Hockey Related Revenue versus Direct Costs
View Single Post
09-17-2012, 08:26 PM
Join Date: Aug 2009
Originally Posted by
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.
i'm pretty sure every reporter has said the reason players rejected the league offer is because of the the steep decline in revenue they get, infact didn't daly say that instead of a flat reduction in contracts like in 2005 the league was going to use escrow to deal with the cap difference.
the cap under a 50/50 split is going to be less then it is now, how will the teams comply with that cap? NHL's solution in there proposal was ESCROW, there is a reason players rejected that deal THEIR ****ING ACCOUNTANTS DID THE MATH AND SAW PLAYERS WOULD GIVE BACK REAL DOLLARS THROUGH ESCROW, this is the point i'm making the reason players rejected the deal WAS BECAUSE THE STEEP REVENUE DECREASE makes them give back money.
you don't ****ing get it do you, if the whole year players are being paid at 57% of HRR when they are SUPPOSED TO BE PAID at 49/50% won't they have to give money to the owners at the end to make sure each gets their slice of the pie? all you have said well the Escrow rate is lower, but you didn't show how the reduce in share is going to be effected, OWNERS GAVE THE ANSWER AND ITS ESCROW PLAYERS DONT Like it and they rejected it.
Players proposed a slower reduction OWNERS DONT LIKE IT BECAUSE PLAYERS DONT GIVE REAL DOLLARS BACK,
did you miss the part where Daly confirmed players would give back via escrow
Some claimed that was the exact same thing as a rollback, but Daly says this is the “exact same concept” as the escrow in the last CBA.
“Does it have an economic impact on the current contracts? Yes, just as escrow would normally have an economic impact on the current contracts,” Daly said.
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. In 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.
so yes while your calculation is a lower escrow in your mind a better deal for the players, in the real world they dont' like this deal because they would make less money then they would with a more gradual approach to the 50/50 split, i don't care what your rate is, the real impact on player pay is the reason players rejected this deal and we have a lockout.
maybe you need to catch up on escrow, did you miss this part
n the NHL’s first proposal, the league asked for a player rollback. In last week’s proposal, the league got rid of the rollback request but asked players to put money into escrow that would essentially reduce their salaries and protect teams, like say the Wild, who are $12 million above the NHL’s current proposed salary cap level for next season
again the reason players don't like this deal that you seem to think is so good is because of the above stated reason, now it seems you think the PA is wrong so please tell them how you are right so we can end this lockout you'll be a hero....
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by forthewild