View Single Post
Old
11-14-2012, 10:53 PM
  #925
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,964
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYRFAN218 View Post
This is the issue when I mean linkage. They want their fixed share until revenues grow to make their share 50%. That won't be 50/50 until year 3 at the earliest.
Yeah, thats a bit disingenuous. One season of "delinked" salaries is a far cry from the stance you are projecting onto the players. And the league essentially agreed to fund the "make whole", so your position that the delinkage is holding up a deal is off.

One issue is players are looking for two seasons of guaranteed money. The league is kn board for one... hence the $200m and $600m discrepency. One season vs two with interest and I believe 5% growth.

The other issue, according to just about everyone including Daly and Fehr, is contractual. The honest to god sticking point is unclear, but PA stance is the league wants controls beyond 5% variance. League says they have conceded enough... "no more give and take."

At this point, the only way to salvage would be moderates on both side circumventing leadership and working out a cooperative deal. There is no way games should have been lost. Bettman crapped on the NBA CBA. That should have been our template: 50% split, two season escrow cap, contract limit (5% variance), revenue sharing increase. League gets the two big issues, players win on rev sharing and keep inked deals. Players lose overall... significantly. How are they getting squeezed beyond that?

DutchShamrock is offline