I know this is better suited for the General Discussion section, and I would post there if I didn't want many responses. I was wondering the general attitude everyone has regarding who's being more stingy between the Players Association and the Owners. Here's my take: From what we've read, the owners would like to earn more than they currently do while the players at the very least would like to continue the status quo. To earn more, the owners would like an "enhanced schedule," and they want the players salary to be a percentage of league profits rather than revenues (which would likely reduce their pay). The owners claim that the current system is not conducive to growth and that it is unsustainable. Kraft suggested that the players are partners with the owners in expanding the league and should base salaries off of profits. It was Vrabel who countered that they are not partners and are employees. If they were partners, then the players would know how much their "partners" earned. What's more, it's the owners who sign their checks. In addition, (and he didn't mention this) partners have equity ownership, which they obviously will never finagle into the next CBA. The last CBA was created back in 1993 and was amended a couple times under the leadership of NFLPA Executive Director Gene Upshaw. The owners obviously are rejecting the status quo, despite the fact that many claimed that Upshaw was too chummy with the Commissioner. Nevertheless, the owners insist that the previous deal is unsustainable. Taking a step back, we might picture ourselves in the new Executive Director's shoes. If the league says the model is unsustainable, then obviously salaries should be scaled back. Being a canny Executive Director, you would naturally want to examine the books of the teams (you can't just take their word for it). And here's the impasse. They refuse to open the books. What do you do? The owners want to scrap the old agreement and start anew, claiming that it's unfair (even though it was their buddy Gene Upshaw working with them). I think this could be a possibility, but again it's hard to know since they refuse to prove it by opening their books. Of course, the Packers' financial statements were released not long ago revealing that player costs increased more than revenues. Florio of PFT noted that it reflects a growing financial disparity between the teams. Some markets that are out in the sticks like in Green bay will likely not fair as well as teams in say New York, Boston, and Dallas. So who is being more unreasonable here? I am curious of everyone's opinions on the board (Pats and Jets fans alike). Should they scrap the old deal completely and start from scratch (what the owners want)? Or should they start with the previous deal and negotiate from there (what the players want)? I, like most, agree that there should be a rookie wage scale, but can understand that the players want to ensure that the money is equally shifted to the veteran players. One problem that may occur is that if there is an enhanced season and the way these players hit one another, veterans will be hard-pressed to last very long a future NFL. Runningbacks already have it tough. The typically play well for the duration of their rookie contracts and are soon after kicked to the curb (so they earn a lot less). So I can understand the players being cautious regarding this idea, because it could just be the latest incarnation of owners getting more money by forcing the league to become younger while they have a nice rookie wage scale working for them. I think one solution might be to knock off a year needed to accrue for free agency and/or even the franchise tag.