don't plan to use replacement players). I read Stephen Ross' comments
where he talked about the financial picture and how its common for
owners to take money off the top before distributing funds (maybe,
except that there's only a few sports, and its not common in those).
I also caught several other articles that discuss the lockout, the
stance by the players, and the stance by the owners.
And then it hit me: the owners never came to an agreement among
themselves about how to revenue share. They've talked about it, but
they still don't have a formal plan. Some owners want to leave the
status quo, while others want to create the haves and have-nots. I
believe there is much dissension still among them - but they're smart
enough to keep that private.
And along comes the Goodell comment. Because they have a lockout,
there can be no replacement players. So its very oddly out of turn.
Unless of course there is something else happening. What if the
lockout were terminated by the courts, or the owners suddenly had a
change of heart?
So why was there a lockout? The storyline says its to try and get the
players back to negotiations. But I strongly believe its because the
owners are scared of each other. If there was no lockout, teams would
be free to maneuver in some ways. Any player who is not part of the
union (or was not part of the union) would be fair game to sign to a
contract - with essentially no salary cap some teams could try and
glom onto certain players, thus creating an unwinable situation for
the owners (there would be a complete imbalance) - and the players
would have to either file more lawsuits or capitulate. And man
wouldn't that outcome be fun?
My two cents for today.