Makaveli_The_Don
New Member
- Messages
- 10
- Reaction score
- 0
http://www.profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm
POSTED 8:20 p.m. EST, March 7, 2006
VISION OF TWO LEAGUES NOT SO CRAZY
We made an offhand comment earlier on Tuesday regarding the possibility, if the owners can't work out their current revenue ruckus, of two pro football leagues -- one containing teams that share all or most of the revenues generated, and one containing teams that don't.
Some readers thought we were crazy to even suggest it. Maybe we are. But sometimes it takes a little crazy to get the attention of folks who might wake up one day and find themselves playing basketball with Billy Babbit and the Chief.
Let's play this out. If the owners can't get together on revenue sharing, then the NFL and the union can't get together on a new CBA.
So then the 2006 league year begins under the restrictive rules of the last capped year. Lots of guys get cut, the market gets flooded with talent, and plenty of guys don't get paid very much money this year, relatively speaking.
So then the guys who don't get paid in 2006 are going to be even more tempted by the lure of the uncapped year, and the momentum within the union to push the thing toward the perceived gold mine of no spending limit will grow.
So then comes 2007, and the money doesn't flow quite as freely as the players presume it will, since in addition to no salary cap there's also no salary floor. In the end, the 32 owners likely will devote far less money in 2007 to player salaries and benefits than they would under the terms of a new CBA.
After that comes the expiration of the CBA. The union will decertify, precluding both a strike and a lockout.
And that's when it gets interesting. Because before the NFL can impose a uniform set of rules for player compensation and free agency upon the non-unionized players (which would trigger a flurry of antitrust lawsuits), 24 of the owners have to agree on those rules.
If they can't agree to those rules now, there's no reason to think they'll be able to agree to those rules then.
So if they can't agree, why continue to do business together? The teams that want to share all revenue can form one league, and the teams that don't want to share all revenue can form another.
If that idea doesn't sound particularly appetizing to the owners, then the thing to do is work it out. Now. Before positions harden and before folks begin to think seriously about options that should be unthinkable for the greatest sports league on the planet.
As we've previously said, they're not in this mess because there's not enough money to go around. There's too much money, and everyone wants a system that favors their own selfish interests.
It's time for everyone to put their own interests aside and strike a deal that keeps the broader interests of the collective body in mind. Before chaos arrives.
And before people start thinking again of baseball as America's pastime.
POSTED 8:20 p.m. EST, March 7, 2006
VISION OF TWO LEAGUES NOT SO CRAZY
We made an offhand comment earlier on Tuesday regarding the possibility, if the owners can't work out their current revenue ruckus, of two pro football leagues -- one containing teams that share all or most of the revenues generated, and one containing teams that don't.
Some readers thought we were crazy to even suggest it. Maybe we are. But sometimes it takes a little crazy to get the attention of folks who might wake up one day and find themselves playing basketball with Billy Babbit and the Chief.
Let's play this out. If the owners can't get together on revenue sharing, then the NFL and the union can't get together on a new CBA.
So then the 2006 league year begins under the restrictive rules of the last capped year. Lots of guys get cut, the market gets flooded with talent, and plenty of guys don't get paid very much money this year, relatively speaking.
So then the guys who don't get paid in 2006 are going to be even more tempted by the lure of the uncapped year, and the momentum within the union to push the thing toward the perceived gold mine of no spending limit will grow.
So then comes 2007, and the money doesn't flow quite as freely as the players presume it will, since in addition to no salary cap there's also no salary floor. In the end, the 32 owners likely will devote far less money in 2007 to player salaries and benefits than they would under the terms of a new CBA.
After that comes the expiration of the CBA. The union will decertify, precluding both a strike and a lockout.
And that's when it gets interesting. Because before the NFL can impose a uniform set of rules for player compensation and free agency upon the non-unionized players (which would trigger a flurry of antitrust lawsuits), 24 of the owners have to agree on those rules.
If they can't agree to those rules now, there's no reason to think they'll be able to agree to those rules then.
So if they can't agree, why continue to do business together? The teams that want to share all revenue can form one league, and the teams that don't want to share all revenue can form another.
If that idea doesn't sound particularly appetizing to the owners, then the thing to do is work it out. Now. Before positions harden and before folks begin to think seriously about options that should be unthinkable for the greatest sports league on the planet.
As we've previously said, they're not in this mess because there's not enough money to go around. There's too much money, and everyone wants a system that favors their own selfish interests.
It's time for everyone to put their own interests aside and strike a deal that keeps the broader interests of the collective body in mind. Before chaos arrives.
And before people start thinking again of baseball as America's pastime.
?
