How much trouble COULD we be in?

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by Gmanc711

I
In addition, If I'm Dan Snyder I am pissed off about revenue sharing. Why should a team who chooses to keep their stadium called "Ralph Wilson Stadium" for example, get money from a team who essencially sold out ( and I wish our stadium was still called Jack Kent Cooke), and took the money. That is the teams decision, so why should another team who dosent make the same decision have to share revenue? Just my take on the subject. :headbange

That's what I'm thinking as well. Why should the bigger market teams be penalized for their finanical success? I think it's just an excuse to say the smaller market teams have no chance at success because they're in a smaller market.

I don't want to see our team stripped this year, but I enjoyed how things were in the 80's without a salary cap. The Redskins core group was always there - and any changes to personnel was gradual. A coach generally had plenty of time to work with his players, because there wasn't a fear of having somebody and losing them in a couple of years.

[sandtrapjack]

For one there will be a salary cap because there is really no going back. NFLPA President Gene Upshaw has stated publicly, and I quote "If a new CBA or a CBA extension is not agreed upon which would force the 2007 season to be an uncapped year, there will be a players lockout and strike". Just ask the NHL had that worked out for them.

But according to the press the sticking point with the CBA right now is NOT the salary cap. All teams are in favor of the cap. The sticking point is the handling of team revenues.

There was even a proposal on the board call the "Jacksonville-Pittsburgh Plan". Created by the owners of the Jags and Steelers, it calls for all NFL teams to share 12% of their revenues into one big "pot", then the NFL will distribute 3% of that TOTAL pot back amongst the 32 NFL franchises. After all would be said and done a teams "net" contribution to the league would be 5%. That plan is supposed to help these other teams in smaller markets compete finacially with teams like the Redskins etc... like when a team needs a new stadium, some of these funds would help with that.

But the real sticking point right now is revenues and how those revenues are going to be shared with the players. Owners are reluctant to share thier considerable revenues with thier team AND the league. It only makes sense that these revenues be shared with the players.

If they get that revenue sharing figured out it will help Washington, since they lead the entire league in revenues. It will make DC a more inviting place for top name players to sign with. Sure they will get thier standard salary capped contract, but they also get a percentage of the revenues, which should NOT count against the cap. The more a team makes in revenues, the more a player gets paid. This will also help with loyalty and longevity, as players would be more enticed to stay with a team with high revenues, because they are getting paid more.

If anyone is in good enough shape to benefit from revenue sharing, it is most certainly the Redskins

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by sandtrapjack

If they get that revenue sharing figured out it will help Washington, since they lead the entire league in revenues. It will make DC a more inviting place for top name players to sign with. Sure they will get thier standard salary capped contract, but they also get a percentage of the revenues, which should NOT count against the cap. The more a team makes in revenues, the more a player gets paid. This will also help with loyalty and longevity, as players would be more enticed to stay with a team with high revenues, because they are getting paid more.

If anyone is in good enough shape to benefit from revenue sharing, it is most certainly the Redskins

That seems weird and anti-competitive, i thought the players wanted more, but the plan was to justs extended revenue sharing into other areas like naming rights and take that money to divide among 32 teams (including ones that refuse to sell naming rights :P) and all the players would benefit from a larger % of the newly increased yearly revenue.