View Single Post
Old
10-06-2012, 10:36 AM
  #124
Mr. Make-Believe
Moderator
Pass me another nail
 
Mr. Make-Believe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Erotic Fantasies
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,811
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrrOverGretzky View Post
NHL offer 2 : Keep HRR as it was in expired CBA, reduce players share to 47%. $190 million to revenue sharing. However no rollback, Escrow would be increased. If revenue exceeds expectations the players will have that returned to them from escrow to the maximum that their contract says.

It's not a contradiction its a comparison of offer 1 and offer 2. There is no way in offer 1 the players can earn any of the money given up in rollbacks. In offer 2, while they initially lose it in escrow, it's not fixed as in offer 1. It fluctuates as the revenue does. So as revenue increases, so does the likelihood that what is being held back in escrow will be returned to the players. In option 1, if there is an increase, the players get nothing.
One isn't all that much better than the other. If I'm understanding correctly.

In the first, the salaries roll back and escrow stays the same.

In the second, the salaries DON'T roll back, but escrow goes WAY up. And the maximum they can earn is 47% of HRR. Which still means that the players are making 10% less HRR as a best-case scenario. Still a rollback.

Mr. Make-Believe is offline