The unofficial online home for fans of the UAB Blazers. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(02-07-2012 04:05 PM)Desert_Blazer Wrote:  Deserving a team certainly doesn't mean getting a team. Hell will freeze over at least twice before the NFL ever allows a franchise to locate in Las Vegas.

The Specter of Gambling will prevent that from ever occurring there.

(02-07-2012 04:31 PM)Matrix Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 04:05 PM)Desert_Blazer Wrote:  Deserving a team certainly doesn't mean getting a team. Hell will freeze over at least twice before the NFL ever allows a franchise to locate in Las Vegas.

The Specter of Gambling will prevent that from ever occurring there.

Right. Because Atlantic City doesn't allow gambling. People are just completely out of control when they hear the words Las and Vegas together and name your professional sport league. If people want to gamble, they'll find a way.

(02-07-2012 04:35 PM)blazers9911 Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 04:31 PM)Matrix Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 04:05 PM)Desert_Blazer Wrote:  Deserving a team certainly doesn't mean getting a team. Hell will freeze over at least twice before the NFL ever allows a franchise to locate in Las Vegas.

The Specter of Gambling will prevent that from ever occurring there.

Right. Because Atlantic City doesn't allow gambling. People are just completely out of control when they hear the words Las and Vegas together and name your professional sport league. If people want to gamble, they'll find a way.

Like I said, The League has to at least maintain appearances. The don't publish injury reports for the casual fans.

(02-07-2012 04:48 PM)Uncle BLAZER Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 04:35 PM)blazers9911 Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 04:31 PM)Matrix Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 04:05 PM)Desert_Blazer Wrote:  Deserving a team certainly doesn't mean getting a team. Hell will freeze over at least twice before the NFL ever allows a franchise to locate in Las Vegas.

The Specter of Gambling will prevent that from ever occurring there.

Right. Because Atlantic City doesn't allow gambling. People are just completely out of control when they hear the words Las and Vegas together and name your professional sport league. If people want to gamble, they'll find a way.

Like I said, The League has to at least maintain appearances. The don't publish injury reports for the casual fans.

I just don't understand the hatred of Las Vegas. There is gambling across the country, it's just that Vegas is known for it. If the city can support the team, who cares? The guys who are going to attempt to fix any game are not located in Las Vegas. They are located across the country, and they target an individual, not an entire team. I think people who "care about a team being kept out of Las Vegas" would get over it quickly.

(02-08-2012 10:02 AM)blazers9911 Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 04:48 PM)Uncle BLAZER Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 04:35 PM)blazers9911 Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 04:31 PM)Matrix Wrote:  

(02-07-2012 04:05 PM)Desert_Blazer Wrote:  Deserving a team certainly doesn't mean getting a team. Hell will freeze over at least twice before the NFL ever allows a franchise to locate in Las Vegas.

The Specter of Gambling will prevent that from ever occurring there.

Right. Because Atlantic City doesn't allow gambling. People are just completely out of control when they hear the words Las and Vegas together and name your professional sport league. If people want to gamble, they'll find a way.

Like I said, The League has to at least maintain appearances. The don't publish injury reports for the casual fans.

I just don't understand the hatred of Las Vegas. There is gambling across the country, it's just that Vegas is known for it. If the city can support the team, who cares? The guys who are going to attempt to fix any game are not located in Las Vegas. They are located across the country, and they target an individual, not an entire team. I think people who "care about a team being kept out of Las Vegas" would get over it quickly.

I agree with what you are saying but that just is the perception. One thing the NFL avoids like the plague is bad press and initially a team in Las Vegas would probably have alot. That being said, I think a team in Vegas would be probably be pretty successful but who knows.

I didn't mean to infer that an NFL team wouldn't thrive or be embraced in Vegas, I happen to think it would, but by their main industry being gambling, I don't think that the league is willing to risk dealing with the appearance of impropriety. Otherwise, if they could avoid that, Las Vegas would be a terrific, intriguing city for a professional sports team of any kind. I would have placed them on the list of cities I validated from this list on that article link were it not for the strong presence of the gambling syndicate there.

One of the primary sticking points that almost caused the loss of last year's NFL season was how to keep a handful of teams afloat who don't generate enough revenue to meet their expenses (revenue sharing). I'm not sure adding new teams is the greatest idea. If there are new markets (LA) that could be more profitable, they should be filled with failing franchises first that already exist in other cities. Lots of owners would love to move to LA right now, especially with a new stadium but the league is blocking them.

Do you really believe for a minute that NFL teams are/were losing money? I am as big a pro-business guy as there is, but without seeing the books I find it nearly impossible to believe an NFL team was legitimately losing money. There is a ton of money in this business, and these guys are not rich because they can't handle money. I think they weren't getting as much as they wanted and they decided it was time to redo the deal.

Why would owners share revenue with other owners if every team was profitable?

How do they revenue share? I'm not 100% what they share, so I can't honestly answer without knowing that.

(02-08-2012 04:33 PM)Blazer on the southside Wrote:  Why would owners share revenue with other owners if every team was profitable?

Because 4-5 owners make significantly more than the rest, and the the have-nots out number the haves and so can make them share the wealth.

None of the NFL owners actually lost money, but many of them used creative accounting to make it look like they did.
Example: Many owners create a dummy corporation to own the building their team headquarters is housed in. Then they have the team pay the dummy corp an extravagant lease many times more than market value. In actuality, the owner is paying himself the money, but on the team's balance sheet it shows up as a huge expense. You throw in the high-six figure salaries to family members for bogus jobs, payments way above market value for other services (game managment, parking, concession, etc, all provided by companies the NFL owner owns or gets kickbacks from.) All to easy for the owner to make it look like his team is hemorrhaging money when it's not.

It is these 4-5 high earning teams that cause issues for the rest. The collective barganing agreement with the players calls for a salary floor which forces teams to spend a certain minimum amount on player salaries. This salary floor is determined by total league revenue. When teams like the Cowboys and the Redskins rake in the dough, total league revenue goes way up along with the salary floor small market teams such as the Bills and the Bucs are forced to spend. It isn't unrealistic (at least for me) to believe certain small market teams can't meet this salary floor and stay in the black.

The main issue is that a team like the Giants or the Bears can charge a lot more for ints ancillary media rights and get a lot more income from merchandizing than say, the Carolina Panthers do.

Yes. It is things like this that caused the bitter fighting between owners. The small market teams claimed this jacked up the salary floor by increasing the total league revenue but didn't increase the amount of shared money from the big market teams.

(02-08-2012 05:29 PM)Blazer on the southside Wrote:  Yes. It is things like this that caused the bitter fighting between owners. The small market teams claimed this jacked up the salary floor by increasing the total league revenue but didn't increase the amount of shared money from the big market teams.

Have you seen what these new TV contracts are going to pay the NFL? Split this amount in half and divide it by 32 and I think this will be more than sufficient to offset any struggles any owner might be having. How many teams struggle to sell out their 8 games? I think the haves in the NFL are a lot more than you do. This isn't MLB.

(02-08-2012 04:12 PM)blazers9911 Wrote:  Do you really believe for a minute that NFL teams are/were losing money? I am as big a pro-business guy as there is, but without seeing the books I find it nearly impossible to believe an NFL team was legitimately losing money. There is a ton of money in this business, and these guys are not rich because they can't handle money. I think they weren't getting as much as they wanted and they decided it was time to redo the deal.

Start with the premise that pro teams are owned to make money. Most of the old family teams have always been maintained as tax writeoff gold mines. The team owners are not and never were wealthy AFTER buying any team. They are ALREADY billionaires or they couldn't buy a team in the first place. Of course, there are limits to how much they can comfortably lose, but that is between them and their tax specialists. They buy teams for the publicity, vanity, and the FUN of the "hobby" that they can well afford just like Jay Leno collects classic cars and others collect stamps or rare coins. When they get older and the team may deteriorate , they sell it for billions and a new guy starts playing the tax writeoff game from a higher plateau.

(02-08-2012 06:18 PM)blazers9911 Wrote:  

(02-08-2012 05:29 PM)Blazer on the southside Wrote:  Yes. It is things like this that caused the bitter fighting between owners. The small market teams claimed this jacked up the salary floor by increasing the total league revenue but didn't increase the amount of shared money from the big market teams.

Have you seen what these new TV contracts are going to pay the NFL? Split this amount in half and divide it by 32 and I think this will be more than sufficient to offset any struggles any owner might be having. How many teams struggle to sell out their 8 games? I think the haves in the NFL are a lot more than you do. This isn't MLB.

You are right. Revenue sharing must be part of a giant accounting fraud created specifically to dupe the fans, the players, the IRS, and the federal government.

(02-09-2012 12:00 PM)Blazer on the southside Wrote:  

(02-08-2012 06:18 PM)blazers9911 Wrote:  

(02-08-2012 05:29 PM)Blazer on the southside Wrote:  Yes. It is things like this that caused the bitter fighting between owners. The small market teams claimed this jacked up the salary floor by increasing the total league revenue but didn't increase the amount of shared money from the big market teams.

Have you seen what these new TV contracts are going to pay the NFL? Split this amount in half and divide it by 32 and I think this will be more than sufficient to offset any struggles any owner might be having. How many teams struggle to sell out their 8 games? I think the haves in the NFL are a lot more than you do. This isn't MLB.

You are right. Revenue sharing must be part of a giant accounting fraud created specifically to dupe the fans, the players, the IRS, and the federal government.

I'm just saying it isn't as big a deal as the small market teams try to make it out to be. TV money is split evenly and NFL licensed products sales are split evenly. The home team collects 60% of ticket sales and visiting 40%. I agree there can be a difference in income for teams, but I don't believe any team is legitimately losing money. Maybe I'm wrong.

(02-07-2012 08:34 AM)BlazerFire Wrote:  "They list proximity to Tuscaloosa like it's a good thing."

hilarious... indeed.

I concur...Unless one enjoys the aroma of livestock...

(02-07-2012 08:45 AM)Uncle BLAZER Wrote:  I thought Tuscaloser already has a pro team? Oh...I guess just because they get paid it doesn't mean they pros. That's right. NM.

You've got a point!