[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

The teams also have no control over how much other teams spend. The system estimates the total pool, then adjusts it fairly. There is nothing sinister going on, their contracts explain this system thoroughly.

I don’t think anything sinister is going on, it’s what’s in the CBA. However I do understand why the players don’t like the current system and would like to change it.

And the players are not taking the risk, though I am not surprised that you would try to state that they are. The system is very clear: 50% of HRR goes to players, regardless of whether the original contracts under-paid them, or over-paid them. Unfortunately, despite this very clear split, they have people whispering in their ears that they are taking the risk and they are being shafted.

How do you consider potentially losing a percentage of their salaries as not being a risk for the players? I don’t think the players are being “shafted” because the current format is in their CBA, but that same format absolutely puts them at risk of earning less than the salary agreed to in their individual player contracts.

As several people have stated, there are other ways to do it which would minimize the escrow. But that doesn't change the bottom line: the players get 50% of HRR, regardless.

I don’t think the players are looking for a larger slice of the overall HRR pie, although they could be. But as you and others have stated, there are other ways of structuring the CBA that would eliminate the need for the escrow. The players have made it clear that they don’t like having a portion of their salary held back so I’m surprised that so many people are critical of them for trying to change that when there are reasonable ways to do so.

Both I, and my wife, have a portion of our salaries withheld, for the same reason the players do: actual revenues aren't known until the end of the year.

I’m not sure whether or not two people qualifies as “very many” but in any event whether it’s the players or you and your wife, my opinion on having salary held back would remain the same, that is to say I don’t agree with the practice. If it works for you and you’re happy great, I’m happy for you both. But I can’t fault the players for not wanting to continue under those terms if they aren’t happy with it.

Again, this isn't some sort of plot against the players, nor is it a protection against GMs that overspend. It is simply a mechanism to ensure the accuracy of all contracts, and that the players receive what they are supposed to receive.

It also speaks volumes that you would manage to spin it in a way that suggests the players are somehow being wrong done by.

Again, the players are not being done wrong, they agreed to this CBA. However they clearly don’t like the current practice and would like to change it with one of the many options available and I don’t fault them for that. Not one bit. How far they are willing to take the fight to have it changed, and whether or not they are successful in doing so remains to be seen.