Hockey Related Revenue versus Direct Costs
View Single Post
09-17-2012, 06:54 PM
dun worry he's cool
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Originally Posted by
that players pay a lower escrow rate if they take a 50/50 deal?
my argument isn't about your rate, its about what the players have said about the NHL deal, that they feel its too steep of a pay cut for next year while the cap adjusts.
if escrow is meant to make sure both sides get their fair share no?
while players are saying getting paid at 57% share next year but should be paid at 49% or HRR share the ecrow account will reflect that at the end of the year.
that is all i am saying, players feel under nhl's immediate and steep decline in HRR share players feel the will give back too much pay. i am not questioning your rate. just saying the money give back for players is too much according to them.
also prove to me that under nhl new proposal players wont experience pay cuts greater then .5% they just experienced. last year players got 99.5% of their contracts.
For around the 951st time: You are the only person who has ever mentioned the actual escrow cut from the checks. No one else has said anything about it. No one else has mentioned it. No one else's numbers have anything (except indirectly) to do with it. The mentioned escrow rates in 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 are the clawback rates, not the reserve rates. That is also the figure I calculated for 2012-2013.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by squidz*