Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi
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.
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.thes...agreement.html
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%)
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. |
1. I don't see anything related to season length. It was all related to HRR projections.
2. It's still escrow. It's held back because the final value is uncertain. It is distributed back to each party once the value is known. The amount the player's put into escrow is fixed/capped. It's just a matter of how long before they get any of it back.
3. Excess revenue would absolutely be split back among the players. It's just never happened because the cap was designed on a false notion that most teams wouldn't end up spending over the mid-point (and the escalators). The owners pay into escrow, too (at least theoretically).