Quote:
Originally Posted by powderjunkie
You might be right about over-payment in the earliest years...it certainly hasn't happened recently.
|
I just remember someone on here arguing that it happened at one point and that’s really all I’m basing that on lol.
Quote:
|
I missed the Brooks article; just gave it a read. There isn't any connection between the 60 games and 72%, but all of the paragraph 17 stuff is interesting. I know somebody posted it before, but here it is again:
|
You’re right, I either misread or mixed it up with another article. I thought I had read the plan for 60 games next season was already confirmed but upon further reading 60 games is only one of the scenarios the league is contemplating.(seems odd that the league negotiated anything related to revenue without deciding on a number of games first)
After reading that Brooks article a little more closely it’s interesting that the league used a number of forecasting models that pegged revenues anywhere between $1.3B-$5B yet still thought it made sense to sign off on this deal and are now complaining because things are looking closer to
their anticipated worse case scenario than the best case scenario.
Quote:
IANAL so I can't parse the difference between verbage for '19-20 vs. this upcoming season, but they must have been worded differently for a reason.
I think the league's argument may be: season length is being dictated by the calendar (and perhaps economic conditions), not COVID. If games get cancelled because of COVID outbreaks, you will still get paid.
|
I think the difference is that the league can use paragraph 17 for last season if they are to only argue that lower than forecasted revenues during the portion of the season played before any game losses incurred from the pandemic are the reason for their claim, but next season they won’t be able to apply it at all as they already know there will be lost games and other covid related risk factors going into this season.