My suspicions grow about the league lockout. What if this was about shutting up teams that complained the last agreement was too generous not to the players but to the richer teams?
Lance (ton of guys in Texas named Lance) Zierlein of the Houston Chronicle writes on Chron.com that the new salary cap number while strict on teams paying the minimum floor salary may leave room for teams resigning their own free agents.
Lance claims his sources indicate that there may be no penalties for teams that exceed the cap in keeping their own players. A lot of you know that I've thought that this would be more onerous on small market teams but how many different ways can you look at this? The agreement doesn't address the split between what's defined as total revenue vs. all revenue. All revenue includes naming rights, etc which raises the amount that all teams must split with players.
But here's the rub; If I sell my naming rights I keep all of the money but your costs rise. Below is Forbes view of how these revenue has been split. We hear that there is a new revenue sharing agreement between owners that's fair. Must be true, Jerry Jones said so.
|Players’ Percentage of All Revenues||56.5||52.6||51.8||50.5||52.3||51.1||52.7||51.8||51.0||50.6|
|Players’ Percentage of "Total Revenue"||61.7||57.1||56.1||54.3||57.0||55.1||58.4||58.0||57.7||57.1|