Hockey Related Revenue versus Direct Costs
View Single Post
09-14-2012, 11:35 AM
Join Date: Aug 2009
Originally Posted by
I will respond to this one last time:
I did the math. I showed you the math. The escrow clawback (as calculated against current CapGeek numbers at a 50/50 rate) would be less this season than it was in either of those two seasons where we have accurate escrow clawback rates from, as well as being less than against my estimated 2011-2012 rate (which was envelope math, as there's many other small factors in the calculation which were not considered).
The fact of the matter is, your entire underlying point is wrong. It has always been wrong. It will continue to be wrong. You need to just let it go because it is wrong. No matter how many times you attempt to continue to repeat it, your entire premise is inaccurate. Therefore all the subsequent things you've decided based upon that are wrong, because the "facts" you used to come to that conclusion aren't facts at all. They're just inaccuracies.
so the players are wrong in their escrow claw back calculations and you are right?
BTW my underlying point is PLAYERS WILL NOT ACCEPT AN OFFER THAT HAS THEM GIVE MONEY BACK, WHICH IN THIS LAST NHL PROPOSAL IS 17.5% OF THEIR CONTRACT. this is their ****ing math dude, call up FEHR and tell him he's wrong and its a great deal for both the players and the league.
THESE NUMBERS ARE BEING REPORTED BY THE MEDIA AND ARE NOT DISPUTED BY NHL.
Just because you calculated something means jack ****, its not like you have an accounting department with people who have advanced degrees and access to numbers the capgeek does not to get the full image at what the players have to pay out....
from Russo's article
Now, in the previous CBA, players typically got some of that money back. In fact, in a few weeks, players will get more than 8 percent of their withheld escrow back from last season back. I
n this new proposal, it would be pretty much guaranteed that the players wouldn’t get the majority of money put into escrow back in the first three years. In Years 4-6 of the NHL proposal,
it would essentially bounce back to the current escrow rules – if revenue growth outpaced projections and teams didn’t largely spend to the cap, the players could get most or all of their escrow money back.
just because the NUMBERS you arrived at are the same doesn't mean the IMPACT ON THE PAY is, where as before players got most of their escrow back, this time THEY WONT FOR THE FIRST 3 YEARS, so paying 8.what ever % in escrow and getting 7.what ever back at the end of the year IS BETTER then paying 7.what ever in escrow and getting 0.what ever back at the end of the year.
this is what the players are fighting against, at least ONE of the big issues they are having with the league.
thats the clawback they are facing, see they pay same or similar escrow rate but don't get it back, from that Brooks article, they got 97.5% at least back every year, so while players may have paid ~8% they always got majority of it back, this time IT WONT BE THE CASE.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by forthewild