Quote:
Originally Posted by The Fonz
Remove the escalator, which will lower revenue risk, which will in-turn reduce the amount that players pay into escrow. At the end of the day, these players are netting the same amount whether the escalator is exercised or not.
It can't be that simple though... so I'm obviously missing something.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
Yeah I was wondering about the dissatisfaction with escrow thing back when they proposed this CBA extension and escrow was discussed, it does feel like I'm missing something.
Has there been any insight into what the players actually want or are dissatisfied with? Is it just the simple fact of having it deducted during the season rather than making a lump payment at the end? Or having to pay more and then getting a bit of a refund at the end?
|
Yeah, I've been thinking the same thing. Something is missing.
Heres a question, escrow is a percentage of revenue right? Is the issue that the 'Big Money' players are paying more escrow? Is that what they're unhappy about?
At the end of the day Escrow is just the balancing mechanism to keep everything even at 50/50 right?
What do the players want? No escrow? So in order to balance everything at the end of the year some of them would be required to come up with money. What if they cant? Whats the contingency there? It seems to me that it makes more sense to operate sort of 'as you go' in order to be able to adapt more easily to fluctuations.
What is the players' actual complaint in regards to escrow?