Ring 6
PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
2021 Weekly Picks Winner
2022 Weekly Picks Winner
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2004
- Messages
- 63,761
- Reaction score
- 14,113
I think the 48.5% addresses the low revenue teams. That is 4-5% lower than the last CBA. And that is 4-5% less of REVENUE, which is more like a 10% reduction in payroll expenses.Overall I think it's a good, smart deal. I like that the split is based on "all revenue," a common-sense figure, with protections for both sides based on triggers instead of built into the unnecessarily complicated formulation of "Total Revenue."
What I don't see in this deal, however, is anything that really addresses the concerns of the low-revenue franchises that prompted the opt-out in the first place. In fact, with the narrowing of the gap between the salary cap and floor, I think this deal could very quickly prove to be harder on them.
If the 10-year length of the new CBA that I've heard floated is accurate, and there's no adjustment to the revenue sharing agreement coming out of this owners' meeting, I think we'll a lot of franchises up for sale as soon as the terms of the next TV deal become clear.
I think that the lower revenue franchise, who were at least minimally profitable under the new deal would be very happy to cut payroll 10%.
If I remeber correctly annuals revenues were conservatively somewhere in the 250,000,000 range per team. Those lower revenue teams will have increased their bottom line profit somewhere along the lines of 8,000,0000- 10,000,000 per year, which is a substantial increase.