Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi
How do you think I’m confusing revenue sharing with escrow?
The players understand escrow, their opposition to it is that it can result in them not receiving the full value of the contract they signed if revenues fall short. Which strongly suggests they don’t want their salaries directly tied to revenues.
This narrative you and Locke keep trying push that the players wanted to be 50/50 partners with the league and to have their salaries linked to revenues simply isn’t supported by the facts. If that’s what the players really wanted they would have never gotten a 57% share of the revenue in the CBA after the first lockout. I think we can all agree that the league would have preferred to have and agreed to have a 50/50 split at that time.
|
lol
They signed a CBA agreeing to exactly that. Those are the facts.