OilerNut*
Guest
NYFAN said:Why do you see it that way? If the settlement had been negotiated with a cap, say at 44 mil, based on 2004 revenue. All they needed to do was word it so that as league revenue went up, the cap went up, Not in percentage of revenue, but in actual cap number at the same percentage. They could even have added language which stated that the 44 mil. was a permanent figure until, the league revenue exceeded 2004 levels, at which time proportionate increases to the cap as it relates to revenue would be triggered. WHY does this seem so horrible to everyone ???
That would be ok, I think, if there was some form of revenue sharing.