AgentDib":32gzcziw said:
Popeye":32gzcziw said:
Having dead money not come out of the formal revenue split which sets the salary cap (which is the only way to do it in my proposal)
I'm not quite tracking you here. Let's suppose that I am negotiating for the owners and the current revenue split going to the players is $X (salary cap). If the players want to have an additional source of income $Y (dead money) then that's fair game for discussion but as a starting point $X needs to be reduced by $Y. Even if the players win a concession in the form of an overall increase for $Y that is still an opportunity cost as it is could have gone to increasing $X instead. Those cost streams do not exist independently but compete for the same dollars in the overall compensation package. Are we on the same page there?
Yeah, sorry, I was pretty unclear there, and you're bringing a lot of clarity. :2thumbs:
I'll lay out the thought experiment more cleanly. We start at the new CBA negotiations.
PLAYERS: The NFL generates the most revenue of any professional league, but us players have the worst revenue split in professional sports. You and us both know there's no way to justify that, so before we even started this meeting you already know that another down of NFL-quality football isn't going to happen until that's rectified.
OWNERS: That's right, but it's the terms we're working under so if you want to change the revenue split you're going to have to give up something very substantial in return.
PLAYERS: That's right, but you and us both know that neither of us want the work stoppage that's going to result if that problem isn't solved. But what if we told you we have a proposal that will solve some of our other issues and allow you to KEEP your 47/53 revenue split at the same time, and without a work stoppage that's going to screw both of us.
OWNERS: We're listening.
PLAYERS: We want guaranteed contracts. We know that the reported dollar amount on contracts will go down, but we're okay with that, because we want the value of contracts to actually be real.
OWNERS: But because of the nature of football that won't work, and it already creates problems in the NBA where teams are making contract-based trades just for bookkeeping purposes and to manage the salary cap rather than to try to field the best team, which doesn't look good. We don't want the tanking and intentionally taking on of bad contracts for other assets that the NBA has.
PLAYERS: That's right. We have a way around that. The salary cap is set by the same 47/53 split of total revenue we've been using. So contracts are guaranteed, but they don't count against the salary cap if that player is no longer on the team. You still have to pay those contracts, but it comes out of your 53% of the revenue if you don't actually want the player on your team.
OWNERS: We don't like that.
PLAYERS: We know, but we think you'll like it more than having parity with the MLB, NBA, and NHL in terms of revenue splits, because anything you spend over 47% is 100% in your control, rather than getting mandated up to an equivalent level of the other professional sports.
OWNERS: That's just going to cause teams to skirt the salary cap, much like the luxury tax in the NBA.
PLAYERS: Nope. Because listen to this. The league is going to assess an annual dead money tax, which then gets redistributed into the next year's salary cap.
OWNERS: But that takes you over the 47% split we've got right now.
PLAYERS: It could or it could not, and it's up to your own financial prudence to if that's true at all. Remember you're still in control of if the revenue split ever actually equals what sports owners and other less revenue generating leagues are already dealing with. This is the ALTERNATIVE to a work-stoppage or you paying the same % that every other sport pays.
OWNERS: We're still worried about teams cheating the system and reducing parity.
PLAYERS: We've figured that out too. We're going to do with the comp pick formula, which is just abused at this point, and is bad for all of us because it encourages teams not to keep their players together. Instead of that, we're going to base the comp pick formula based on who has the least dead money in the prior year, which in addition to the dead money tax, virtually ensures that teams don't treat guaranteed contract dead money as a way to skirt the salary cap. You get rewarded by not paying a tax AND by getting more draft picks if you play by the rules of the system as it's intended.
OWNERS: We still feel like we're giving up a lot.
PLAYERS: Yes, you are giving up something, but what you're NOT giving up is a revenue split that's on par with the rest of professional sports, and we suspect that's probably the thing you most care about, and you can also move forward not having to worry about the PR hit of funny money contracts or the work stoppage that you know is coming if you don't take this proposal and we're forced to fight on the real issue of this revenue split.
OWNERS: Okay, I think we get it now. We're going to have to get back to you but we at least see where you're coming from.
[Remember, I VERY well could be missing things, but this is the pitch :2thumbs: ]