View Single Post
09-15-2012, 09:12 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,549
vCash: 500
I agree, I want to hear people slice and dice it. The idea was something I've been trying to develop and I know it's not perfect but I think it does more to address the issues of today. I think it's more of a long term solution than anything we've actually seen from either side and puts the league in the overall best health compared to past CBA's. Every market is viable when you base the cap on what can make them successful. Only the teams that can literally generate no revenue are problems but those are clearly problems no matter what the CBA.

For example, if you had to reduce the cap that much there would have to be a significant initial rollback of salary, but it would be a rollback only to balance the salary cap aspect. The players may have a hard time understanding that part and how they will actually get that money back as part of what I call the escrow process. It's basically a 35% rollback, but the players are not losing 35% of their income.

The more profitable owners rightfully should be more against it. Of course they would prefer the other owners in the league to pick up a higher percent of the player's share. It's an easy argument for the rest of the league to make however. The top 10 revenue generating teams (based on the Forbes 2010 numbers) would be the ones paying more under my proposal, but the bottom 20 would be very encouraging of the setup I would imagine.

What argument do the top revenue generating owners make against it? They shouldn't have to pay 50% of their revenues and the poorer teams should have to pay a higher percentage of 50%? It a very divisive deal for the owners so it has to be the PA's offer.

Last edited by Guest: 09-15-2012 at 09:20 AM.
Guest is offline   Reply With Quote