Labor Agreement 2010: Uncapped Year/What Does This Do To GB?

[SnakeLH2006]

There's been some discussion on PR lately about the insane deals pre-FA lately with Big "Walking Dead" Al Davis handing out his normal insane contracts for the CB ($5 million more a year on a yearly average salary than the 2nd paid, Champ Baily...really??) and Peppers getting $17 million for 1 year on a franchise tag.

Some said those figures didn't matter as it was Al or a tag, but when you up the highest paid player WAY over the others, it still comes into play as T. Kelly's deal last year was only SLIGHTLY over the next highest DL contract. These new figures are worriesome in the fact they go WAY over the next highest paid yearly figures not by thousands but several millions.

This goes into the fact that when top CB's and DL go into negotioations, those MAY be starting figures in the future.

Regardless, Snake is wondering about a deeper picture with an uncapped year in 2010 looking more and more likely.

I don't have all the facts (and hope Patler and Waldo can shed some statistical light on it all), but there are some advantages as UFA's would have to wait 6 years to reach unrestricted status instead of 4, and many other various issues that negate the lack of a cap. In the short term, like 1 year, this may not be bad for Green Bay. But in the smallest NFL market, I doubt we'd be able to compete with Jerry Jones (who has been pushing for this so his Dallas Yankees can run amok in football much like NY does in baseball vs. the small-market Brewers).

As much as I love baseball, and the 2008 Brew Crew, it makes me sad to see how 2009 is an afterthought with the Yanks playing like shit, but shelling $500 million to buy the best players (including CC who I loved with the Crew).

Could this happen in the NFL? I doubt it as the NFL is the greatest run sports league bar none, but what if? What are the ramifications in 2010 should a new labor agreement not be reached with a cap? What are the chances of this? Anyone have more stats about our players contracts come then? Could we survive and be on an even playing field with the likes of Paul Allen, Jerry Jones, Al Davis, and Daniel Snyder buying their SB teams?

Snake steps back and opens it up as this is something growing realer every day and should concern EVERY Rat in this forum.

[Lurker64]

You really have to think that a deal will get hammered out, since not getting a new CBA in place will be disastrous for both players and teams.

In addition to the prospect of an uncapped year (which teams don't like), the following things will happen that players won't like:
1) Players will need to be in the league for six years instead of five in order to qualify as free agents. Players who were expected to be UFAs in 2010 will be RFAs instead. Players who were expected to enter their first year of any sort of free agency (three years of accrued service), will remain ERFAs, and will not be elligible to become RFAs until after four years.
2) Teams will have an additional tag to apply to players, to prevent them from going anywhere in free agency.
3) Free agents will be significantly hindered in any attempts to sign with good teams, as the rules would tie the hands of the 8 teams that make it to the divisional round of the playoffs in free agency so that they cannot offer deals as good as the other 24 teams can (teams don't like this either).
4) In addition to there being no maximum salaries, there will be no minimum salaries either. So players who are not superstars may end up receiving less money than they did the previous year, and the superstars are by far the minority in terms of "who the NFLPA represents.)

Not only that, but the outlook past 2010 is bleak. If a CBA is not hammered out to cover the 2011 season, among other things the NFL draft becomes illegal (it's an anti-trust violation), so that it would be utter chaos in terms of "what college players end up where". Not only that, but we would almost certainly be staring at a lockout at 2011.

With how successful the NFL is now, the NFLPA and the NFL team owners would be frankly idiotic if they didn't get some deal done ASAP. Problematically, the NFLPA can't seem to get their act together to actually get to the bargaining table, they're too busy backbiting and playing politics while the leadership void is unfilled.

[SnakeLH2006]

You really have to think that a deal will get hammered out, since not getting a new CBA in place will be disastrous for both players and teams.

In addition to the prospect of an uncapped year (which teams don't like), the following things will happen that players won't like:
1) Players will need to be in the league for six years instead of five in order to qualify as free agents. Players who were expected to be UFAs in 2010 will be RFAs instead. Players who were expected to enter their first year of any sort of free agency (three years of accrued service), will remain ERFAs, and will not be elligible to become RFAs until after four years.
2) Teams will have an additional tag to apply to players, to prevent them from going anywhere in free agency.
3) Free agents will be significantly hindered in any attempts to sign with good teams, as the rules would tie the hands of the 8 teams that make it to the divisional round of the playoffs in free agency so that they cannot offer deals as good as the other 24 teams can (teams don't like this either).
4) In addition to there being no maximum salaries, there will be no minimum salaries either. So players who are not superstars may end up receiving less money than they did the previous year, and the superstars are by far the minority in terms of "who the NFLPA represents.)

Not only that, but the outlook past 2010 is bleak. If a CBA is not hammered out to cover the 2011 season, among other things the NFL draft becomes illegal (it's an anti-trust violation), so that it would be utter chaos in terms of "what college players end up where". Not only that, but we would almost certainly be staring at a lockout at 2011.

With how successful the NFL is now, the NFLPA and the NFL team owners would be frankly idiotic if they didn't get some deal done ASAP. Problematically, the NFLPA can't seem to get their act together to actually get to the bargaining table, they're too busy backbiting and playing politics while the leadership void is unfilled.

Yep..Good post. Snake agrees, as in the short term this isn't too bad for GB as I remember the specifics you stated, Lurker.

But UFA as of now and in the past in the NFL is 4 years not 5 as you stated, but regardless RFA and tags are hugely in the advantage for the teams under the wording. The ability for the top 8 teams to sign good players in UFA becomes clouded too, as this was good on the part of the owners to hold a "cap" of sorts to not unleash a Yankees/MLB type of big market mess that makes MLB a joke.

They (the owners and moneymakers) know that a cap is the best for the league. And unlike baseball (where the MBLPA runs the shit) the owners and Goodell will most likely (and realize) know it's for the best to keep a tight cap for the interest of fans. Does anyone really think Pittsburgh or Arizona would be the SuperBowl teams in an uncapped league like baseball? No, it would lose face fast as only 6-8 teams would control the FA market, etc. If that happened, I'd say fuck sports in general, as Goodell knows that, and I doubt it happens long-term.

But, what of our player contracts...How would that play out in 2010 or 2011 IF this did arise with no cap?

[3irty1]

Does anyone really think Pittsburgh or Arizona would be the SuperBowl teams in an uncapped league like baseball?

Arizona won the series in 2001. Last year the Rays made it to the world series.

I actually prefer the way the business side of the MLB is handled better the NFL. In baseball a contract still means something. You don't see players holding out. You don't see rookies getting monster pay days until they actually produce for a few years.

[Waldo]

You guys have to remember that the NFL and MLB are very different. More people go see the average Yankee game than the average Brewer game. A lot more. Over the course of 100+ games (I don't know how many) there ends up being a huge discrepancy between the haves and have nots. I'm not sure about the TV deals, but I don't think that there is nearly as much sharing of TV profits as the NFL.

Most NFL stadiums hold about the same # of people, and most games sell out every week for every team. Television profits are evenly split. The difference between the haves and have nots isn't nearly as big.

Deep pockets are really only useful if you are going on a FA spending spree, to cover the cost of a lot of signing bonuses hitting at once. Jerry Jones is a businessman, not an idiot, he's not going to run his team in the red just to win over any length of time. All owners are like this (the only one I can see running their team in the red for the heck of it is P Allen, he's by far the wealthiest owner).

With that said, teams will continue to cap player payroll at a level that allows them to draw a profit off the top of the business over a rolling yearly average (just like the salary cap). How much money the team earns will play a large role in determining how much the team spends.

You guys have to remember, just because GB is in some po dunk little city, and has no single owner, their bank account blows away most owners, and they are always top 10 in revenue because of team popularity. We are one of the teams that has to pay into the general pool for the broke teams like the Vikes and Bills in revenue sharing. If the cap goes away, it helps, not hurts, the Packers.

[cpk1994]

Does anyone really think Pittsburgh or Arizona would be the SuperBowl teams in an uncapped league like baseball?

Arizona won the series in 2001. Last year the Rays made it to the world series.

I actually prefer the way the business side of the MLB is handled better the NFL. In baseball a contract still means something. You don't see players holding out. You don't see rookies getting monster pay days until they actually produce for a few years.But in the NFL, the Green Bay's have a better chance at retaining big name players. Just look at CC Sabathia. In the NFL system, CC is likely pitching for the Brewers right now insteadof the Yankees. As for the Rays and Arizona, those are the exceptoin to the rule. Every year in the playoffs you see teams from New York Chicago LA and Boston. THere are pros and cons to everything, but there is a reason why NFL is far more popular.

[red]

the uncapped year was a tool to force the two sides back into talks to redo the cba when the time came

we are now one year away from that time and there has been zero talks about redoing the cba.

in fact the union doesn't even have a head guy right now because the last one kicked over and they can't agree on a replacement

the owners will not allow an uncapped year because there has been a lot of talk that once you have an uncapped year there will be no way of bringing the cap back. they will lock out before the uncapped year

like i've said in other threads, take in all the football you can this year, it might be awhile before you see it again

this will get messy

[Bretsky]

I doubt we see an uncapped year

IMO an ugly lockout will come first

[texaspackerbacker]

I hate to side with the doom and gloomers, but I think red and Bretsky are right.

The plan has to be early negotiations and a new CBA. Unfortunately, there is little incentive for the players to do that--and miss out on the uncapped season. From the teams point of view, they are faced with the horrendous choice of the uncapped season with all its bad implications (letting the horse out of the barn and not being able to get it back in, as somebody stated in the other thread) or locking out the players, which basically means no revenue--and an equally horrible secondary decision--paying players to sit or defaulting on contracts, which amounts to cutting quality players.

A little doom and gloom may be justified here--and I'm probably the biggest optimist in the forum most of the time.

[Waldo]

We're going to have 1 uncapped year. Many owners want it, especially the most powerful ones (Jones, Snyder) poorest ones (Vikes, Bills, Bengals)(if there is a cap next year the Cowboys would be 20-30M over the cap, they wrote their contracts to take advantage of the uncapped year and backloaded the snot out of their contracts). Dallas is in full rebuild mode next year if there is a cap.

The uncapped year is much better for teams than players. Far, far fewer players will make it to FA, with no players cut for cap reasons, an extra franchise/transition tag per team, and players not hitting UFA eligibility until 6 years in the league, if there is no cap, there pretty much will be no useful players in FA, just a bunch of old over the hill guys at the end.

1 uncapped year is not a bad thing if the cap is reinstated afterwards. Ownership will allow the single uncapped year, but will lock the players out until it is reinstated afterwards.

[bobblehead]

No cap will destroy the integrity and quality of the game. This isn't baseball where you can sub in a scrappy slap hitter for a mauler and over 162 games not be ruined.

I believe that there will be a compromise and a cap in place come 2010, if not I will lose a lot of my love for the game. I have lost my love for basketball because of the officiating, I am only interested in baseball because I love fantasy baseball, but football is still a pure game. I really would hope that it doesn't get ruined for me too.

[Lurker64]

The actual uncapped year isn't problematic, since there will be virtually no player movement whatsoever that year (No young guys becoming FAs, tons of tags.) The year after that isn't promising, however. The NFL shouldn't operate long term without a cap, but with the way that 2010 is set up, it won't be crippling for competitive balance. Teams won't be able to go out and sign all the FAs, since there simply won't be any who are worth a damn.

This year the Panthers faced a dilemma with Peppers and Gross because they only had one tag. Next year, they could just tag them both. Only teams who have three marquee free agents would end up letting any of them walk, and you really only have to sign one guy and then nobody walks.

2010 will be very bad for the players.

[red]

that may not be true lurker

your post got me thinking. what happens to prorated signing bonuses in the uncapped year?

right now you can release a guy, and his pro rated signing bonus would count against the cap, or the following year if done in june

but what happens if there is no salary cap?

could this june and next year just turn into one big dumping spree for every team that has a player that isn't living up to his contract, without any penalties?

or is there something in place to prevent that from happening?

starting this june you could see a huge amount of players (like corey williams, or javon walker) get let go and hit the market again. the teams would only be hit by this years smaller cap penalty(the one year PRSB), the bigger hit that should come next year wouldn't matter one bit

this could be a once in a lifetime opportunity for GM's and teams to erase past mistakes with no, or minimal penalty

[Lurker64]

That's astute, red. But the situation you describe is not one that the players probably want to see. If everybody who is not performing up to their contract is cut, how many of them do you suppose will be able to sign a better deal somewhere else? Almost none (I'd say none, but there are some questionable GMs in the league.)

So if all the teams cut all their chaff, and use the money (and tags) they have to keep around their best players (since even in an uncapped year, money is finite), free agency is still going to be somewhat of a wasteland. When Corey Williams looks around, and wonders why no one will pay him $38,000,000 over 6 years, the players may miss the old system.

Also, it's important to note that in 2010 there will be no minimum salaries.

[SnakeLH2006]

Seeing how we will probably have an uncapped 2010...a couple of interesting points came up...

1) Dumping. If all the teams who run a foolish cap like the Raiders, Redskins, Cowboys, etc...get their way and dump the bad contracts, this will help them reload immediately even if a cap comes into place 2011 or beyond. This is bad news for teams in smaller markets who run great cap schemes like the Packers, Ravens, Eagles, Titans, etc. as of late. What incentive did they have to keep all this in check when we they could have run roughshod like Crazy Al. There's more to this.

2) Once uncapped..hard to get back. This would be tough, as I'm sure the NFLPA would be fine to let the players suffer for a year or so of tags, etc. to open it up over the long haul for $25-$30 million annual contracts for QB's and the premium players. The minimum players won't suffer much in the long haul either as there won't be a minimum salary.

3) Tags become more plentiful. This sounds good in theory, but when the top owners start paying HUGE salaries, these tags go up so much it would be hard in 2014 to tag Barnett at $17 million a year when that is the top 5 MLB salary potentially. These tags will get insane and unused by smaller market teams. Yes, the Packers are #10 in revenue, but I disagree that we are better off than most every owner as Waldo stated. We have about $150-200 million in reserves, that could be depleted in a short period of time with a few uncapped seasons...turning the NFL into MLB by 2012 or so. That is scary as GB could not keep up in the long haul. There's no poor owners in the NFL as EVERY team has a payroll of $100 millon. Some teams would eventually fold in an uncapped league over time.

4) Loss of Draft. This is really bad as the top 5 owners can bid away in a mini-FA type of way to solidify their teams. Hard to blame a top RB out of college when he could get $12 million a year from Jerry Jones or $6 million from the Packers in a few years.

Bottom Line:

Not much scares Snake, as only one year of an uncapped league isn't too bad....but, a future like this will turn the NFL into MLB and the hell if I'll religiously follow a Packer team just hoping to get some retreads and young guys together to MAYBE make a run at 9-7 after several years of missing the playoffs to NY, Chicago, etc. like baseball. I'd give up sports as it's such a drain to see what happened to baseball. 2008 BrewCrew is a long memory now, as the Mets, Yanks, Cubs, etc. run baseball EVERY year. Let's just hope this doesn't happen to the NFL. But it may happen.

[Waldo]

Seeing how we will probably have an uncapped 2010...a couple of interesting points came up...

1) Dumping. If all the teams who run a foolish cap like the Raiders, Redskins, Cowboys, etc...get their way and dump the bad contracts, this will help them reload immediately even if a cap comes into place 2011 or beyond. This is bad news for teams in smaller markets who run great cap schemes like the Packers, Ravens, Eagles, Titans, etc. as of late. What incentive did they have to keep all this in check when we they could have run roughshod like Crazy Al. There's more to this.

2) Once uncapped..hard to get back. This would be tough, as I'm sure the NFLPA would be fine to let the players suffer for a year or so of tags, etc. to open it up over the long haul for $25-$30 million annual contracts for QB's and the premium players. The minimum players won't suffer much in the long haul either as there won't be a minimum salary.

3) Tags become more plentiful. This sounds good in theory, but when the top owners start paying HUGE salaries, these tags go up so much it would be hard in 2014 to tag Barnett at $17 million a year when that is the top 5 MLB salary potentially. These tags will get insane and unused by smaller market teams. Yes, the Packers are #10 in revenue, but I disagree that we are better off than most every owner as Waldo stated. We have about $150-200 million in reserves, that could be depleted in a short period of time with a few uncapped seasons...turning the NFL into MLB by 2012 or so. That is scary as GB could not keep up in the long haul. There's no poor owners in the NFL as EVERY team has a payroll of $100 millon. Some teams would eventually fold in an uncapped league over time.

4) Loss of Draft. This is really bad as the top 5 owners can bid away in a mini-FA type of way to solidify their teams. Hard to blame a top RB out of college when he could get $12 million a year from Jerry Jones or $6 million from the Packers in a few years.

Bottom Line:

Not much scares Snake, as only one year of an uncapped league isn't too bad....but, a future like this will turn the NFL into MLB and the hell if I'll religiously follow a Packer team just hoping to get some retreads and young guys together to MAYBE make a run at 9-7 after several years of missing the playoffs to NY, Chicago, etc. like baseball. I'd give up sports as it's such a drain to see what happened to baseball. 2008 BrewCrew is a long memory now, as the Mets, Yanks, Cubs, etc. run baseball EVERY year. Let's just hope this doesn't happen to the NFL. But it may happen.

Everyone is afraid of the mythical "deep pocket owner" who is willing to blow hundreds of millions of dollars in order to win. What owners do you think are stupid enough and well off enough to do this. The point of a business is to earn a profit, not basically burn money. The Yankees and whatnot are still profitable in MLB.

[sharpe1027]

Everyone is afraid of the mythical "deep pocket owner" who is willing to blow hundreds of millions of dollars in order to win. What owners do you think are stupid enough and well off enough to do this. The point of a business is to earn a profit, not basically burn money. The Yankees and whatnot are still profitable in MLB.

I am afraid of small market teams running in deficits and still being 1/3 of the bigger market teams. Granted, baseball is currently setup with a larger gap between teams; however, isn't part of the reason for the gap that fans realize their small market teams are playing against a stacked deck? Look at the Brewers, their revenue was consistently bottom of the barrel and in deficits

I can see something similar happening in the NFL, the fans of small market teams see their team losing and, unlike today, feel that it is due to an unfair system. That turns off the fans and the losing team gets in a deeper and deeper hole.

[Zool]

Maybe I missed this somewhere, but does the lack of a cap have any effect on the profit sharing in the NFL?

[Waldo]

Everyone is afraid of the mythical "deep pocket owner" who is willing to blow hundreds of millions of dollars in order to win. What owners do you think are stupid enough and well off enough to do this. The point of a business is to earn a profit, not basically burn money. The Yankees and whatnot are still profitable in MLB.

I am afraid of small market teams running in deficits and still being 1/3 of the bigger market teams. Granted, baseball is currently setup with a larger gap between teams; however, isn't part of the reason for the gap that fans realize their small market teams are playing against a stacked deck? Look at the Brewers, their revenue was consistently bottom of the barrel and in deficits

I can see something similar happening in the NFL, the fans of small market teams see their team losing and, unlike today, feel that it is due to an unfair system. That turns off the fans and the losing team gets in a deeper and deeper hole.

The Packers may be in a small market but they are not the Bills or Vikings that need handouts from the other NFL teams to stay afloat. The Packers are consistently one of the highest revenue teams, we pay into the pot that keeps the Bills and Vikings and whatnot (the low revenue teams) afloat. Aside from city size, GB has very little in common with other small market teams, in terms of revenue, GB competes with teams like the Giants and Steelers, not with the Vikings and Bills, and is more of a big market team when looking at popularity and revenue.

You also have to remember, GB has no owner to skim profits off the top. Other owners want some sort of return for their billion dollar investment. GB's only profits required are enough to keep the reserve growing at the rate of revenue inflation. Aside from that they can go closer to the revenue line than an average team can.

[Patler]

The Packers may be in a small market but they are not the Bills or Vikings that need handouts from the other NFL teams to stay afloat. The Packers are consistently one of the highest revenue teams, we pay into the pot that keeps the Bills and Vikings and whatnot (the low revenue teams) afloat. Aside from city size, GB has very little in common with other small market teams, in terms of revenue, GB competes with teams like the Giants and Steelers, not with the Vikings and Bills, and is more of a big market team when looking at popularity and revenue.

You also have to remember, GB has no owner to skim profits off the top. Other owners want some sort of return for their billion dollar investment. GB's only profits required are enough to keep the reserve growing at the rate of revenue inflation. Aside from that they can go closer to the revenue line than an average team can.

The questions will be if and how long the Packers can stay among the leaders in revenue. Before the stadium renovation, they were dropping quickly, and I believe had descended to near the middle of the pack, or slightly below. As more teams build destination type venues, the Packers will continue to fall. It is doubtful that the Packers will be able to compete in development, they simply will not have the financial backing to do so.

While the Packers do not have an owner, that is both good and bad. There is no owner taking profits from the operation, but they also do not have an owner that can supply financial backing to development projects. The Packers will always be coming to local governments, hat in hand, when a new project is needed. A true owner with other businesses can finance a project like the new Cowboys stadium, the Packers could not to the same extent that Jones did. The future will be more and more of those types of developments. Lambeau Field will be antiquated before we know it, and the Packers will be a middle of the group team financially.

As some have suggested, the more important issue is revenue-sharing, particularly broadcast income. While the Packers have a solid fan base, it is doubtful that local TV or radio broadcasts will ever be able to compete with those in the major markets. That is the problem faced by MLB right now. The Brewers TV and radio income is but a small fraction of that received by the Yankees. Some of that has to do with fan base, some just the realities of the economic communities in which they operate. The same with ticket prices. Waiting list or no waiting list, the Packers have to be somewhat careful with ticket prices. For other teams that is not as sensitive of an issue.

In a lot of ways, the salary cap and revenue-sharing are intertwined. If the salary cap disappears, owners like Jerry Jones and others will not want to share their income. The more they can keep for themselves in an uncapped environment the easier it will be to build a roster of talented players.

[mraynrand]

The Packers could also drop dramatically in draw should they not continue to win, and win regularly. Even with winning, they will struggle if they don't find a marquee player to replace Favre. Maybe Rodgers is that guy, maybe not (I'm not talking strictly ability here - I'm talking a combination of ability and charisma that draws fans in). There are guys who have talent all over the place, but don't draw as well because of lack of personality. This is a bit of a side note, but it's a factor. The loss of Favre and the full effects on the draw of the franchise isn't yet known. A good first indication might be how many prime time/national games they get this year.

[red]

yup, right now we lack a star player that can sell all over the world like favre did

the team made a lot of money off that guy

[sharpe1027]

The Packers may be in a small market but they are not the Bills or Vikings that need handouts from the other NFL teams to stay afloat. The Packers are consistently one of the highest revenue teams, we pay into the pot that keeps the Bills and Vikings and whatnot (the low revenue teams) afloat. Aside from city size, GB has very little in common with other small market teams, in terms of revenue, GB competes with teams like the Giants and Steelers, not with the Vikings and Bills, and is more of a big market team when looking at popularity and revenue.

You also have to remember, GB has no owner to skim profits off the top. Other owners want some sort of return for their billion dollar investment. GB's only profits required are enough to keep the reserve growing at the rate of revenue inflation. Aside from that they can go closer to the revenue line than an average team can.

The problem still exists regardless of which camp you think GB might fall into. Also remember that GB has not always been among the highest income teams. Their revenue goes up and down with their product. Large market teams, however, can survive many years of an inferior product due to their large population centers.

Another factor is that owners of smaller sports teams often take a tax-write off for losses rather than skim off the top. What they are really in it for is to grow the value of the team and eventually sell them for a profit. Look at Herb Kohl, he has often run the Bucks with a negative cash flow, but the value of the team is probably triple what he originally bought them at. The Packers do not have that option.

[Waldo]

It isn't the population, it is the revenue generating ability of the stadium. Lambeau is in the top 10 in that ability, plus things like the HOF and pro shop allow it to have a year round mecca-like appeal that many teams don't have.

[Patler]

I'm not that worried about the "Favre effect". The games will sell out without Favre. The games will sell out even if the Packers are not as successful. They did in the '70s and '80s. For the vast majority of Packer fans, the loyalty and dedication runs much deeper than just one player, and it runs much deeper than just success in the short term. The fans will buy every ticket available, they will come to the games and spend there money on concessions. The Packer HOF will have just as many visitors, and parents will buy memorabilia for their kids (and themselves) even if it isn't Favre stuff.

There may be no one player who sells as much as Favre, but purchases are likely to be spread over other players. What they will miss out on are the sales to non-Packer fans who have bought Favre stuff, "just because". But in the long run, that is a minor (although not totally insignificant) factor.

[Patler]

It isn't the population, it is the revenue generating ability of the stadium. Lambeau is in the top 10 in that ability, plus things like the HOF and pro shop allow it to have a year round mecca-like appeal that many teams don't have.

But other teams are catching up and surpassing the Packers in that regard, and comparably equipped the Packers will not generate as much revenue from Lambeau as a similar stadium in Dallas or NY, for example. The Packer will not be able to charge as much to rent the stadium for events, because the local economy will not pay as much. The Packers luxury box prices will not keep up, nor may ticket prices generally. They won't be at the bottom of the league, but not the top either.

Of more concern are the plans for weekend destination packages that some are proposing. A complex with the stadium, adjacent hotels, shopping malls, other entertainment, even other sports facilities. The revenue potential of these types of things are enormous, and some have suggested the team itself could be a loss-leader. Jones has some of that in mind in Dallas I believe, as does the developer for the proposed stadium in L.A. The Packers/G.B./Wisconsin would be hard pressed to compete with that.

[texaspackerbacker]

I'm not that worried about the "Favre effect". The games will sell out without Favre. The games will sell out even if the Packers are not as successful. They did in the '70s and '80s. For the vast majority of Packer fans, the loyalty and dedication runs much deeper than just one player, and it runs much deeper than just success in the short term. The fans will buy every ticket available, they will come to the games and spend there money on concessions. The Packer HOF will have just as many visitors, and parents will buy memorabilia for their kids (and themselves) even if it isn't Favre stuff.

There may be no one player who sells as much as Favre, but purchases are likely to be spread over other players. What they will miss out on are the sales to non-Packer fans who have bought Favre stuff, "just because". But in the long run, that is a minor (although not totally insignificant) factor.

This is pretty much what i was gonna say.

Mega-dittos.

[sharpe1027]

It isn't the population, it is the revenue generating ability of the stadium. Lambeau is in the top 10 in that ability, plus things like the HOF and pro shop allow it to have a year round mecca-like appeal that many teams don't have.

It is about the revenue generating ability of the team, which the stadium is a significant part of, but not all of. The population does matter. For example, outside of stadium revenue the other significant portion of the revenue is advertising. When a team is not doing well, they get less National games and have to rely upon the local advertising more heavily. A locally covered game that has the potential to reach 30 million is going to generate a hell of a lot more than one that has the potential of reaching 4 million.

Besides, the Packers were only 13th in revenue last year, not exactly leading the pack (no pun intended). They had an operating cost of less than 22 million (bottom half of the league), whereas the Redskins had operating costs over 58 million, and that is with a salary cap and heavy revenue sharing.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/30/sportsmoney_nfl08_NFL-Team-Valuations_Revenue.html

[SnakeLH2006]

It isn't the population, it is the revenue generating ability of the stadium. Lambeau is in the top 10 in that ability, plus things like the HOF and pro shop allow it to have a year round mecca-like appeal that many teams don't have.

It is about the revenue generating ability of the team, which the stadium is a significant part of, but not all of. The population does matter. For example, outside of stadium revenue the other significant portion of the revenue is advertising. When a team is not doing well, they get less National games and have to rely upon the local advertising more heavily. A locally covered game that has the potential to reach 30 million is going to generate a hell of a lot more than one that has the potential of reaching 4 million.

Besides, the Packers were only 13th in revenue last year, not exactly leading the pack (no pun intended). They had an operating cost of less than 22 million (bottom half of the league), whereas the Redskins had operating costs over 58 million, and that is with a salary cap and heavy revenue sharing.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/30/sportsmoney_nfl08_NFL-Team-Valuations_Revenue.html

Exactly what Snake was getting at earlier. I'm not hung up on the fact that we are ok with generating revenue with sellouts and the Packer shops. That will always be the case. The difference being that Lambeau is a one-stop arena for football only, in a league with the NY teams, Dallas, etc. getting mega-stadiums for multipurpose events to rake in cash year round. In an uncapped market with limited or no revenue sharing as Jerry Jones is pushing for...we are at a loss, as our profits vs. bigger markets will really de-escalate quickly.

Over time without a cap/esp. revenue sharing..the Packers will be much like the Bucks and Brewers in a small market without nationwide appeal as far as market share/media (top games), etc. We would lose out as top FA's would go to the highest bidder everytime much like in MLB as they would/could pay top dollar in LA, NY, etc.

Bottom Line:

Without a cap/revenue sharing (and I know we marginally pay in on revenue sharing right now...but...)...it doesn't matter if we are #13 making a $20 million profit right now....it would evaporate quickly as the power owners and big market teams would take all the major cash they are generating for themselves and leave GB in the cold, literally. It's scary and a possibility for sure. Lambeau is maxed out and since the renovation, there's not much more GB can do to generate more profit than they do now...and that's with a cap and revenue sharing.

P.S. With news of Haynesworth's $100 million dealio with Big Bad Dan in Washington....this would only get worse in an uncapped league. Dayummm. This is why uncapped means failure for many teams. Who can compete with that in GB...with a cap???

[Fritz]

Does anyone really think Pittsburgh or Arizona would be the SuperBowl teams in an uncapped league like baseball?

Arizona won the series in 2001. Last year the Rays made it to the world series.

I actually prefer the way the business side of the MLB is handled better the NFL. In baseball a contract still means something. You don't see players holding out. You don't see rookies getting monster pay days until they actually produce for a few years.

Not so, in my opinion. My team, the Tigers, regularly hands out huge contracts to guys they draft who have never played an inning in even the minors. Rick Porcello. Andrew Miller. Cale ("Son of Garth") Iorg received a million-plus contract (or was it two million?) before he went on a two year mormon mission, which the Tigers were aware of when they forked over the contract.

At least the Pack waited for Brady Poppinga to come back before they paid him.