Lockout IV: One likes to believe in the freedom of hockey (Moderated: see post #2)
View Single Post
12-11-2012, 02:54 PM
**** Cycle 4 Eichel
Join Date: Mar 2011
Originally Posted by
The escrow mechanism is dependent on how much ALL teams spend. So here is an example that might clear things up for you...
3 team league, previous season's HRR was 100M, players share is 50%:
Players' Share = 100M * 50% = 50M
Cap Midpoint = 50M / 3 Teams = 16.67M
Ceiling = 16.67M + 8M = 24.67M
Floor = 16.67M - 8M = 8.67M
Team A: Cap Hit is 20M, Actual Club Salary is 30M
Team B: Cap Hit is 16M, Actual Club Salary is 16M
Team C: Cap Hit is 10M, Actual Club Salary is 10M
In the above example, total salaries paid to the players is 56M. During the course of the year, a portion of each players actual paycheck (based on Actual Club Salary, not Cap Hit) was witheld in escrow. Since the players as a whole were paid 56M in actual salary and they are only promised 50%, if HRR for the year ends up being less than 112M, then a portion of escrow will go back to the Owners. Again, completely independent of Cap Hit.
Got it and thanks for the thoughtful response. So signing big deals that circumvent the cap may hurt players by allowing some of it to be taken away, but only to the extent that everyone does it. If half the league underspends by the same margin as the other half overspends by, it's irrelevant.
Query then whether the players really
be fighting for cap-circumventing deals, though. It was suggested above that it shouldn't matter. But in reality, we assume that a bunch of teams will spend less than the cap. This actually allows wealthier teams to make up for what the poorer teams refuse to spend.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by haseoke39