Woody Johnson is a fine owner. He trusts his football people to run the ship, and stays out of the way. He wanted to bring football back to New York, and was willing to pay a HUGE premium to do that. For those who said he could of had Queens, it's a fair point....but football is a game for us while football is a business for owners. Manhattan was his dream. Politicians and Cablevision are to blame for the Jets staying in Jersey. He was HUGE in helping the NFL and the Players Association come to a new labor agreement. The entire NFL should be thankful he was involved. He wasn't afraid to think outside the box and hire Mangini. Whether it works or not, I have a lot of respect for people who go with their guts and stick to their guns. For these traits, I certainly think #16 is fair. Some of you act as if Woody Johnson is the worst owner in football, but that is not the case at all.
Al Davis is known for rapidly building championship calibre teams like the Raiders often do. Just because they've been lacking the past couple years doesn't mean they'll suck forever. Dan Snyder and Al Davis are the two most hands on owners in football today.
Agreed. When you're 13-35, I don't expect many accolades for anyone. But Davis has a 40 year track record that should have him ranked a lot higher than he is. It also must be noted that Mike Silver is the vulture who wrote the "Al will probably die soon so Eddie DeBartolo is planning on buying the Raiders" article a couple of weeks ago. He's not a big fan of Davis...
Any poll that ranks Mo (Kraft), Larry (Jones), and Curly (Snyder) as the top three owners in the NFL is a joke. All those three wanted to do was tear down the foundation upon which the league was built by getting rid of revenue sharing and the salary cap, all for selfish reasons. The three of them are classless jerks. To rank them ahead of owners such as the Rooneys and the Maras and Lamar Hunt, families that built this league instead of their egos, is absurd. It is amazing to me that an owner is considered great because they spend money or push themselves upon the public in a "look at me" way - that describes the top three to a "T"
You can hate them, but do it for the right reasons. Not one of those three - nor any owner - proposed getting rid of the salary cap and revenue sharing.
Those 3 owners have worked their tails off to create the most efficient money making franchises in the NFL. Coincidentally all 3 have outstanding coaching staffs and the Skins and Pats have two of the best stadiums in football and all 3 have among the highest levels of fan loyalty and team value in the league. Revenue sharing while nice has also allowed a lot of owners to coast which has effectively turned the NFL into a league of at best rampant mediocrity with an exciting playoff system. If it wasn?t for a handful of owners who actually have strived to improve their teams the other owners would be happy to put out a second class product and reap the rewards.
Well said, boss. And it's that brand of "money-grubbing" owner that has made the NFL the leading team sport in the country, and why Disney would shell-out over a BILLION dollars for the right to broadcast football on Monday night, whilst Monday night baseball couldn't survive.
Mr. Kraft did not want to get rid of revenue sharing. He just wanted to be sure that ALL teams did the best marketing job they could before he and the likes of Mr. Snyder and Mr. Jones, who were making money from sources other teams couldn't seem to find (or didn't want to find), had to send their hard-earned $$ to those teams who were not smart enough to do what they did. Now, as I understand the new agreement, the more profitable franchises have to put money in a pool to be distributed to those franchises who were on the lower end of the $$ spectrum in the NFL. Jonathan Kraft has stated, though, that based on a review of the financial needs of certain franchises, no money will be sent to any franchise which hasn't proven that they have tried every avenue for $$ success. As an example - why should the financially successful teams send money to Cleveland if the Brown's organization refuses to find naming rights for their stadium? Yes it's nice to have your stadium named after your founding family, but times have changed and don't claim to be poor just because you are stubborn about generating much needed income from stadium naming rights.
That is an absolute mispresentation of the facts. They did - all because they wanted the revenue for themselves. People on this board do not realize that 1) football is not baseball, 2) not every sports franchise can be run like the Yankees where money grows on trees , and 3) most importantly - the NFL is the most competitive, well run, most balanced league because of revenue sharing. Lastly, take a long look at that list and tell me, other than Kraft (whose success on the field can be attributed almost entirely to Mo Lewis), which owners have won championships. After Kraft, you have to go all the way down to Glazer and Bowlen. Hands on is not always good. The Yankees were the laughing stock of baseball in the 80s with the most hands-on owner in sports and owe their success to his suspension and the taking over of operations by true baseball people such as Gene Michael. Now that George is becoming more "hands on" again, tell me how wisely all that money is being spent, who rich their farm system is and which direction they are clearly heading.
I think it's more a case of you revising history to fit your anger. You need to work through such things, and I'm here to help you. Revenue sharing was never - EVER - in jeopardy. The dispute was about the relationship between heretofore UNshared (local) revenue and the salary cap pool. 85% of all NFL revenue is, and always has been, shared. It was the NFLPA's (appropriate) demand that local revenue be added into the salary cap pool which kicked-off the whole debate. But then, nobody really argued that local revenue shouldn't be counted in the cap calculation. The real battleground was on the owner side of the equation, and whether the hard work and marketing of owners like those three you hate so much should be shared with slothful owners like Mike Brown, removing any incentive for them to maximize their own local revenue. nightowltom, may he always be known for his cool-headed reasoning, cited his Patriots' marketing department, which has a cast of 30 or more employees; compared to the Bengals' marketing department, which had one or two. NOBODY ever proposed ending revenue sharing. In fact, it would be impossible to turn the NFL partnership into a kill-or-be-killed league overnight. Couldn't happen. The league would fold first. In fact, I'll go you one further: the end of revenue sharing, like that to which you're referring, would mean that the league HAS folded.
1) Your 2nd paragraph is 100% correct 1) Sundayjack is 100% correct when he states that they did not want to do away with the concept of Revenue Sharing. The problem you and others have is that you want 100% of the revenue generated by the more successful franchises shared, and that shouldn't be done. If you read my post, which I will presume you did, I explained what the financially successful teams are required to do under the new agreement for the benefit of the less financially successful teams. I see no problem with only certain revenues being shared, but I will restate that all franchises should market themselves the best they can. Comparing to my Cleveland Browns example, if all revenues were to be shared, why would your owner be interested in stadium naming rights when he could get that extra mony from those franchises who already have them in place.
Well he paid 625M for the team & in a just a few short years when the new stadia is up I would guess the NYJ franchise will be worth 1B at least. Not a bad return on your money in 9 years or so.
