Skip to content

Next ownership meeting will include owners-only session

As a possible sign that the 32 folks who own NFL franchises realize that they have some important issues that they need to discuss face-to-face, next week’s ownership meeting in Boston will include a session limited to the principal owner of each team, a league source tells us.

The move often causes complaints from teams that choose to send someone other than the principal owner to the site of the meeting, but there are no exceptions.  If the principal owner does not attend, no designee may do so.

It’s believed that next week’s owners-only session will focus on the labor agreement, and possibly revenue sharing.  Other business will be conducted at sessions that aren’t limited to the principal team owners.

Permalink 14 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories
14 Responses to “Next ownership meeting will include owners-only session”
  1. Hap says: Oct 7, 2009 2:28 PM

    Sounds like some high stakes topics will be discussed. I wonder if Goodell can attend. He’s not a principal owner. Well, he’s not.

  2. DontBeEMO says: Oct 7, 2009 2:32 PM

    I really hope a Republican Senator calls for a fact finding mission in Ireland that weekend so Rooney misses this… a nice New England Republican….
    Judd Gregg… are you a member of PFT Planet???

  3. whatthehellisgoingonoutthere says: Oct 7, 2009 2:39 PM

    I’m assuming there is an exemption made for the Packers to send their President since they don’t have a principle owner?

  4. The Wishbone says: Oct 7, 2009 2:56 PM

    @ Florio,
    Does this mean that there are only 31 people allowed? What about the Packers? THey don’t have an owner, but you say “no designee may do so”.

  5. bearsrule says: Oct 7, 2009 3:18 PM

    Is this the meeting when Jerry Jones tells everybody that revenue sharing is over ?

  6. Gary says: Oct 7, 2009 3:19 PM

    How is weird Al going to attend? He has trouble just getting to the Hotel everyday!

  7. MoPackerFan says: Oct 7, 2009 3:29 PM

    @The Wishbone
    The President of the Packer’s for all intents and purposes is the acting owner. He represents the Packer’s at the owner only meetings.
    @DontbeEmo
    Don’t be a douche, leave your political nonsense out of football.

  8. Wonderlic---myballs says: Oct 7, 2009 3:35 PM

    Yep,this is where Jerry Jones announces he wants to be the next George Steinbrenner.

  9. Rick says: Oct 7, 2009 3:57 PM

    I would love to be a fly on the wall for that meeting. From what I understand the biggest rift isn’t between the players and the owners but between the owners. The owners (Jones, Kraft, Snyder) who do the things neccessary to make their team profitable are tired of carrying the teams that do nothing (Bengals). They want to re-examine revenue sharing and what exactly is eligable to be shared. The TV stuff is a no-brainer but why should the owners who hustle and work hard have to share evenly with the lazy owners who just sit back and collect money. The players will get paid it is the owners who will be fighting.

  10. Adam-Chris Scheftersen says: Oct 7, 2009 4:58 PM

    They should really make it more like baseball. What we need is less revenue sharing and more inequity. And get rid of that salary cap. It justs holds the rich teams back.

  11. VoxVeritas says: Oct 7, 2009 5:36 PM

    “I really hope a Republican Senator calls for a fact finding mission in Ireland that weekend so Rooney misses this”
    Isn’t he a minority owner now anyway?

  12. Bigbluefan says: Oct 7, 2009 5:49 PM

    Me thinks Jones is going to act to have his team moved to the AFC West where he may win a few games
    You mean to tell me they are having an meeting and its not being held at Jerrys Waffle House

  13. VoxVeritas says: Oct 7, 2009 5:58 PM

    Nobody said that revenue sharing is going away but you can bet your bottom dollar that it won’t be expanded like Wilson and Brown want it to be and that fund that is supposed to even the field between high-revenue and low-revenue teams may go away. If it’s expanded there’s going to be no way to keep stuff like stadium naming rights money out of the pool that’s used to calculate the players’ share of revenue in any future CBA negotiations.

  14. CliveRush says: Oct 7, 2009 8:29 PM

    The owners could be getting ready to prepare the plan in which the players will receive less of the revenue. Who can blame them considering the overall investment necessary to buy and run a team. If they intend on attracting investors to buy teams from low revenue markets giving away over 60% to the players is not good business. The players have no monetary risk yet they reap the majority of the revenue. In the old days of public stadiums this formula worked, it does not if you are holding a billion dollar note on a new stadium as well as the purchace price of the team. De Smith is in for a rude awakening. Another factor is the revenue sharing among the owners as this system has kept many small market teams viable. If they are going to go international Toronto, London, Tokoyo and Mexico City would all be looking to aquire teams.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!