I am really conflicted about the salary cap and revenue sharing. Revenue sharing IMO is socialism and felt somewhat the same way about the salary cap. After all, it restricts the free market. Yet, I love the parity in the NFL and don't want to see it digress to an MLB like situation. I know some of you think, "But, BA, you are a Dolphins fan and Huezinga has deep pockets." Let me draw a parallel with my favorite baseball team - the Atlanta Braves. Huezinga is somewhere between former owner Ted Turner & new owners Time Warner is spending philosophy. WH is not going to go nuts like Snyder or Steinbrenner but will do whjat it takes within reason to keep the Dolphins competitive. The primary reason for the Braves success has been (GM) John Schuerholz & Bobby Cox. The current owners (Time Warner) haven't got clue 1 on what to do with a sports franchise. Hopefully, (Falcons owner) Arthur Blank will buy the Braves and this is not just someone's wishful thinking. Former Vikes RB Robert Smith (on Today's Dan Patrick show) said that the salary cap is an accounting tool which makes me feel better about it. A possible solution is that these small market teams need to create as many revenue streams thru Merchandisng as possible i.e. naming the stadium, luxury boxes, etc.. Any & all thoughts are welcome.
Len Pasquarelli wrote a great article today about the impasse: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/stor..._len&id=2348970 It outlines all of the specific things that the NFL and the NFLPA are at odds about. It really helps put things into perspective, since anything they sign now they'll have to adhere to for seven years.
A sports franchise is not like another business....its not right to tell Wal Mart and K-mart they have a salary cap because they are seperate non-affiliated competetors that compete on a financial basis....Sports Franchises are part of a larger company, known as a league....although they compete against each other on the field, they shouldnt be competing financially with one another....I dont buy the arguement that the onld NFL rules(no free agency) were a restiction of free enterprise....any company you go to work for, has a right to assign you to any office it chooses, and you have a right to leave if you dont like it....so if you go to work for the NFL, they should have the right to tell you were you are assigned....IE, youve been drafted by this team, they hold your rights....you can work for them, or leave the company....thats how it is in the real world, you work for Wal Mart, they may tell you to move to another store, you dont get a choice unless they agree you do, your choice is to leave the company if you dont like it....the union says that once theres no cap, they will never agree to one again, but the owners can come back and say once theres no free agency(no cba in 2008, means owners can make it up as they go), they will never grant that right again....in the end, its all posturing because neither side is going to accecpt what the other is offering, and a compromise must be reached....end the end, theres entirely too much money at stack....everyone got rich on the last CBA, which is why it should be extended....it was the best agreement in the history of pro sports....not only should the NFL extend it, other sports(Baseball for one) should adopt it as well....
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TheBeef)</div><div class='quotemain'>A sports franchise is not like another business....its not right to tell Wal Mart and K-mart they have a salary cap because they are seperate non-affiliated competetors that compete on a financial basis....Sports Franchises are part of a larger company, known as a league....although they compete against each other on the field, they shouldnt be competing financially with one another....I dont buy the arguement that the onld NFL rules(no free agency) were a restiction of free enterprise....any company you go to work for, has a right to assign you to any office it chooses, and you have a right to leave if you dont like it....so if you go to work for the NFL, they should have the right to tell you were you are assigned....IE, youve been drafted by this team, they hold your rights....you can work for them, or leave the company....thats how it is in the real world, you work for Wal Mart, they may tell you to move to another store, you dont get a choice unless they agree you do, your choice is to leave the company if you dont like it....the union says that once theres no cap, they will never agree to one again, but the owners can come back and say once theres no free agency(no cba in 2008, means owners can make it up as they go), they will never grant that right again....in the end, its all posturing because neither side is going to accecpt what the other is offering, and a compromise must be reached....end the end, theres entirely too much money at stack....everyone got rich on the last CBA, which is why it should be extended....it was the best agreement in the history of pro sports....not only should the NFL extend it, other sports(Baseball for one) should adopt it as well....</div> The thing i find the most laughable, is the "claim" by the players that the system restricts their income. If ever a anti-trust suit was brought before me as a judge, i would laugh the players out of the court.
