Hockey Related Revenue versus Direct Costs
View Single Post
09-14-2012, 11:56 AM
dun worry he's cool
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Originally Posted by
squids did you miss that part where players paying the lower escrow number ARE NOT GETTING THE MONEY BACK? more then Russo is saying that initially players won't get their escrow back at least not most of it, this is my point, you say i have numbers, but the accountants who did the math see that players won't be getting it back. it doesn't matter if they pay less then last year under the 50-50 deal, what matters is how much they stand to get back from escrow and right now for the first few years it won't be anything.
the NHL dropped the roll back idea in favor of escrow, but that money is going to go to teams not players while the cap adjusts and teams get cap complaint. its not like HRR goes down the 50% and Minnesota Wild just opperate above a hard cap with fairy dust.
Did you miss the part of how escrow works? The rates that I demonstrated and proved from 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 are
the clawback rate
. That is to say, every figure I have provided is
the amount of money the players did not receive back.
Actual escrow payment rates have not been mentioned a single time by anyone other than you. Russo can claim that the players are "getting back their 8%" but that doesn't reflect the actual amount they paid in. If the players are receiving back 8%, it's because they paid far more in (if my estimates are accurate, about 16%). While I don't have hard figures for 2011-2012, if they had received back 8% in 2008-2009, they would have had to pay in 20%.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by squidz*