View Single Post
Old
09-17-2012, 05:11 PM
  #53
brs03
Coo coo ca cha!
 
brs03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Maryland
Country: United States
Posts: 12,216
vCash: 500
It's the players responsibility to fix the problem because they have less leverage and are going to lose the fight. There is no right or wrong, just the reality of who has more control. I'd also argue that the onus is more on them because they've been getting more than 50%, but honestly that's arbitrary to begin with and depends on how you define HRR in the first place so is probably meaningless.

It's true that players will probably take escrow into account when signing their deals (well, the smart ones will) but they probably should also have taken the chance of some form of rollback into account even if they planned to fight against it... just to be pragmatic. Neither here nor there though, wouldn't justify it either way. The nature of escrow means they really have no idea exactly how much they'll bring in in a year; increasing the escrow % wouldn't change too much (and if it was a small enough increase they realistically wouldn't lose any more than they originally planned for, since IINM they never end up losing it all).

I just think the players are (at least appearing to be) needlessly hardheaded about the "no rollback" issue when it's presented as a form of escrow. Now it may be that the form laid out to this point is really unfavorable, but drawing a solid line in the sand comes across as silly to me given that they've never had guarantees before now. You don't sign for $X, you sign for $X+-Y% Changing that Y shouldn't be an outrage as long as its part of a reasonable bigger picture. Heck, if they do it right they might be able to milk some decent concessions in other areas out of the owners for agreeing to it (which is partly what I think they are doing, or at least what Fehr is doing).

As for owners-vs.-players rather than owners-vs.-owners, that's just how it goes. You could say the same thing with players-vs.-owners rather than players-vs.-players. The guys who don't make much or have short careers are getting royally screwed by any real lockout, and are gaining almost nothing from any hard-line wins by the PA. But that's the nature of these kinds of negotiations.

brs03 is offline