Some more info on the new agreement...

[Bill Brasky]

Under the new deal, the bottom 17 teams in revenue will not contribute to the pool, which will be funded with the top five teams contributing the most; the second five less; and the third five less than them.


Still, two of the lowest-revenue teams voted "no."


"I didn't understand it," said Buffalo's Ralph Wilson. "It is a very complicated issue and I didn't believe we should be rushing to vote in 45 minutes. I'm not a dropout ... or maybe I am. I didn't understand it."

........................

The crux of the debate over the last few days has centered on revenue sharing and the disparity between high- and low-income teams. Low-income teams such as Buffalo, Cincinnati and Indianapolis say that high-revenue teams -- Dallas, Washington and Philadelphia, for instance -- should contribute proportionately to the player pool because they can earn far more in non-football income such as advertising and local radio rights.

Those high-revenue teams might contribute only 10 percent of their outside money compared with 50 percent or more for low-revenue teams.

"Some teams are contributing a little more than others," Redskins owner Dan Synder said. "This is really a win-win."

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2360258

[Bill Brasky]

i am lost here guys....

it says the bottom 17 teams won't contribute, yet it goes on to say later that the low revenue teams will contribute upwards of 50%...

so are they contributing or not?

:idunno:

[L.A. Playa]

maybe that was a proposal that wasnt accepted with the 50 % ??

[Bill Brasky]

maybe. i'm good with economics and all, but the way this article is written it doesn't really explain much. it's sort of confusing.

[L.A. Playa]

they dont want you to understand just but tickets and merchandise

[Bill Brasky]

damn conformists!

[kgun12]

I think we will all find out more in the next few weeks.

[Michael82]

maybe. i'm good with economics and all, but the way this article is written it doesn't really explain much. it's sort of confusing.
now u understand how Ralph is feeling. I don't understand it either. :confused:

[RedEyE]

It doesn't make a lick of sense.

[RedEyE]

I think it's one of two things:

1) The old way was 50/10

or

2) Of the top 15 contributers, the bottom 1/3 might contribute an upward amount of 50%, were as the upper 1/3 might be contributing only 10%?

[casdhf]

Guess I'm just as dumb as Ralph ... I don't get it.

[LtBillsFan66]

It makes sense to me.

That 10% / 50% was just an example. They are saying that even though the high revenue teams are paying more, they are paying less as a percentage of their total revenue. The lower teams are paying less, but a higher percentage of their total revenue. 10% and 50% are not set in stone. Just used as a basic example.

[ICE74129]

The pool is set up to help the lower revenue teams. It isn't ideal, but I guess it beats the alternitive.

[LtBillsFan66]

I think it's one of two things:

1) The old way was 50/10

or

2) Of the top 15 contributers, the bottom 1/3 might contribute an upward amount of 50%, were as the upper 1/3 might be contributing only 10%?
#2. There was no old way. It's just an example.

The top teams are going to be paying an amount. Someone guesstimated that that amount will be approx 10% of their total revenue.

[LtBillsFan66]

read:

Those high-revenue teams might contribute only 10 percent of their outside money compared with 50 percent or more for low-revenue teams.

[Stewie]

The article is poorly written (maybe the writer doesn' t understand) ... the way I read it is this:

The top five teams will contribute the most total dollars, but at the lowest rate (10%?)

The next five teams will contribute fewer dollars, but the rate will be higher because of their lower income. (25%?)

The next five teams will contribute the fewest dollars, but at the highest rate (50%?)

And the final 17 teams will contribute zilch.

[LtBillsFan66]

I read it the same paul. The percentages are just guesses.

My guess is that the top teams break even with payout to help the bottom teams. The money probably comes back from national TV deal.

[RedEyE]

Well, as a Bills fan, I'd say that's more than fair. I just feel sorry for that team that borders the bottom 17 and is forced to contribute.

[LtBillsFan66]

They are like the middle class red. The Bills are like the ones on line for government cheese and a welfare check every month.

[RedEyE]

One thing that I don't like is the NFL's quickness to increase the cap regularly without hesitation. This doesn't differ other teams from going over their cap numbers on final CBA contract years because they know the next increase will save their ass in the long run. It also tells players to ask for more money with each increase because the league will evantually be forced to bail their teams out.

[RedEyE]

They are like the middle class red. The Bills are like the ones on line for government cheese and a welfare check every month.

****ing scabs! ;)