I've talked with lots of people and I'm pretty convinced that if the regular fans were able to get in on the negotiations it would be over quicker. To me some of the stuff is obvious and I'm hoping if any experts are out there they can correct my thoughts. It looks like the Cash over Cap seems to be a big sticking point. The problem these "have-not" owners have is that the high revenue teams can put more money towards high signing bonuses that are paid up front, but can be spread out over the length of the contract for cap purposes. Why not change the rules so that you can make a guaranteed portion of the contract, but the money itself is spread out over the length of the contract? Is the player really going to need to start hocking stuff at the nearest pawn shop because the $10 million dollar signing bonus is now going to be given in $2 million dollar installments over the 5 years? This way it affects the salary cap in the same way as the owner's pockets. Since it's tied to the cap it won't hurt the lesser teams. If a player gets released before their contract is up, it works the same way as now. The only negative is the player not getting the entire thing in year 1, but as long as the money is guaranteed it shouldn't be a sticking pointg. This will get the teams with different levels of revenue on the same field. As for those extra sources of revenue, I don't understand why the "haves" don't slap the others silly. Teams like Dallas, Washington, New England, Houston, Denver, etc... have more revenue that isn't in the socialist "share everything" kitty. They get this money from luxury boxes and stadium naming rights. Now, what stops Ralph Wilson from getting a corporate sponsor for his stadium? Why should Bob McNair share money he gets from Reliant with an ego laced owner that has to have his name on his stadium? Why should Pat Bowlen share money he gets because Denver has a new stadium with a lot of PSL and luxury box money with Wayne Weaver who can't sell out his stadium and doesn't have as many club seats or luxury boxes? Not that they can fill them anyways. As for the percentage of what is going to the players, it's similar to the whole income tax problems in my mind. Those that have less money to start feel that the ones with more money should pay more. Well, they do. If every team gives 60% those teams that have more money give more. If team A has $300 million they would give $180 million to the player's association. If team B has $200 million, they would give $120 million to the player's association. $180 is more than $120, thus they are giving more. They have more left afterwards, but a team shouldn't be penalized for making more money. Maybe if Buffalo was set on putting a winning team on the field they would see their revenue increase. Right now the owners and the players are off by 4%. Split the difference to get this thing done.