View Single Post
09-21-2012, 02:59 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 5,556
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by ps241 View Post
I still think this is one of the more interesting outside the box ideas or at least frameworks for a proposal that could help allot with Revenue sharing and preserving competitive balance.
One detraction that I can understand the players not liking is the significant increase of salary in escrow. Based on the 2010 numbers, if 10-20% of player salaries went to escrow that would have been about $145-290M, where as my proposal would have put $490M in escrow. At least 2-3 times (or 30-40% of player salaries) more going into escrow for the players would have to be something they would accept to get a deal that supports all 30 teams in the league in their current markets.

That's where revenue sharing probably becomes the players top choice. It fulfills the same purpose without the high level of escrow. The two concepts are very similarly linked, but I imagine it's easier for the owners to shoot down that level of revenue sharing versus every team paying their share of the players portion.

Last edited by Guest: 09-21-2012 at 03:04 AM.
Guest is offline   Reply With Quote