Revenue sharing decision carries implications for the Rams
by Ryan Van Bibber on Dec 7, 2009 3:02 PM CST
in News
Email
PrintIf you thought Pat Shurmur's offense was exciting to talk about, then you're gonna love salary cap and collective bargaining talk. Nevertheless, it's a really important subject, probably the most important subject given how much it will impact the league's future. The big news today is that the NFL (i.e. the owners) will be ending the annual $100 million supplemental revenue sharing which benefits small market, low earning teams...like the St. Louis Rams.
This $100 million pool is a fraction of the $6.5 billion in total revenues shared by the league. Small market teams receive this money to help field a competitive team and meet the league's minimum spending rules. The NFLPA will fight the decision on the basis that this money helps teams stay competitive.
How does this impact the Rams? The most obvious is taking money out of the team's available revenue, which could - emphasis on could - deal a blow to our ability to sign free agents or retain key players like FS Oshiomogho Atogwe. Makes the salary purges look positively prescient, no? Whether or not this move gets made permanent (or even takes effect if the NFLPA wins their arbitration case against it) will also impact the value of those smaller market teams and make bigger markets more attractive.
11 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Well, parity was nice
I’d be surprised if this is the last of these moves designed to entrench more dynasties in the biggest markets. Does this mean to stay competitive we have to move to…Dallas?!?!
You don't seem to want to accept the fact you're dealing with an expert in guerrilla warfare, with a man who's the best, with guns, with knives, with his bare hands. A man who's been trained to ignore pain, ignore weather, to live off the land, to eat things that would make a billy goat puke. In *St. Louis* his job was to dispose of enemy personnel. To kill! Period! Win by attrition. Well, *Steven Jackson* was the best.
Maybe Ft. Worth? Austin? El Paso?
Turf Show Times
by Ryan Van Bibber on Dec 7, 2009 3:13 PM CST up reply actions
LA???
Wishful thinking. Though I wouldn’t hesitate to get season seats and make the trip from Sac for every home game.
either the Rams or the Jaguars
Turf Show Times
by Ryan Van Bibber on Dec 7, 2009 3:36 PM CST up reply actions
If I remember reading correctly
the gazillionaire who is leading the way for the building of the new stadium in LA (City of Industry) stated that he would only build if he had ownership in the team. Someone correct me if I am worng…
Rams are the only team actually for sale – has any one heard if he has put an ownership group together for a bid?
Free Brandon Wood!
Your'e Right
Roski did state that…if there is no CBA rest assured teams will be racing for a big market….LA, Portland, Toronto, and others will be options for teams………once again read my sig
I Want The Rams Back In LA....The More They Lose The More Of A Chance That It Will Happen....Sorry St Louis You Cant Keep A Team(Twice)...Rams Come Home....We'll Be Here For You When You Do
LA - Yes, Toronto - Yes, Portland - No
Portland is no where near the definition of a big market.
I could only imagine that Buffalo (if they don’t move there first) would fight with everything they had to stop a team from moving to Toronto as well.
Free Brandon Wood!
There was talk of Minnesota or San Diego coming as well
But those are much less likely and much less awesome than the Rams coming back to town.
I don't see either the Vikes or Bolts
selling an (controlling?) interest in the team to move. If the scenario with Roski is to own a team in exchange for the stadium.
Free Brandon Wood!
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
