Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by Sean Pa Patriot, Mar 2, 2006.
We might as well ask this, if there will b no cba or if there will be a cba
I said Yes.
As difficult as finding a fair revnue sharing between the Owners and the Players might seem - as well as among the Owners themselves - from a strict negotiating standpoint its somewhat simple.
The players want 60% of the Total Football Revnenue rather than Designated Gross Revenue
The owners are willing to use TFR - but are only offereing 56.2%
So there is a 3.8% difference.
Obviously that's a pretty lucrative 3.8%. My guess is that at least a portion of that 3.8% that is being haggled over constitutes what the rich owners would share with the not-so-rich owners.
Can the owners come up 1.9%? Can the Players come down 1.9%?
And if they do, does that 1.9% difference still allow the owners to address their internal revenue sharing issues?
I don't know the answer but given the nature of the stalemate, it seems like a compromise should be possible.
And when they all factor in how much they stand to lose, that 1.9% is going to look a heckuva lot less signficant.
I do not see that big of a difference in the big scale of things, the big difference is teams that work hard on marketing i.e. New England, Green Bay, Washington etc. as opposed to teams like the Cardinals etc. I see some type of compromise as the players will be loosing a lot in this deal.
I say NO! They've already proven they're all too Stupid to realize what's good for all and what's bad for all. Don't really think they're going to get any smarter by September.
This is the Corporate "they're" every dumba$$ one of them, players, owners, agents, lawyers . . . everyone. Too Stupid, too greedy and too dumb to see this coming for the last how many years? All thinking the same thing - "They" wouldn't be stupid enough to kill the Golden Goose and ruin a great thing would they??
Wrong!!! Yep they're that stupid!
No two league situations will ever be the same. But there is a flavor of what happened in the NHL. The owners apparently think that they will not accept a higher number than 56.2. And Gene Upshaw has drawn a line in the sand which he apparently is not willing to cross. That has all of the flavor of an impasse where truly neither side will budge.
The key to the whole thing may be the TV contract. If it doesn't default if the NFL teams field players without a union, then what is the downside for the owners? Not a whole lot except that their product may not draw as much stadium revenue for all teams. But since that revenue is shared between the teams, that may not be that much of an impact - especially without any constraints as to how little the owners have to spend for a payroll. If the owners don't blink, the players' union is in the same miserably weak position as the NHL players' union. Actually, probably even weaker since, as I mentioned, the TV contract is such a LARGE part of a team's income, they can sit back and clip the coupons and not lose money, unlike the NHL.
The only hope for the players is that the owners will be stupid and spend more money than they would under a cap environment AND that the overall revenue of the teams isn't impacted so much that even with stupid spending, there is enough money for the players to get more. Even so, 1700 or 1800 of the 1952 possible players in the NFL will probably make less because the 'stars' will get the lion's share of the pie. But the superstars and agent's would rather have that and the rank and file will, as usual, allow their pay to get whacked by the superstars winning the lottery. Doesn't make much sense does it ?
Separate names with a comma.