Where the heck did you learn math? UMass?
If every team borrowed $40 million against the cap, at 5% cost of money, they would pay it down in 5 years at $9.25 million per team.
That means the league as a whole would borrow $1.28 billion and repay $1.48 billion. Not even remotely close to your "almost 2 billion of reductions".
you need to read.
If the cap goes down by 40 mill per team that means revenue went down by 80 million per team with is over 2.5 BILLION
Good luck thinking that owners who just lost 2.5 billion are going to take the whole payroll hit, when they have a cba that says they don’t have to, in return for 5% more.
The packers will be happy to lose 70,000,000, let the players lose nothing, then make it up 10,000,000 a year?
Why would they do that?
Neither the owners as a group nor the players as a group lose a penny according to my idea above and beyond what they've lost due to 2020's revenue shortfall.
You are asking the owners to loan the players every penny if their share of the hit in return fir future cap reductions, coming off a season where they list their shirts.
Why would they do that?
The NFL has been making money hand over fist for decades now. They could afford it.
No they can’t. They are going to lose their shirts in 2020.
Your summary - like your analogy - is another epic fail. It's hilarious how you completely leave out the part when the owners get all that money back in future years. That's totally the key part of my argument.
Why would they give it away today to get it back in the future? There is no gain for them. Just as the players won’t accept future reductions on more than a dollar for dollar basis. Why would they?
Let's assume 2020 has no fans, and use projected salary cap amounts for 2021 and all subsequent years. The NFL has 2 choices for salary caps from 2021 to 2026 (numbers in millions of dollars per team):
(A) $140, $220, $230, $240, $250, $260
(B) $180, $211, $221, $231, $241, $251
Both options cost owners the exact same amount in the long run after adjusting for cost of money.
If you owned a business that had a payroll cost of 50% and your revenues dropped by 25% and you are now losing money, are you willing to increase your payroll cost to 73% because your employees tell you they won’t take raises for 5 years?
Your plan is horrible for owners and pretending they get made whole doesn’t make it true.
There are a few facts here. based upon the assumption that the cap goes down 40 mill
1) revenues go down 80 mill per team 2.5 bill for the league
2) the collective bargaining agreement states that the players receive roughly 50% of revenue
3) this would mean, just as they share revenue, they share the loss of revenue.
4) most nfl teams would lose a lot of money, as there is no chance that they are operating at a 25% profit margin with 50% payroll cost, just to players.
Yoir suggestion is that despite losing money, the owners will willingly over pay players so players suffer no financial consequence and the owners bear all of it, and it’s all good because they will get it back someday in the future.
Why would owners give away so much to get back nothing?
Both options players (as a group) receive the exact same amount in the long run after adjusting for cost of money.
Option (A) creates a free agent frenzy that we've never seen before, shifting control to the players.
Option (B) creates roster stability and gives management far more control.
Option A created pay cuts to get payroll in line with revenue.
Option B is knowing you need to and can cut labor costs but just decide money isn’t what it’s about.
There is no way in earth any owner would go for this.
They stand, in this example to lose 2.5 BILLION in revenue. They aren’t giving out gifts after that.