LA...And if I remember correctly, the current lease in Oakland is up in 2010...
The interesting caveat to me doesn't really involve the coming move though....Davis brought the league $ with team merchandise sales...No longer true....He wielded power with his relationship with the late, Great, President of the Players Union...That is no more...His 'tenticles' are cut...The NFL is bigger and stronger...Davis is vulnerable...
Thanks again Man...
P
Joined: Aug 2006
Current Posts: 204
His ideology? The only thing Kim Jung Al thinks about is proving to every single naysayer on the planet that he is greatest football mind ever to be associated with the NFL.
Al has no shot at LA. The guy putting up the money to build the stadium wants a 40% stake in any team that moves there-- can't see our petty, p/r/i/c/k owner going for that.
As for boycotting, the goal is to put Al in terrible financial straits forcing him making serious operational changes, or better yet, sell his majority stake. And it is starting to take shape.
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH PEOPLE!!
Next home game would love to see less than 30,000.
KIM JUNG AL MUST GO!!!!
Joined: Aug 2007
Current Posts: 652
The NFL bilks the taxpayers out of a billion or so dollars per city. It's why LA does not have a team...The NFL has had trouble convincing the second largest TV market in the USA, it needs a team more than the NFL needs the TV market...And if they give LA a team, Houston, JVille, Cleavland, etc may not be so happy with how much they had to pay...And future taxpayer rapings will be less likely if they did too...
Bottom line, the NFL needs a team to move there...And that stadium needs a team to play there...But the $ comes from the city...The team pays the stadium rent...And 'rent' is not usually the same as the price of buying a new stadium (40% of a Billion)...
Ideology? It's called competitive to the nth degree...