Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke
I dont see the problem here. The players wanted to be partners. 50/50.
If the revenue isnt there, they have to shoulder their share. Regardless of the previous agreement.
Things changed.
Its annoying that people want to be in for the good times, but sheltered from the pot-holes.
They see the owners making a lot of money and they want their share, but when things go bad they want no part of it.
Yeah, the owners make a lot of money, but they also take a lot of risk. You wanted in and now you're looking at the downside? Who are these clowns?
|
I agree with all of this Locke except for the first sentence. I don't believe the players ever really wanted to be revenue sharing partners and it took a season long lockout to get to a salary cap based on revenue.
When you hear players complain about escrow they're really complaining about having salary tied to revenue IMO.