Quote:
Originally Posted by EddyBeers
The owners moved from 43 to 47.5% if you equalize the HRR out and assume they were always working from the old HRR. If you want to say they changed HRR and they moved their percentages they moved from 46 to 47.5% and changed the definition of HRR. They did not do both.
The players started at 57%. They put forward an offer that could net the owners realistically upwards of a 3-5% gain in HRR share. Obviously I suppose it is possible that all revenue dries up and HRR goes down, but it seems highly unlikely. But there offer did put more risk on the shoulders of the owners with the owners able to capitalize and thus increase their share of revenue if the business succeeds. In any event it would be a fair statement to say, all things being equal, the players have moved a minimum of 3% downward.
The owners have taken away arbitration in their offer, raised the UFA age, made it so ELC's can be ripped up after two years or renewed at a cheaper rate for up to five years and put term limits on contracts. They have not moved off of this position. The players to the best of my knowledge want the status quo on all those issues.
So at the end of the day, you have the owners moving 4.5%, the players moving a minimum of 3%, possibly upwards of 5% and I suppose on the off chance NBC goes bankrupt not moving at all. I am not sure how this equates to the owners giving up generous concessions and the players not moving an inch. Not moving an inch would be saying that 57% is their final offer.
|
The problem is, there is no "status quo" as the agreement ended.
As Gary said, (paraphrasing) the league honoured the deal during its duration, and now wants a new deal. The players want the old deal, because they did very well by it. I don't blame them for it, but personally feel their answer of "because that's what we got last time" is bogus, as is their argument that they are offering a reduction in salaries, when all they are offering is a reduction in the increase in salaries they will accept.