Caveman_Nick Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 By definition, if the NFL owners were to attempt to put a formula into play for the draft or player salaries with no CBA, they would be in direct violation of anti-trust laws and would open up a Pandora's Box of law suits. This is how free agency was born after the NFLPA Strike of 1987. The Union temporarily disbanded & then Freeman McNeil was able to take the NFL to court for violation of anti-trust laws in not granting players free agency. 1351327[/snapback] I wonder how things would work if they merged as a 32 team partnership into a single entity, with a 33 member board and Tagliabue as the Chair. Would that make them kind of like the Microsoft of football? The Arena League would then be the Apple of Football Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voltaire Posted March 5, 2006 Share Posted March 5, 2006 Um.... in short, no. The NFLPA wants the % of shared revenues raised, and they also want all of the local team revenues to be part of that pot. When the NFLPA came down from 60% to 58%, they also insisted on increasing the shared revenue pool. Net result.... that 58% would get more money to the players than the previous 60% position they held. That, is why the owners meeting was cut short. The union actually UPPED their demands. 1350396[/snapback] Um... hate to break your bubble. but GTS is on the money. There are three parties at work here... small market owners, large market onwners, and players. The bulk of the disagreement is an infight among owners concerning revenue sharing. The way it works is some teams have higher income from better stadium deals, promoting, and finding revenue streams and for being blessed by operating out of a far larger market. The old rules had revenue sharing tagged at a set rate (80% I think) but some newer reveune streams are not included in that. This is what both the players and smaller market teams want... more access to money that didn't exist when the CBA was signed back in the day. So what you have is bigger market teams, teams with great stadium deals, teams that have found lots of new and innovative ways to promote and make money wanting to keep more of that money. You have smaller market teams, teams that have bad stadium deals, or don't want to raise money in whatever method other teams do in a battle over the revenue sharing dollars. Some owners have found pots of gold and have been cashing in on 100% on it outside of the CBA and revenue sharing deals. Stadium naming rights comes to mind, NFL Direct, other stuff. Others do get shared by owners, but not players. The union isn't really the culprit here in the problem. But they do want access to the moiney as do the slmall market teams. That said, I do find Matt Birk's take on the union very interesting. I tend to think he's speaking genuinely about how the union operates and this is all new info to me, it does shed a light on some things that I didn'treally understand fully and clairifes stuff. The poll is flawed so I didn't bother to vote in it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MojoMan Posted March 5, 2006 Share Posted March 5, 2006 Other. I am on the side of a guy named Joe D. Fan. F both the players and owners. If they f up the great deal they have going, they can go to he!!. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.