Haloti Ngata would NOT be a FA after the '10 season

[psuasskicker]

Here is an article by Don Banks (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/don_banks/03/23/nfl.meetings/index.html) discussing the ramifications for 2010 and 2011 now that the owners have opted out of the CBA. It's an absolutely fascinating look at the triggers the owners put into place to completely flip the stakes on the players.

Classic line of thinking is that, in 2010, if it results in an uncapped year, the players will love it as they'll be hitting the markets en mass for a free agent spending bonanza. Reality seems to be that the owners have put significant rules into place to both limit the number of free agents that will hit the market, as well as limit the ability for teams to go get those free agents. The result seems to be that the players will in no way reap the benefits they're expected to gain as the result of an uncapped year.

Witness the case of Haloti Ngata as a example of how uncapped years would have a very real and very significant negative impact on the players to earn top dollar. Our line of thinking has always been "Ngata is one of the best in the game. Ngata is also a free agent after the '10 season. Therefore, he will be able to sign a huge contract somewhere." As an extension, we thought "If the '10 season and beyond is uncapped, someone will be able to sign Ngata for MAD DOLLARZZZ, and even if that's us, it will crush us as fans since ticket prices will go up in order to keep our top guys."

However...

[O]nce the salary cap disappears, players can't be free agents until they've completed six NFL seasons, rather than four. ...

"That's huge, the six seasons before free agency,'' one of the general managers told me. "But it's also a bit of a funky spot to be in because, let's face it, there are going to be some unhappy players who thought they were about to get to free agency. You've got a guy who just finished his fourth season, but now he's not coming up [for free agency].

This goes without saying that a new CBA is not in place before next season. If a deal is reached at the 11th hour, that would solve all these issues. But for the sake of this discussion, let's simply assume '10 will be uncapped. Owners seem to think it's 95% likely anyway. In the example of Ngata, we would have to assume a continuation into the '11 season...that's not a given, but it let's me use a more tangible example than a guy from another team who's up after this coming season.

In reality, Ngata would never be a free agent. His '10 season is his fifth, and in an uncapped '11, he no longer qualifies to be a free agent. He's left with the rather unpleasent choice of coming back on our terms, or sitting out the '10 season. (Not that it's unpleasent to play here, but it's unpleasent for him not to have options, and to have absolutely no negotiating leverage.)

This would apply after the '09 season to quite a few players, including many with big names that could demand big contracts. Players such as Braylon Edwards. Brandon Marshall. Phillip Rivers. Chris Snee. Adrian Peterson (the good one). Maurice Jones-Drew. Roddy White. Greg Jennings. Luis Castillo. All those guys are UFA's in 2010 with a capped year in place, but don't meet the 6 year qualifications which means they're not going to be free agents at all.

Imagine the money those guys leave on the table if they can't be free agents in 2010, and then subsequently the 2011 season doesn't exist. Those guys combined would probably demand $125MM in guaranteed money at an absolute minimum...could easily be twice that in reality. And they'll get none of it, cause they won't be able to demand a huge new contract.

Think the players don't have an incentive to work this out quickly?

- C -

[Jeremiah W]

Some players will be screwed in the short term but no cap seems to work well for baseball players, and a flex cap works a lot better for NBA players who have actuall legal "contracts". Football will be fine in the long term, there is not a town in the country without a HS team, but the owners could kill the golden goose they are sitting on by shutting it down and exposing the market to other pro comp.

[12jg34]

I read this article too and came away with the impression that the owners had a lot more leverage than media outlets initially reported.

Are you sure in your analysis? That is, why couldn't Ngata command an uncapped salary in '11? I really don't know.

[Jeremiah W]

I read this article too and came away with the impression that the owners had a lot more leverage than media outlets initially reported.

Are you sure in your analysis? That is, why couldn't Ngata command an uncapped salary in '11? I really don't know.

They would all fall under the RFA rules as I understand it but the tender has to be at least 20% more than his last salary.

[12jg34]

I really hope football doesn't go the way of baseball. People point out that teams like the Devil Rays (a team built through the draft) can beat teams like the Yankees. I agree that is the case, but teams like the Yankees are pretty much in the playoffs every year b/c they can afford big contract after big contract. Even though they haven't won it in a while, they're still in the playoffs and that's fun as a fan. (Not as fun as winning the World Series, but still fun.)

I don't want football to become that way, and it looks as though, from reading the Banks article, that it wouldn't quite be that way. But I do like the way the NFL is set up now.

[psuasskicker]

Some players will be screwed in the short term but no cap seems to work well for baseball players, and a flex cap works a lot better for NBA players who have actuall legal "contracts". Football will be fine in the long term, there is not a town in the country without a HS team, but the owners could kill the golden goose they are sitting on by shutting it down and exposing the market to other pro comp.

Baseball doesn't have close to the restrictions that the NFL owners have put in place for themselves. You need to actually read the article to understand what's going on here. Assumption has always been that an uncapped season will turn the NFL into a mirror of the MLB. No one except the players wanted that, cause assumption was a couple owners would drop massive dollars on FAs and would push the market rate up for everyone across the board. Reality seems to be that there's less pie to split, and far fewer people that will get a shot at it. Some may benefit, but far more will be hurt by it.


I read this article too and came away with the impression that the owners had a lot more leverage than media outlets initially reported.

Are you sure in your analysis? That is, why couldn't Ngata command an uncapped salary in '11? I really don't know.

He could command it, but it's not a locked up deal. I'm not certain if he'll be subject to RFA rules or simply will only be able to be retained by the Ravens and he'll play if they can work out a deal and won't if they can't. How'd it work back in the 70s before the onset of FA? Likely similar rules.

But RFAs aren't exactly in high demand much of the time either. Usually the price you pay is simply too steep. You have to poison pill the deal which costs massive money up front, and you wind up giving up draft picks. In this case, they'd be poison pilling a deal that might wind up losing an entire season (2011 with a lockout) very early on in it. There aren't many, if any, owners willing to do that. Even Dan Snyder, who's a football moron, is still a business savvy guy. You don't accidentally wind up worth nearly ten figures. I have trouble seeing guys like Ngata getting massive RFA offers from anyone.

- C -

[srobert96]

Some players will be screwed in the short term but no cap seems to work well for baseball players, and a flex cap works a lot better for NBA players who have actuall legal "contracts". Football will be fine in the long term, there is not a town in the country without a HS team, but the owners could kill the golden goose they are sitting on by shutting it down and exposing the market to other pro comp.

It is much different than Baseball. The only uncapped year will be 2010. After that there will be a work stoppage. Football unlike baseball receives most of their money from the large network TV contracts which the NFL owns and not the individual teams. While some teams like the Redskins and Cowboys can generate more revenue from Stadiums and other sources it is not nearly the difference that you see in Baseball with the Yes network.

The NFL Players union is significantly weaker than baseballs. Most owners in the NFL would never approve a system that did not have some type of measure to control teams from buying a championship.

If there was a new agreement in place that did not have a cap there would be other restrictions like we are going to see in 2010. Adding 2 years prior to player being a free agent in the NFL is huge as players start to decline after about 8 years. Restricting free agent spending of top teams from previous years also will keep the salaries down. The owners are better prepared for a work stoppage as they will still be sharing Direct TV revenue as well as the fact that they have been preparing for this for a few years. Most players who are still early in their career would not be able to go a year without pay.

[Jeremiah W]

It is much different than Baseball. The only uncapped year will be 2010. After that there will be a work stoppage. Football unlike baseball receives most of their money from the large network TV contracts which the NFL owns and not the individual teams. While some teams like the Redskins and Cowboys can generate more revenue from Stadiums and other sources it is not nearly the difference that you see in Baseball with the Yes network.

The NFL Players union is significantly weaker than baseballs. Most owners in the NFL would never approve a system that did not have some type of measure to control teams from buying a championship.

If there was a new agreement in place that did not have a cap there would be other restrictions like we are going to see in 2010. Adding 2 years prior to player being a free agent in the NFL is huge as players start to decline after about 8 years. Restricting free agent spending of top teams from previous years also will keep the salaries down. The owners are better prepared for a work stoppage as they will still be sharing Direct TV revenue as well as the fact that they have been preparing for this for a few years. Most players who are still early in their career would not be able to go a year without pay.

The system as it is does not work well for most players. Most players never get to free agency, and unless they were a top pick, do not make much money until they do.

The NFL makes more than enough money to split it up in a way that is better. The NBA and MLB models for pay structure would not translate directly to football, but seem like much better models. The NFL has had no cap before and it was not as good for the players, but that does not mean they could not make a better deal. There is plenty of money on the table.

[psuasskicker]

Very good post Robert. To expand a bit:


If there was a new agreement in place that did not have a cap there would be other restrictions like we are going to see in 2010. Adding 2 years prior to player being a free agent in the NFL is huge as players start to decline after about 8 years.

Imagine how much this hurts a RB, who has an even shorter life-span in the NFL. LDT wouldn't have been a FA when he came up for it and wouldn't have gotten nearly the contract he got. If you're an NFL owner and you know the life of a great RB is typically 5-7 years before they begin to seriously drop off a cliff, how likely are you to shell out big dollars for a guy like Clinton Portis or LDT when you can simply draft another one, pay them half as much, and get 80% - 90% of the production? RB pay scales across the board could drop 15% or more in an uncapped structure like this, if it stayed long term.


Restricting free agent spending of top teams from previous years also will keep the salaries down. The owners are better prepared for a work stoppage as they will still be sharing Direct TV revenue as well as the fact that they have been preparing for this for a few years. Most players who are still early in their career would not be able to go a year without pay.

Remember what the NBA players did? Holding the basketball game during the strike for their "less fortunate" coworkers? Ridiculous on its face, but an athlete lives a different life, and that life comes with responsibilities. Also, read the SI article from this past week on how those guys go broke. We're not dealing with business savvy guys that know how to manage money. We're dealing with guys who may as well have won the lottery. There's a reason lottery winners seem "cursed" by their money, where they lose most of it, or lose family members, or whatever when they win. Typically they're people who don't understand how to manage their money, and it causes problems.

Same with these guys. Many of them simply can't afford to go a year without pay. Even if they could, you're cutting out a MASSIVE chunk of their earning power. Average NFL career is three years. Losing a year of that is one third their earning power in the NFL. Even in the case of the better players that make it 10-15 years, you're chunking out 7%-10% of their career, many of them in the prime of it. Imagine guys like Andre Johnson, Larry Fitzgerald, Nnamdi Asomugha, Ben Roethlisberger...big-time studs who are going to be in their primes in 2011...losing out on a year of pay. You're talking about tens of millions in lost earning potential for these guys. I guarantee you none of them want to give that up.

- C -

[italianjoker]

this is a discussion that i think the players have no leg in. there has to be a cap to keep the league at the top of the sports world. owners take the risk and owners spend the millions upon millions. players entertain us and deserve their fair share, but they currently get their fair share. there is not another job in the world that these guys would be able to do and make the money that they make. appreciation for what they have instead of greed for what others have is needed.

great topic. thanks for the thread.

[B-more Ravor]

Witness the case of Haloti Ngata as a example of how uncapped years would have a very real and very significant negative impact on the players to earn top dollar. Our line of thinking has always been "Ngata is one of the best in the game. Ngata is also a free agent after the '10 season. Therefore, he will be able to sign a huge contract somewhere." As an extension, we thought "If the '10 season and beyond is uncapped, someone will be able to sign Ngata for MAD DOLLARZZZ, and even if that's us, it will crush us as fans since ticket prices will go up in order to keep our top guys."


Well, unless there is a new deal, there won't be a 2011 season for Ngata to become a FA in anyway.

The "uncapped year" rules will make a difference in 2010 and many players who would have otherwise been FA will not be, but the CBA ends before the 2011 season, so there will likely be a lockout or strike, as opposed to agreeing to continuing play under the rules of the expired CBA.

So, the only way that this would affect Ngata is for the side to essentially agree to extend the CBA for one year in order to avoid a work stoppage and continue playing under the "uncapped year" rules.

[HoustonRaven]

Great article and analysis, PSU!

I, too, was under the assumption that players could have a free for all. Now it seems the shoe is on the other foot and that's fine by me.

And I cannot fathom how people can draw a comparison between the NFL and MLB.

[B-more Ravor]

This article gives a little more of an in depth explanation of the new rules for 2009 and 2010:

http://www.profootball24x7.com/column_view.php?cid=46&aid=3261&view=archive

[srobert96]

Very good post Robert. To expand a bit:



Imagine how much this hurts a RB, who has an even shorter life-span in the NFL. LDT wouldn't have been a FA when he came up for it and wouldn't have gotten nearly the contract he got. If you're an NFL owner and you know the life of a great RB is typically 5-7 years before they begin to seriously drop off a cliff, how likely are you to shell out big dollars for a guy like Clinton Portis or LDT when you can simply draft another one, pay them half as much, and get 80% - 90% of the production? RB pay scales across the board could drop 15% or more in an uncapped structure like this, if it stayed long term.



Remember what the NBA players did? Holding the basketball game during the strike for their "less fortunate" coworkers? Ridiculous on its face, but an athlete lives a different life, and that life comes with responsibilities. Also, read the SI article from this past week on how those guys go broke. We're not dealing with business savvy guys that know how to manage money. We're dealing with guys who may as well have won the lottery. There's a reason lottery winners seem "cursed" by their money, where they lose most of it, or lose family members, or whatever when they win. Typically they're people who don't understand how to manage their money, and it causes problems.

Same with these guys. Many of them simply can't afford to go a year without pay. Even if they could, you're cutting out a MASSIVE chunk of their earning power. Average NFL career is three years. Losing a year of that is one third their earning power in the NFL. Even in the case of the better players that make it 10-15 years, you're chunking out 7%-10% of their career, many of them in the prime of it. Imagine guys like Andre Johnson, Larry Fitzgerald, Nnamdi Asomugha, Ben Roethlisberger...big-time studs who are going to be in their primes in 2011...losing out on a year of pay. You're talking about tens of millions in lost earning potential for these guys. I guarantee you none of them want to give that up.

- C -
Great points about the RBs.

The only thing I would like to see the NFL implement would be some type of cap relief for retaining your own free agents.

[psuasskicker]

Well, unless there is a new deal, there won't be a 2011 season for Ngata to become a FA in anyway.

The "uncapped year" rules will make a difference in 2010 and many players who would have otherwise been FA will not be, but the CBA ends before the 2011 season, so there will likely be a lockout or strike, as opposed to agreeing to continuing play under the rules of the expired CBA.

So, the only way that this would affect Ngata is for the side to essentially agree to extend the CBA for one year in order to avoid a work stoppage and continue playing under the "uncapped year" rules.

I specifically caveated the OP by saying you had to assume it rolled, but that I was using Ngata as an example because it will hit closer to home than if I used Roddy White, which was my example on another message board I write on that is not specific to any team in particular. I actually caveated it specifically to avoid a post like this, but I suppose I should have known better.


The only thing I would like to see the NFL implement would be some type of cap relief for retaining your own free agents.

Yeah, I absolutely agree with this. It's the one piece that I and many others want to see implemented, and honestly it's one lever that could wind up smoothing things over enough to keep a cap in place. The players have higher earning potential, the owners have to pay more but only a little more, and the fans keep their teams better in tact.

Strip out the best pieces of the NBA's system and stick it into the NFL's system and I think you've got perfection...

- C -

[Ravenswarrior19]

I specifically caveated the OP by saying you had to assume it rolled, but that I was using Ngata as an example because it will hit closer to home than if I used Roddy White, which was my example on another message board I write on that is not specific to any team in particular. I actually caveated it specifically to avoid a post like this, but I suppose I should have known better.

- C -

I guess the best Ravens example is Mark Clayton. Drafted in 2005, signed 5 year contract, would be an unrestricted FA after 2009 - but with only 5 years accrued service he'll be a restricted FA now.

I seen the restricted tender for players in his situation set at 110% his 2009 cap number. (Alas, no links at this time)

One relatively minor point about an uncapped 2010.
Yes, the volume of UFAs on the market will be severly limited by the 6-yr-rule, 2 Tag designations, etc. But, I expect this to be slighty counterbalanced by players with "bad" contracts who get cut loose. With no ramification from dead money, some teams will used 2010 as a purge year to cut overpaid or underperforming players.

[jonboy79]

I guess the best Ravens example is Mark Clayton. Drafted in 2005, signed 5 year contract, would be an unrestricted FA after 2009 - but with only 5 years accrued service he'll be a restricted FA now.


Demetrius Williams, Adam Terry, Chris Chester... there are more hten enough...

[psuasskicker]

One relatively minor point about an uncapped 2010.
Yes, the volume of UFAs on the market will be severly limited by the 6-yr-rule, 2 Tag designations, etc. But, I expect this to be slighty counterbalanced by players with "bad" contracts who get cut loose. With no ramification from dead money, some teams will used 2010 as a purge year to cut overpaid or underperforming players.

Yeah but that's not good for those players, right? They're not gonna get huge rewards since they're by definition not living up to their current contracts. There may be a few guys in that group to wind up finding a huge contract somewhere that's out of line with a capped season. But those guys will be a very low percent as compared to the group that gets purged.

FWIW, I picked Ngata, cause no one would really care if we lost Clayton or whoever. And more to the point, none of the guys that are up in 2010 are guys that could score a massive deal in FA in an uncapped year, whereas Ngata would easily be able to get that.

- C -

[purplepoe]

The amount of misinformation or lack of information out there about this whole thing is ridiculous. Sure, there is some time before the decisions have to be made but so many people think the NFL is gonna be uncapped and it's gonna turn into baseball.

The owners need to get a better deal and the provisions they inserted are gonna go a long way in getting that done.

Tags signed off in the current deal and I'm not sure why.

PP

[B-more Ravor]

I specifically caveated the OP by saying you had to assume it rolled, but that I was using Ngata as an example because it will hit closer to home than if I used Roddy White, which was my example on another message board I write on that is not specific to any team in particular. I actually caveated it specifically to avoid a post like this, but I suppose I should have known better.


Wow, sorry if I offended, it certainly wasn't my intention. :eek:

[Ravenswarrior19]

Yeah but that's not good for those players, right? They're not gonna get huge rewards since they're by definition not living up to their current contracts. There may be a few guys in that group to wind up finding a huge contract somewhere that's out of line with a capped season. But those guys will be a very low percent as compared to the group that gets purged.

FWIW, I picked Ngata, cause no one would really care if we lost Clayton or whoever. And more to the point, none of the guys that are up in 2010 are guys that could score a massive deal in FA in an uncapped year, whereas Ngata would easily be able to get that.

- C -

I totally agree. I'm not saying it will be a good thing for the players who get dumped (McGahee?), just pointing out some other forces at work in determining the post-2009 FA class.


The amount of misinformation or lack of information out there about this whole thing is ridiculous. Sure, there is some time before the decisions have to be made but so many people think the NFL is gonna be uncapped and it's gonna turn into baseball.

The owners need to get a better deal and the provisions they inserted are gonna go a long way in getting that done.

Tags signed off in the current deal and I'm not sure why.

PP

A lot of the confusion stems from the difference between an uncapped 2010 as laid out in current CBA, and a completely uncapped 2011 and beyond (which would have to be agreed upon by way of CBA extension).

For years, Upshaw claimed if the salary cap ever went away, I don't imagine it would ever come back. Posturing? Probably. But if that ever came to pass, the NFL could turn into baseball. I can't really see it happening, but who knows ...

As for Tags, he wanted a legacy of no work stoppages. Owners were scared of playing seasons under last-capped-year and uncapped-year rules, so they agreed to a bad CBA extension at the 11th hour. Now that they've had a few years to truly understand the situation, they're better prepared and ready to go to carpet to cut an extension they like.

[psuasskicker]

The amount of misinformation or lack of information out there about this whole thing is ridiculous. Sure, there is some time before the decisions have to be made but so many people think the NFL is gonna be uncapped and it's gonna turn into baseball.

The owners need to get a better deal and the provisions they inserted are gonna go a long way in getting that done.

Tags signed off in the current deal and I'm not sure why.

PP

We all know Tags is an idiot. I think it's gonna be very telling about what insiders know about him, that he presided over probably the largest rise in popularity of a sport in history, and will never get into the Hall of Fame.

I actually wonder if the owners kept a lot of this under wraps for a reason. These guys are smart. Their leverage increases the closer the players get to the lockout. It could very well be that the owners wanted the players to think that an uncapped year would be a bonanza, find out harsh reality that it's not, and then crawl back to the table with their tails between their legs and hammer out a deal before they lose their pay for a year. I certainly wouldn't put it past them...shrewd business strategy.


As for Tags, he wanted a legacy of no work stoppages. Owners were scared of playing seasons under last-capped-year and uncapped-year rules, so they agreed to a bad CBA extension at the 11th hour. Now that they've had a few years to truly understand the situation, they're better prepared and ready to go to carpet to cut an extension they like.

I agree that's what Tags wanted, but I'm not so sure anymore that the owners got bullied into this by anyone, anymore. I used to think that, but now seeing what they've put into place, I actually think the owners let people think they were bullied, when in reality they were setting themselves up to take initiative.

It's the essence of capitalism. When in doubt, bank on the guy that built a business worth hundreds of millions of dollars to come out ahead of the guy that is an employee for millions of dollars...

- C -

[Rxdoxx]

Great discussion on one facet that is "easiest" to get some understanding of.
But the issue is a multi-layered mess, which I'm sure the owners have analyzed, mapped out and prioritized with their own subtle inclusions to mix in at the end keeping the field tilted towards them as much as they can get away with.

One of the first things we heard tossed out at us was ridiculous money given to unproven rookies at the expense of veterans. Was that one of the main issues? nope. But interesting that the owners chose that point in their opening salvo.

Looking at where the players priority is in all of this, I think we can say bottom line is money (salary/bonus), with minor highlights on security. Getting unrestricted freedom has to be viewed in the light of stronger negotiation base to get more money (except for the very small percentage who just want to get out of their team). Bottom line for the Union looks to be how much money is guarenteed to come the players way.

Owners have other issues besides just money. Keeping the cash cow alive/healthy and making it stronger. I don't know what they envision as emerging out of this for them, but I'm sure they have strong ideas of things they want to end up with, and their focus isn't directly on the big money pie, but on the management of it.
Start with signing bonus. We all know that one of the reasons Art Modell moved here was because he had to take out loans to get up-front money for players. This is money management, controlling the outflow and how fast and when it happens.

The opening shot from the owners, and main battlefield is going to be "the players are getting too high of a percentage". That is the lever which will drive the negotiations, but IMO it wouldn't surprise me if the owners ended up paying the same percentage when all is said and done. It is the other tweaks that they see getting in place. The Union emerges claiming victory because they held on to the money. The owners cry the blues over their loss, but are secretly elated over the modifications enacted.
What those modifications are exactly, I don't know except for how bonus payouts are done.

I can even see things like the final percentage difference being split and a veteran retirement fund established with it. Union claims a win saying "we have provided for past and future retirees". NFL sets up the fund and uses the principal for loans/slush in the meantime.

But we as fans focus on our players like Haloti, because that is what affects us.

[B-more Ravor]

The opening shot from the owners, and main battlefield is going to be "the players are getting too high of a percentage". That is the lever which will drive the negotiations, but IMO it wouldn't surprise me if the owners ended up paying the same percentage when all is said and done. It is the other tweaks that they see getting in place. The Union emerges claiming victory because they held on to the money. The owners cry the blues over their loss, but are secretly elated over the modifications enacted.



It's always difficult to get something back that you have given up, so that is the difficult spot the owners find themselves in. The players, based on the recent increases in the Cap, would obviously prefer to keep the status quo.

As far as the 60% of revenue number goes, much of the battleground may not be so much that percentage figure, but what makes up the "revenue" figures that the percentage is going to apply to. There could be a lot of tweeking going on there, so that both sides could pausibly claim victory. The 60% figure could stay the same, but the sources of funds that make up "revenue" could change.

Plus, the owners are likely going to have to revisit how they go about sharing revenue in order to make it work for all of them. That could again be a major issue with some of the owners not wanting to share some of the revenue they have cultivated (Jones, Snyder) with owners who are perceived to not be doing enough to maximize their revenue (Brown, Wilson).

There are a lot of reasons to get this worked out, but a lot of reasons that they won't. I could definitely see both sides not blinking and a lockout occurring before both sides are forced come to their senses. :(

[Ravenswarrior19]

It's always difficult to get something back that you have given up, so that is the difficult spot the owners find themselves in. The players, based on the recent increases in the Cap, would obviously prefer to keep the status quo.

As far as the 60% of revenue number goes, much of the battleground may not be so much that percentage figure, but what makes up the "revenue" figures that the percentage is going to apply to. There could be a lot of tweeking going on there, so that both sides could pausibly claim victory. The 60% figure could stay the same, but the sources of funds that make up "revenue" could change.

Plus, the owners are likely going to have to revisit how they go about sharing revenue in order to make it work for all of them. That could again be a major issue with some of the owners not wanting to share some of the revenue they have cultivated (Jones, Snyder) with owners who are perceived to not be doing enough to maximize their revenue (Brown, Wilson).

There are a lot of reasons to get this worked out, but a lot of reasons that they won't. I could definitely see both sides not blinking and a lockout occurring before both sides are forced come to their senses. :(

One thing I have consistently seen since 2006 is the argument that goes "Now that the players get 58 cents on every dollar that's brought in, there is no longer enough financial incentive for the owners to invest in new revenue streams"

So I definately think the "of what" is going to be a major part of this extension, on an owners vs. players scale and an owners vs. owners scale.