View Single Post
11-13-2012, 07:47 PM
Registered User
guyincognito's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 31,300
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by TaketheCannoli View Post
Why do they have to take a haircut at all?

I'm really confused by all of the posters who state as a matter of fact the players have to accept 50% of HRR, so they should just accept it and move on.

Great negotiators find a way for both sides to win.
They're getting more than 50% in the end. That's where market value is. If they think they are worth more than the NBA players/NFL players, then I don't know what to tell you/them.

But you didn't answer my question, if the terms were carried over and there was no lockout, why exactly should the players go to the table? What incentive do they have to negotiate? They are not going to get the same deal they have now, any deal is going to be worse, at least as the % goes.

You brought up the example where there were retroactive give-backs based on what the results of the negotiations were. How do you execute this with such large amounts of money, when one of the parties is adverse to escrow and feels like they are not getting paid the full value of their deals?

guyincognito is offline   Reply With Quote