As we approach the "nuclear solution" ... a simpler ... more sensible and mutually beneficial solution seems imperative. Here is one. The formula presently in effect has been good for all. The union demands more. The owners have conceded more. They just haven't given as much more as the union demands. It is the union's demand to share in the local sources ... which creates the rift among the owners today. This proposal gives the players that money ... without creating the rift. The dollar value of the formula currently in effect, applied to the pool-able revenues, works out to 94.5 million for 2006. The players would get that cap without any changes at all. By all reports, the owners also offered changes ... worth another 10 million or so, which would set the nominal 2006 cap at about 105 million. The proposal is this: Grab The Money; Quit Arguing About Changes. You implement the proposal by converting the money into a fraction of the money the league already controls collectively. The league now collectivizes tv revenues and the visitor's share of ticket sales. That sum, in the billions, is known (just not by me). Call this Number One. Multiply the 105 million per team that the owners apparently are willing to concede ... by the 32 teams to get back to the large number for aggregate league-wide salary cap. Call this Number Two. Divide Number One into Number Two. That gives the Salary Cap Percentage. Apply this same Salary Cap Percentage to tv revenues and visitor's share of ticket sales ... for each year of the extended Collective Bargaining Agreement. It will automatically rise ... as tv revenues and ticket sales rise. Here are some of the effects of this modest proposal: * On top of the cyclical increases that the players have been getting simply through their present share of soaring revenues ... the share itself increases; * The union doesn't get a formal, explicit share of other football revenues ... but they do get the same financial effect, because their new, higher percentage was discovered by including those other sources; * The "big local revenue" owners give up none of those local revenues; * The small local revenue owners have to crank up their efforts if they wish to remain more than just marginally profitable - but if they do, they keep 100% of what they make; * No invasive auditing or re-distribution is required - the league already has central control over all the revenues in which the players will share. Why not ?