G.A. Clone wrote:Seriously, if they wanted to get a deal done, they should go 55%/45% BRI (in favour of the players), and guaranteed contracts are 3-4-5 years (with the 5th option being assigned to a franchise player or what Stern said in an interview recently). Lower the Cap number teams can go over and increase the amount that needs to be paid once you go over the tax. Also reduce the players salaries by a bit (not sure what's considered a bit).
That way, players still get a good percentage of revenue if the league is doing great, while owners are discouraged to overspend (and if they do, they won't be tied to a contract for too long).
If those are the glaring issues they're stuck on, I can't see why they won't agree on the BRI favouring players, while the contract length/max. amount favouring the owners. Seems to be a good compromise.
Agreed. But it looks like, after reading this ( http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_ ... fell-apart ) that the players traded the BRI for no hardcap, i'm guessing that's where the 50/50 first came up, but now the players reneged and is only willing to move down to 53/47 BRI split.
It doesn't look good for the season.


























