Ken, I responded a few days ago to most of your points and the editorial i just linked to explains how i see this perfectly, you should read it.
As far as a fair deal goes i see it this way.
1) Keep the basic revenue sharing system in place but tie the initial give back, currently 1 billion, to revenues and have it increase proportionately as revenues go up. So you are basically saying to make the owners expense deduction (my term for the money off the top) a % of the total revenue. Currently, the 1 billion is about 11.11% of 9 Billion. 2 billion is 22.22%. Would a 16% rate be fair? Or maybe a rate that increases by 1% each year during the 1st 5 years, so that it ends up at 16%?
2) Decrease the players cut of remaining revenues by 5%. So, cut the player's share to 55% of the remaining amount after the "owners expense deduction"
3) Install a rookie cap. Reduce service time for free agency eligibility. The two tie together as it is not fair to reduce rookie contracts but expect them to wait just as long for a deal based upon their production. There is no reason to wait. If their agents are any decent, they get bonuses thrown into their contracts. As it it, players can become free agents after 4 years. It takes 3 years for most teams to truly know the type of player they have. The proposed changes will come at the top of the draft, primarily. Why shouldn't a 1st round pick have to wait until his 4th year?
4) Keep the players share of remaining revenues the same regardless of the growth of revenues. You are going to have to be more specific. Do you mean keep the % the same? Or the total dollar amount? They are two different things. I am for keeping the % the same. Not for keeping the total dollar amount the same. Keeping the % the same would account for any drop in revenue to be recognized by both sides. Keeping a total dollar amount means the players wouldn't actually see a drop in revenue.
5) Use any fines levied against the owners for unfair labor practices to fund retired player healthcare, create a long term funding structure that both owners and players fund equally. Yes, penalize the owners even more. Even though they just put $83 million into it and the players haven't put squat in how many decades? There shouldn't be any fines for "unfair labor practices" to begin with. Especially with how the players haven't truly negotiated.
6) Limit the revenue streams in play for sharing. Vrabel is dead wrong on the issue of Patriot Place, ventures the owners invest in related to their football properties but not tied to the game should be entirely off limits, the players don't invest in them in any way and have no right to any of the revenues from them. On the other hand the owners have no right to use losses from these ventures as evidence they are not making enough money, the two are separate and should stay that way. Wow.. Something we agree on. Vrabel and Kelly are dolts. There is nothing that says that the players can invest in those things themselves instead of $1million mansions, $500K cars, etc, etc.
The players are giving more under this deal than the owners and it should be fair enough for all to agree on.
4) HGH testing.
