Quote:
Originally Posted by powderjunkie
It'll come down to contract details, but presumably SPC's are structured around 82 game seasons with some language related to shortened seasons/proration - but I would venture that language isn't water-tight.
The league's argument is simple: the deal signed was based on 82 game reg season. If the players insist that season length has no bearing on compensation, then they better be prepared for 90 game seasons.
|
I don’t think the players have opposed prorating their contracts based on games played, in fact they already did so for next season. I’m not really sure what that has to do with this.
Quote:
|
Citation needed. Everything I've seen frames those figures as escrow caps/limits. Once both parties are made whole, there is no reason to believe that escrow wouldn't be returned to the players to maintain 50/50.
|
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.thes...agreement.html
Quote:
|
The escrow rate — the percentage of player salaries withheld during the season as a way to ensure teams and players achieve a 50-50 split of hockey-related revenue — will be 20 per cent next season, up from 10 per cent, then drops to 18, 12 and nine per cent in subsequent years. The players are also taking an additional 10 per cent deferral (from salary and signing bonuses) that will be paid back to them through the next three seasons.
|
Previously escrow was calculated multiple times throughout the season based on a formula, now it is set at a fixed rate so even if the league recovers quicker than expected the players will still pay the higher escrow amounts. I haven’t read the actual MOU between the league and the players but my interpretation is that these caps aren’t caps so much as they are set escrow amounts(with the exception of the second year which I’ve previously seen reported as being 14-18%)
Quote:
|
Then they don't understand what the full value of their contract is. In reality, every contract is signed for a percentage of a percentage of TBD totals (HRR and total player salary allocation).
|
I agree that is how their contracts essentially work out, though it’s a bit of an oversimplification because I don’t believe excess revenue is split amongst the players based on their salary, could be wrong about that though. What I’m saying is the players understand this too, but they don’t like that system because they prefer the monetary guarantee over the percentage of revenue guarantee. The pros and cons of either is a whole other debate.