Big market vs small market..

Discussion in 'Tennessee Titans and NFL Talk' started by RollTide, Mar 25, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. RollTide

    RollTide All-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2002
    Messages:
    20,192
    Alex i am arguing against that because people have the erroneous view that a giants team or a jets team can somehow spend more money than we can. Hell they don't even have any more money than we have.

    Want to compare attendance? As big as the NY-NJ market is in population their attendance numbers are no higher.

    As for media attention that is something different but even there we know that so called small market teams like the colts or packers can get huge amounts of media attention by having a big name player or 2 like favre or manning. Or vince young who was on the cover of madden.
    #11
  2. RollTide

    RollTide All-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2002
    Messages:
    20,192
    Average revenues....nfl finances

    The median revenue base per nfl team was $185M in 2005. Probably around $200M now. The team with the least revenue was arizona with just $153M but still $50M more than the salary cap that year. So there is no excuse for any team to lose.

    Today an average team will take in about $200M in revenues..

    Player payroll will run $116M(cap)

    Non player payroll will run about $25-30M

    Other expenses property, legal, debt payments will run about $25M

    So in the end you are looking at profits around $40M.

    Average franchise value is about $900M and average debt is $35M.
    #12
  3. Alex1939

    Alex1939 As old as Titan. Tip Jar Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    15,701
    I certainly agree with the fact that any team can spend more than another team, except with the crazy salary cap carry-over extensions, or whatever they are. But that's not relevant.


    I do not doubt that you are correct.

    I can generally agree with this. But in a hypothetical situation, if tommorow, Roydell Williams was traded to the Giants, he would have more opportunity to make advertising revenue than in Nashville. Also, he would get more publicity on good seasons, which might help him make more money down the line in his career.

    I don't think there is much of a disagreement, maybe just a different interpretation of the meanings of big/small market.

    Certainly NewYork,LA,Chicago are the biggest markets in the US. The only thing that might do is entice FAs to sign there instead of smaller markets, like GreenBay and Jacksonville.

    One of the good things about the NFL is putting the league on a level-playing field, which they've gone a good job of in terms of market size.
    #13
  4. RollTide

    RollTide All-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2002
    Messages:
    20,192
    The opportunity to make more endorcement money has to be considered by any player but new york also brings with it more pressures of playing in a fish bowl. Also more potential distractions and high taxes with a high cost of living.

    I guess it is up to each club to sell the benefits of playing on their team. The titans have a popular well regarded head coach and an enthusiatic fan base on an economically sound area with no state income taxes. The winters here are also mild.

    I would rather play in a place like middle tennessee than philly with those hateful fans or an ecomonic hole like detroit.
    #14
  5. Psychop1

    Psychop1 Big Tee

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2,414
    Let's see... you were being handled, so you started this thread. Why???

    Doesn't matter. It's obvious you missed the point originally in that the CBA could be gone soon, and there are teams stocking up on high priced free agents in that hope. Have you ever read the CBA??? A little ashamed to say that I have, from beginning to end, and occasionally go back over it for research.

    1.) No CBA means no revenue sharing. Teams like the Jets, Giants, and Bears will be free to seek their own lucrative deals, and they won't be restricted by a

    2.) salary cap. It would also be gone with the CBA.

    Revenue sharing is actually part of the problem right now.
    #15
  6. Psychop1

    Psychop1 Big Tee

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2,414
    Market size has nothing to do with the untested value of a franchise. It has to do with population in the general area in correlation to television contracts.
    #16
  7. Big TT

    Big TT Pro Bowler

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Messages:
    7,328
    I agree that it appears that some teams are taking the approach that the CBA is a gonner and signing FA's like the salary cap is out the window. Faiders, Jets, to name a couple. That would be a terrible mistake by the NFL, the multi billionaire club that is made up by the NFL needs to take a cue from the effed up mess that is baseball and find a middle ground.
    #17
  8. RollTide

    RollTide All-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2002
    Messages:
    20,192
    Pschyop, the nfl tv contract money is paid out equally to all 32 teams. You are not paying attention.


    What the hell is "UNTESTED VALUE" mean?
    #18
  9. Psychop1

    Psychop1 Big Tee

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2,414
    Here is an excerpt from the CBA:

    That certainly looks like there will be no revenue sharing when this agreement is gone. I could be wrong, but I'm willing to bet the Jerry Joneses and the Dan Snyders of league are also reading that as such.

    Untested value simply means that while there is a formula for determining the value of a franchise or business, the true value isn't known until it is bought and sold. Just because Forbes says a franchise is worth (x) amount of money, doesn't mean that franchise can be bought for (x) amount of money.
    #19
  10. Starkiller

    Starkiller 9

    Joined:
    May 30, 2002
    Messages:
    14,957
    When the agreement is gone, there won't be NFL football until another is signed. The smaller market owners won't agree to play without revenue sharing.
    #20
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.