View Single Post
12-28-2012, 11:08 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,470
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by ULF_55 View Post
Not sure how an owner's buy-out should count against the players' share?

If you reduce the player's share how does that not reduce the amount available for the cap?
Maybe the league's thinking is 'we don't want buyouts but if you insist on them, it comes out of your share'? I'm pretty sure the compliance buyouts in the NBA come out of the players share and the excess from their capped escrow also come out of the PA's benefits fund. If the players get any of these things (which seems they may have taken it from the NBA CBA), then I think the league will counter with the same kind of set up that the NBA has currently.

It technically should reduce the cap but that would leave several teams over the cap and would cause teams to have to reshuffle their teams to fit under the cap so there's a two year transition period proposed that would be independent of the players share and total revenue. The issue is that this transition may result in hefty escrow payments which is why I suspect that the players wanted capped escrow so that they could artificially lower their share.

Ari91 is offline