A Modest Proposal

[flutie2phelan]

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 ?

 

[Ring 6]

I think it is just too complex for us to find a solution.

Here is an analogy.

You and I are going to trade financial assets.

I have a $350,000 home, 2 rental properties valued at $200,000 a piece with $2000 per month positive cash flow, $250,000 in a 401k, $150,000 in CDs locked up for 2 years, a $50,000 car with a $25,000 loans.

You have a $450,000 house, no rental properties, $800,000 in a 401k, $150,000 in liquid cash, and a $35,000 car with no loan on it.

We each have $500,000 in the bank outside of this, and are negotiating with one of us has to include some of that and how much to make the deal even.

You could probably find an accountant to figure it all out.

However, outside of this are other factors, such as.

If we traded houses, you would be 20 miles closer to work, and I would be 20 miles farther.
We are different ages, so the value of the 401ks are very different to us, because we need them at different times.
My house has 4 bedrooms, I have 2 kids, yours has 5 and you have 4 kids.
Your house has a pool and no one in my family knows how to swim.
You dont know it but I have a $150,000 IRS bill coming due, and wished my assets were more liquid.
I think my 35,000 car is nicer than your 50,000 car.
You think managing rental properites would be a pain in the butt and would sell them and I think its easy and much more profitable to hold onto them.


How do we compromise? Where is the middle ground? There are simply to many variables playing against each other to think there is an easy compromise.
I used such financially strong profiles to also show that either of us would be very concerned about getting screwed on the deal.

The only compromise is to deal with each aspect in conjunction with others, and that is not simple.

Take the NFL situation, and while many are looking at it as 60% vs 56% it is far, far more than that,

-What makes up revenue?
-When does FA start for a player?
-Do teams share revenue?
-Should the rookie cap be tighter?
-Should the min salary change?
-Is the franchise tag good or bad?
-What about the pension plan?

On top of that we could name tons of other cap related issues within the CBA: Restricted FA, ERFA, LTBE and NLTBE incentives, 30% rule, players get paid full years pay if they on are the week 1 roster, practice squads, DRUG POLICY, grievance and appeal (we seem to have forgotten the union wanted to make this an issue in the next CBA after the TO saga), should coach and fo salaries have some effect on the cap?, etc, etc.

There are many more i didnt list Im sure.

The fact is that all of these and many more we negotiated with some give ins on both sides. Both sides, no doubt feel that some of those concessions make up the reasoning why they need the 60 or 56.

I'd almost make this analogy.
I am going to hire you to run my life. There are many things I want you to do, and many things you dont want to do. The price we end up agreeing upon is entirely dependent on how those responsibilities are defined. I will agree to a higher price if you take more responsibility, you would agree to a lower one with less. We may not be able to split the difference because some of those duties may be non-negotiable above or below a certian number.

 

[mgteich]

Why not? Because over 1/4 of the owners are blackmailing everyone else. The complaining owners do NOT want to try to do what it takes to make more revenue, and keep 100% of it. They want the money given to them. I do NOT think the problem is the union or the majority of the owners.

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 ?

 

[Terry Glenn is a cowgirl]

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...

 

[Pats726]

well those so called "poor" owners will get the shaft in an uncapped year..so they are screwing themselves..maybe they are demanding a lot..but they lose big time as well..I do blame the union on this one as well..Gene flying out again walking out..what does he get bonus miles for so much flying?? I agree it is complex..but I also think instead of using revenue..they should be opening all the team's books and looking at profits!! See who is hiding what..and begging poor while raking in the dough..cinci...

 

[shirtsleeve]

To quote the movie Independence Day, "Nuke 'em! Nuke those bastards!"

 

[PatsSteve1]

Why not? Because over 1/4 of the owners are blackmailing everyone else. The complaining owners do NOT want to try to do what it takes to make more revenue, and keep 100% of it. They want the money given to them. I do NOT think the problem is the union or the majority of the owners.

* I don't think the lower revenue owners are all in the same situation either. If they don't own thier own stadiums, they likley don't or can't share in much of any generated local revenue. Parking, concessions, stadium naming rights may not even go to them. It's really a complicated issue to figure out how to make every team financially competitive without the richer owners just giving the poorer( I should say less wealthy) owners what would amount to welfare. I believe most, if not all, of the wealthy owners aren't the newer owners who haven't experienced anything but labor peace. They also don't want to share revenue they feel they made with thier own smarts with other owners they feel aren't so smart. How much incentive do they really have to come to a new revenue sharing arrangement knowing if there's no cap, they'll be able to have the best teams and players?
If the owners came to a new revenue sharing plan that allowed each team to be competive with the teams they put on the field, I think getting a CBA extension would be easily done.

 

[flutie2phelan]

I think it is just too complex for us to find a solution.

....
I'd almost make this analogy.
I am going to hire you to run my life. There are many things I want you to do, and many things you dont want to do. The price we end up agreeing upon is entirely dependent on how those responsibilities are defined. .... some of those duties may be non-negotiable above or below a certian number.

Almost sounds like ... marriage.

Kidding aside, the proposal is radically simple ... on purpose. The complicated job of untying each possible consideration, one after another until all have been balanced ... has failed. Like the Gordian knot ... cut it!