1. Again, you're getting lost in the details. It's the larger point of the conjecture.
If the conjecture is the teams that are in the worst financial condition are going to need to be more favorable to ownership that the best financial conditioned owners, thats kind of a no brainer isnt it?
And your original point was that those 2 owners are the ones behind it based upon being 'least profitable'. They aren't, so what is your conjecture now? I've lost the point
2. When I say 'war' I'm referring to the fact that you come off in a harsh way.
That is all in your perception.
3. A fair opinion, but you still seemed unknowing of the legitimate potential of a differently formulated floor. The idea has been floated out there, and with the intent of enticing the players to compromise.
I do not believe that is correct. It was part of one proposal, and all it said was that instead of a cap floor there would be a cash minimum. Nothing has shown that it would be better for the players, and it hasn't been brought up since that proposal.
There could be something attractive included in the next CBA. It is a real possibility. Will it happen? Who knows? But it is a viable possibility. Your opinion is that it won't, which I by no means disagree with. But I don't understand how you can say so definitively that it won't change significantly.
No thats not what I said at all.
You called it the "Anticheap rule" and said it flies in the face of Ralph Wilson. I have not seen anyone show that Wilson spent significantly under the cap, or that his expenditures would be increased under such a plan.
If your argument is hey, anything could happen, I'm not sure why we would have a discussion, other than 'hey anything could happen', and 'right, see you later'.
4. To your question of will it be a major difference, that's what the commentary indicated. Afterall, it was intended to appeal to the players.
We do not know that. We know the owners put it in a proposal, we do not know if it was a concession that would be better for the players. Cash spent and cap floor are 2 very different things. The Colts could conceivably spend 50% of their cap on Peyton Mannings signing bonus this year, use the other 40% on everyone elses payroll and be under what an equaivalent cap floor would be by quite a bit.
The overall offer made by the owners (back in March) wasn't attractive enough, but that doesn't mean that this aspect has been thrown to the waste basket. What we know is that it's something the owners are willing to relinquish, but we don't know if the players dislike it.
No. We know that it was one piece of a proposal made and rejected months ago. No more, no less.
Your posting suggests that Wilson and Brown are the holdouts and the reason is because of a disagreement with the 90% cash floor.
You have not shown anything to back that up, other than its a guess based on no facts.
I could say the holdouts are Kraft and Mara and its because they demand an 18 game schedule, and argue that its just conjecture and its possible, but I have nothing to back it up, so I might as well talk about something else.