Brent Burns Beard
Powered by Vasiliev Podsloven
- Feb 27, 2002
- 5,595
- 580
Ok ... at this point in time, its really important to be solutions oriented. since its clear both parties are entrenched its of no value to think this will be worked out with the ideologies on the table. while the owners hold all the power, they still must be pro active in finding a way to get the game back on before it suffers permament damage.
the players will agree to a deal that doesnt involve a "cap" on what they can earn and the league will agree to a deal that has "linkage" to revenues.
lets say 1.1b is 55% of 2b in revenues for arguments sake.
no cap on any teams spending. however, if total league salaries exceeds this amount, then the teams exceeding the average (37m) will pay at a rate of 1:1 for the revenue differential amount. so if 10 teams are over 37m and the total salary wound up being 1.2b, than each team over will contribute to the deficit on a pro rated basis.
this is not really a tax, its recovering the revenue differential. follow me, it might be a bit complicated.
if 55%(1.1b) is ok on 2b revenue, the league wouldnt mind 1.2b in player costs IF the revenue was 2.2b, so if player costs creep up to 1.2b, than the offending teams should make up the REVENUE difference so that the other teams are compensated as if they actually had the revenue of 2.2b.
I would propose if these were the #'s (1.1b threshold, 1.2b final result) that each team over 40m in payroll (1.2b/30) will pay in equal proportion the revenue shortfall from 2b to 2.2b.
if it was 10 teams and by chance they were all equally over the 40m mark, they would each pay 20m to the league revenue base in revenue differential payments.
Is that stiff enough to create cost certainty for the owners, but flexable enough to not act as a cap in the players minds ?
dr
the players will agree to a deal that doesnt involve a "cap" on what they can earn and the league will agree to a deal that has "linkage" to revenues.
lets say 1.1b is 55% of 2b in revenues for arguments sake.
no cap on any teams spending. however, if total league salaries exceeds this amount, then the teams exceeding the average (37m) will pay at a rate of 1:1 for the revenue differential amount. so if 10 teams are over 37m and the total salary wound up being 1.2b, than each team over will contribute to the deficit on a pro rated basis.
this is not really a tax, its recovering the revenue differential. follow me, it might be a bit complicated.
if 55%(1.1b) is ok on 2b revenue, the league wouldnt mind 1.2b in player costs IF the revenue was 2.2b, so if player costs creep up to 1.2b, than the offending teams should make up the REVENUE difference so that the other teams are compensated as if they actually had the revenue of 2.2b.
I would propose if these were the #'s (1.1b threshold, 1.2b final result) that each team over 40m in payroll (1.2b/30) will pay in equal proportion the revenue shortfall from 2b to 2.2b.
if it was 10 teams and by chance they were all equally over the 40m mark, they would each pay 20m to the league revenue base in revenue differential payments.
Is that stiff enough to create cost certainty for the owners, but flexable enough to not act as a cap in the players minds ?
dr