Quote:
Originally Posted by Resolute 14
You do realize that what you are claiming is that the NHLPA wants the owners to spend less on player salaries, right?
|
No I'm not I'm claiming they want less withheld and for the owners to assume some of the onus on assuring that it isn't.
Quote:
|
Except you are wrong. If the players end up being paid less than 50% of HRR, the onus is on the owners to top it up. And that has happened.
|
Fair point. The owners top up liability should be capped by roughly the same amount.
Quote:
|
The system is, however, designed to assume the salary midpoint is also 50%HRR. The players shoot themselves in the foot every year by using the escalator
|
Don't front like the escalator is the principal cause of high escrow. The owners exceeding the midpoint is far more to blame.
Quote:
|
As I state above, the "correct" response if the players never want to face escrow again is to set the 50% HRR at the salary cap. This means that the players contracted salaries will collectively fall below 50% HRR every year, but instead of escrow payments, they will get top-up bonuses.
|
Then time value of money becomes an an issue. I much prefer a narrower band of floor and ceiling. Plus capped escrow should encourage better management. God forbid we actually get management in this league that doesn't need a work stoppage every damn cycle to save it from itself.