Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor
Though even just taking the language at face value, I'm not sure it's totally clear. If the NHL wanted to recapture only the aggregate advantage then why would they have used the phrase "both annually and in the aggregate"?
|
Really interesting debate.
An argument for recapturing the annual could be that the teams have presumably used that space. Eg if a player received 8m on a contract with an AAV of 5, the team got a 3m benefit that only existed in that year, that they are assumed to have used. That the $ may even out later doesn't undo the advantage they received.