[Master4Caster]

Before saying what I would do, here's what I think I understand about this mess:

1. The salary cap imposed an even playing field for talent. Big market teams cannot leverage their potential to handle a larger payroll. Smart talent decisions count. Throwing big dollars around is mostly a waste. That parity has been good for the league.
2. The entire payroll is 100% covered by TV revenue for every team.
3. Compared to other pro athletes in other sports, pro football players are way underpaid, especially considering their short careers and risk to health.
4. As a result of the above, NFLPA is demanding a much higher percentage of the TV revenue and a percentage of a team's local revenue. As much as anyone, it's the player's association forcing the revenue sharing discussion! (The player's also want to cut agent commissions to 2%. That could be very shortsighted on their part) I don't blame NFLPA for advocating for players. It's their job. The issue is that small markets generate less local revenue to tap, so players on a small market team are at a financial disadvantage to players in a big market. Thus, the socialistic revenue sharing idea. (socialism bad; capitalism good; in capitalism man exploits man, but in socialism it's the other way around)

So, if I'm Mr. Snyder:

1. I'd approach any discussion with the welfare of my franchise #1 and of the league #2. If another team is truly in a bad financial structure, I would consider some formula to tap into some revenue to correct it. The players should get a higher percentage of TV revenue, although not 60%, expecially if it includes local revenue.
2. BUT, I'd remind everybody that most other teams play in tax-payer subsidized stadiums funded by local government. They may not like their lease deals, but they didnt shell out what old Jack did to build Cooke/Fedex Field, or what the Danny does to maintain it. Unless another franchise or the NFLPA helped fund construction of Fedex, they don't get a piece of the local action. (Of course, if they did help finance it, I would share something in a private deal!)
3. The Redskins are a wealthy franchise because they own their stadium. If other teams want to gain, they should build and own their own stadium. Applies to the greedy major league baseball monopoly, too.
4. Fedex is the largest stadium in the league and always sells out. Visiting teams get 40% of the gate, so it's a big payday when they come -- and everybody wants to come! To get my vote for sharing local revenue, I want to cut the visitors share of the gate to 30% to make up for the loss. (or some such formula)
5. If the CBA is not renewed, I'd take my hits in 2006 and go to heaven in 2007. Yes, I'd lose core players, but I -- make that my Joe Gibbs led football professionals -- would be scouring the waiver wires for all the other salary cap casualties that would surely occur. Betcha there'll be a lot of good receivers and pass rushers available on March 4!!!
6. With no salary cap in 2007, the advantage falls to the Redskins and other big market franchises, which would include all the NFC/AFC East teams. I, the Danny, am what everyone is afraid of -- a free spending owner building a dynasty unburdened by salary caps; and that's why I think this thing gets settled in the next few days.