View Single Post
Old
10-27-2012, 02:35 PM
  #61
Section337
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 4,285
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
To address the player complaints, I think they're bogged down with having achieved a specific level of revenue together with the league.

Revenues have grown very well. The original deal was that if they exceeded $2.7 billion, their share would be 57%. HRR has grown nearly twice the escalator for the last two seasons-- after the economic collapse. The players seem to want to lock in what came BEFORE.

It's actually not unreasonable even if HRR stays the same (doubtful). That is where the good faith part comes from on the PA side.

Conceding the share on all future contracts gives the owners their assurance that overall the players will get less once we're past the current kerfuffle.

Tweak the numbers, but isn't that a feasible and fair framework-- one exception?

(Putting aside to what extent each side values the noneconomic issues.)
I agree, this is a revenue argument more than anything and neither side wants to lock in until they feel they are protected from a fall in revenue. What I don't understand is why they both feel they need to lock in anything based on speculation.

I'm sure both sides have already done calculations for all types of revenue amounts, we also know they are not averse to calculations with multiple factors. What I would like to see them negotiate a scale of revenue, salaries and sharing upon which they would negotiate. Of course that wouldn't allow one side to trumpet their victory if they created a flexible framework.

Section337 is online now