Quote Originally Posted by B-more Ravor View Post
It's always difficult to get something back that you have given up, so that is the difficult spot the owners find themselves in. The players, based on the recent increases in the Cap, would obviously prefer to keep the status quo.

As far as the 60% of revenue number goes, much of the battleground may not be so much that percentage figure, but what makes up the "revenue" figures that the percentage is going to apply to. There could be a lot of tweeking going on there, so that both sides could pausibly claim victory. The 60% figure could stay the same, but the sources of funds that make up "revenue" could change.

Plus, the owners are likely going to have to revisit how they go about sharing revenue in order to make it work for all of them. That could again be a major issue with some of the owners not wanting to share some of the revenue they have cultivated (Jones, Snyder) with owners who are perceived to not be doing enough to maximize their revenue (Brown, Wilson).

There are a lot of reasons to get this worked out, but a lot of reasons that they won't. I could definitely see both sides not blinking and a lockout occurring before both sides are forced come to their senses. :(
One thing I have consistently seen since 2006 is the argument that goes "Now that the players get 58 cents on every dollar that's brought in, there is no longer enough financial incentive for the owners to invest in new revenue streams"

So I definately think the "of what" is going to be a major part of this extension, on an owners vs. players scale and an owners vs. owners scale.