Denver Broncos News - Horse Tracks - 7/22/11

I still try to give him the benefit of the doubt occasionally though.

If not Denver, how about some nice team over in the NFC.

As Ted calls them, I am not one of the owner fanbois

http://deadspin.com/5800887/the-bizarre-cult-of-pro+owner-nfl-fanboys

The players are definitely losing this CBA as it is far more owner friendly than the last deal. In this battle of the CBA, the owners are taking and the players are giving.

Or in Ted’s teams: The owners are the pitchers, players=catchers.

and revenue sharing, the difference between the top and bottom teams in the league is the reason behind the owner’s original opt out provision, and eventual opt-out from the old CBA. The owner’s gave no indication at any point in this process that they would even try to address any revenue sharing (whihc has an effect on nationwide revenue and venue revenue which means an effect on the player’s cut) and then in their latest meeting they basically added however many pages of new revenue sharing agreements to the proposal, sans player approval.

The main issue that needs resolved is why was the revenue sharing added at the last second, amid a PR stance by the league that put the players in the hotseat to vote for it or be the bad guy? Once that has been figured out, then the process can move forward again, and to figure it out, the new revenue sharing addendums need to be gone over very closely. And they could absolutely be added at the last minute (nothing in the CBA would technically need to be changed..since the revenue sharing is an owner vs. owner issue, it can simply be prepared in the months beforehand, without needing any player input, and then added whenever, including at the last minute.

Right now the fans have only very generally defined the two stances by the parties involved: owners are ready to go, players are shuffling their feet. But the stances are much more definite than that.

The players are delaying, but what they are delaying is their recertification. This is their powerplay, not because they want to sue the league over antitrust violations in the future, but because they want to preserve the leverage that their current lawsuit has.

The owners are ready, but what they are ready for is a rush job on the most important element of this agreement, which is final ratification by both parties. The owner’s powerplay is to get signatures that end the threat of the current lawsuit, and then they can sort out the damage at their leisure, including making amends to players.

This isn’t about good and bad guys, this is about two full-fledged, rank and file bureaucracies each trying to undermine the other’s legal leverage. The winner gets more than money…they get control. Control of where money comes from, and where it goes. Control that can placate even the superegos.

Until it isn’t enough, of course. And it never is.

but I have seen it elsewhere too. On the other hand, ESPN reported $125M.
http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/37327/looking-at-2011-salary-cap-figures

I’m not a cap expert, but after trades and salary restructuring we should have some room. i’m just not entirely sure how those things affect the cap.

We also have to sign our draft picks, although if I remember correctly they don’t have a big cap hit at all in their first year.

and that nobody except the NFL guys, GMs and salary cap experts have an understanding of it.

You’d think things like that could get accurately reported, but we never really hear the whole story on the salary cap issues

as a one time thing it is a survivable business decision, if a questionable editorial one. One thing media markets have shown, however, is that over time, bad editorial decisions add up and affect readership….

if they wanted to do it fairly and not look bad they would give people with receipt for 1st version a free copy of revised one, but they likely won’t.