View Single Post
Old
09-21-2012, 05:58 PM
  #167
ps241
HFBoards Sponsor
 
ps241's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 11,352
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest View Post
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.
yea I think it could be solved though. Transition the verbiage from escrow to revenue sharing and make the payments as the year progresses based on projections and while using a much more modest hold back which is actually escrow (15%). unless that is what you meant? Oh and one more thing Guest one of the great parts of it is if their is ever a currency disparity issue again like in the early 90's it could be normalized really well with your proposal.

ps241 is offline   Reply With Quote