I just posted on the ESPN report telling us the positive trend in NFL lockout news took a hit as the owners can't seem to agree amongst themselves as to what they need from the CBA. The dissenting owners were not identified other than the report that at least two of them were from AFC teams. The last paragraph of the ESPN article really caught my attention:
Some owners clearly want football and are willing to meet the players' price. But others -- remembering 2006, when a CBA that seemingly favored the players was thought to have been rushed through -- want to make sure they don't make the same mistake.
In 2006, all but two owners approved of the CBA in a vote. Those two owners were Ralph Wilson of the Bills and Mike Brown of the Bengals. I don't think it is too big a jump in logic to conclude that if two owners are remembering the ill will of the 2006 deal that it would be the same two owners who felt bad enough about the deal to vote against it. Jump over....
The other, and bigger issue is, there problem was not that the deal favored the players at all. It was how they were going to treat each other, split up the money and set the cap.
Back in early May, I wrote a post stating that the owners were their own worst enemy in the CBA. It outlines pretty well what the owners are likely disagreeing about. Here is an excerpt:
This revenue sharing was a source of contention between the owners the last time a new CBA was agreed upon in 2006, and was brought up by Buffalo's Ralph Wilson at the '06 owner's meeting and quoted by the USA Today:
The non-shared revenue is growing and it's got to be addressed, otherwise markets like Buffalo won't be able to compete.
According to that same article:
Right now, about 10 large-market teams, including Dallas, Washington, New England and Philadelphia, are united against exploring ways to distribute the league's overall wealth more equitably to help out the Buffalos, Green Bays and Pittsburghs.
And Ralph Wilson hammers it home for us again:
The league was built on sharing revenues but these big-market clubs just don't want to give up any more.
The reason Jerry Jones gives for not wanting to expand revenue sharing?
Jones said sharing all revenues would eliminate the incentive for small-market teams to find new revenue streams and push their communities for new stadiums.