Quote:
Originally Posted by Oil Stain
Pittsburgh went broke one year to the point that they couldn't pay their players. Mario got paid in shares.
In fact there are a lot of examples of NHL teams going bankrupt. When your team goes bankrupt the owner doesn't get any of that money from the sale of the franchise if his debts are larger than his revenue from the sale.
I'd say it's way more risky financially to own a team than play for one.
Player contracts on the other hand are guaranteed, even in the case of injury.
|
There are examples, sure. Just like there are examples of players going broke. But I would bet that in those situations, there is a lot more going on behind the scenes.
One is more financially risky (but also potentially and usually more lucrative) and the other is riskier to the health and short earning duration.
As for escrow alone, the players are starting the negotiations at a high point. But in the end, they will trade down for something else. Just like the owners aren't going to use the current deal as their starting point. If anything, it is fishy that they were willing to extend it for 3 years. They must think their portion is very favourable for themselves, otherwise they wouldn't have offered. When the real negotiations happen, they will be starting lower.