Revenue Sharing

[burmafrd]

or supplemental revenue sharing.

Does not this only involve the owners?

Does not this revenue consist of the owners share to do with as they wish?

I would like to know what business it is for the players.

 

[CCBoy]

or supplemental revenue sharing.

Does not this only involve the owners?

Does not this revenue consist of the owners share to do with as they wish?

I would like to know what business it is for the players.

The supplemental revenue sharing, as I understand the proposal, was to put a bubble on top spenders, and maintain a degree of consistency to parody within teams of the NFL.

That itself, is not of the scope of the Union. The NFL's own part of the collective bargaining funds. But they made it inclusive of this document, to prevent discord and claim in the future, that funds are not adhering to intent for the current CBA. Thus not meeting the pockets of the players.

 

[DeaconBlues]

or supplemental revenue sharing.

Does not this only involve the owners?

Does not this revenue consist of the owners share to do with as they wish?

I would like to know what business it is for the players.

If the owners went through the trouble of adding it to the CBA, then yes, it is their business. If it weren't important, why add it?

If it is important to just the owners, then they could craft a separate agreement for themselves.

 

[burmafrd]

If the owners went through the trouble of adding it to the CBA, then yes, it is their business. If it weren't important, why add it?

If it is important to just the owners, then they could craft a separate agreement for themselves.

And that is reason to hold up the whole process?

 

[DeaconBlues]

And that is reason to hold up the whole process?

Yes. The whole process is the CBA. You don't get to sign it, and figure out something is wrong or objectionable a week later.

 

[theogt]

Revenue sharing has a financial impact on the players. If you're negotiating a 10 year, $100+ billion agreement and you know your counterparties are negotiating an agreement that will directly impact you financially and you're not concerned about it, then you're a piss poor business man.

 

[burmafrd]

Revenue sharing has a financial impact on the players. If you're negotiating a 10 year, $100+ billion agreement and you know your counterparties are negotiating an agreement that will directly impact you financially and you're not concerned about it, then you're a piss poor business man.

THis is about the money that is the owners share, correct? After the split? THen what business is it of the players how the owners share it out with other owners?

NONE. And to claim that is somehow a deal breaker is a pathetic joke.

 

[theogt]

THis is about the money that is the owners share, correct? After the split? THen what business is it of the players how the owners share it out with other owners?

NONE. And to claim that is somehow a deal breaker is a pathetic joke.

See the last clause of my post you quoted.

 

[Mr Cowboy]

Had they not included that part, the deal would have already been signed, and we would be in a countdown for the lockout to end.

Stupid move by the owners, they should have kept this part to themselves and the Union would not have had an excuse not to vote.