Originally Posted by DaBruinz

Unless they totally changed Section XXIV, that makes no sense.

That being said the flip side of that is that if the revenue are less than expected, the owners side would take the hit.

Risk/Reward.

To follow that up, the next year, the projected amount would have to be adjusted up also. So, they may not get the money immediately, but they would still get it.

Originally Posted by jczxohn1

IIRC, projected increases even seemed rigged; 7% for 2 yrs (as it has been recently), 4% for 2 yrs; and 2% for 2 yrs or some such declining tier scenario. Such a declining tier structure seems to deny any effect of a currently downturning economy, and predicts worse revenues 3 or 4 yrs out, when the economy should be past the bottom of a down cycle. (Parenthetically, if it isn't, we're all in trouble.)

The other issue, mentioned by Matt Light, of the disparity between the owner haves and have-nots, is addressed in no way in public at this juncture. The desire for return on investment and marketing (greed to you pro-union types) would point to little or no change in revenue sharing as a solution or ameliorative to the impasse. Regardless of the outcome of the CBA and the owners 11th hr proposal, IMO nothing will be done relieve the have-not teams, and within a few yrs they will be forced out to more demographically prosperous areas. Buffalo, Jacksonville, Cincinnati, possibly Cleveland, will all pound sand waiting for the other owners to bail them out.