Hockey Related Revenue versus Direct Costs
View Single Post
09-13-2012, 11:54 PM
Join Date: May 2010
Originally Posted by
So what you're saying is that these owners signed contracts they never intended to pay. That's ******* level right there.
If I sign a contract I have no intention of paying I end up paying it... yet the owners somehow think that doesn't apply to them.
Not what I was saying at all...
I am bashing the people bashing the owners for setting up the contracts that are allowed under the current agreed upon code of rules.
I have been consistent that my biggest gripe with the owners is even the smallest desire to NOT pay the contracts that they legally agreed to with the players.
Outside of both parties willingly saying yes to a renegotiation, that contract stands and should.
Which is why I don't think an immediate roll back would fly. I don't think that a rollback via escrow will fly. My honest to god proposal would be to use the current HRR calculations, scale back the player share by 1% over the next 7 years to get it down to 50%.
My rough math is that the players would be being paid the same, with negligible increases each year, but eventually the balance of the equation shifts into the owners pockets more inline with a 50% split.
That would be the "easy" fix, but after digging into it, I think the system itself is more broken than either side is admitting (publicly).
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by bozak911