They should play the playoff games on Sundays :)

Well, there really won't be anyone to overpay in 2010. 2011 is a different story.

There's also the issue of owner vs. owner. Jerry Jones, Dan Snyder and all the wealthy owners want to do away with the subsidizing of small-market teams like the Chiefs. This year, the $200 million dollar fund that existed for teams in Buffalo, Kansas City, Jax and Green Bay is gone. In the new CBA, those same owners want merchandising to no longer be shared as well.

It'll make for an unbalance that's never been seen in the NFL, if they can get their way.

It's gonna get ugly, that of which there is no doubt.

A reporter for the NY times (the paper you say is like gold and I am taking you for your word, till proven wrong, you've earned the benefit of the doubt in my opinion on this) talked out of place on the issue and said the owners offered a 6 year extension that the PA declined and that has been on the table since November. Wouldn't that extent the revenue sharing as well or is that a completely separate issue? Im pretty sure they are linked.

Yeah, I fear that it's not good that NFL teams are toys to a significant portion of owners. I guess I couldn't say for sure, but my instincts tell me that it's better to have a league of owners for whom the football team is their major asset.

Eh, in retrospect that can't be many owners, though. It's not like the Hunts or Ralph Wilson built their wealth from football.

I think that back in the day, when the NFL was trying to establish itself, they saw how the AFL was able to not only survive and compete with the NFL, but thrive as the result of sharing TV revenues, and those owners had the vision to understand how that formed a more compelling product by expanding on the idea of revenue sharing.

These owners today can only see the money they think they're losing by sharing revenue.

They don't remember how the league struggled to gain a foothold among sports fans and how revenue sharing is largely responsible for creating the mega billion product that we have today.

I totally agree with you. I could spend my time doing much more productive things.

How much money would Jerruh lose if his palace sat empty for a season?

The revenue sharing portion is different from the player's portion.

There are so many facets to the new deal that there's no way it's done by March 1st.

they pretty much all but guaranteed it on NFLN.

thanks

Why wouldn't the PA not want to extend the current deal? They are getting 60% of the revenue which the owners do not like.

I've never read that info.

Boss, can you link us?

Also, I mentioned the NY Post, not the Times.

:D

http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=090...s&confirm=true

Currently, players get roughly 60 percent of revenues. The union would like to maintain that threshold. Owners are not content with the current deal, which is why they opted out of it last spring, as was their right under the bargained rules. The union, meantime, within the past few months offered to extend the current deal by six years, something the owners have no interest in doing.

I heard it on NFLN, as I said. If you put it on there, Im sure they will play it again before the night is out. They usually replay stuff like that three to four times per night, at least. The reporter might get into some hot water for it by the way they were putting it.

...
*edit
That didnt seem right when I heard it either. I must have misheard that part of it.

My apologies.

Boss got it backwards the PA wants to extend the deal 6 years and the owners are not going to do it.

Okay, THAT makes sense.

I can't understand why the owners would want to extend the current deal, as they say they're losing money. They also want to implement a rookie wage scale, have the players involved in stadium building and renovation costs as well as an overall reduction in revenue sharing (from the current 64% to 56%).