[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Any changes made will end up in escrow and even up. Neither side is going to be able to win permanently in any decision. So why are you so against shortening up the sharing mechanism to make it more fair to both sides?

Where are you reading this? This MOU is structured under the assumption that the players will likely make more than 50% of HRR in at least the first season and could also do so for a few seasons. If things rebound quicker than expected the league could end up keeping more than 50% of HRR under this agreement, I have read nothing in this MOU stating otherwise but if it is in there please provide a link to a citation.

The escrow and payment deferrals under this MOU have absolutely nothing to do with ensuring a 50/50 split in HRR, their purpose is to mitigate the losses for the league. The deal has a clause that extends the deal by 1 year if the league made between $125M-$250M less than 50% of the HRR over the term but even that doesn’t assure the owners a 50/50 split, and once that final year is done any remaining losses would be left to the owners.

Guys like Elliott Friedman have said he's hearing "many" owners don't want to play this year given the losses.

I’d be willing to bet there would be owners who still don’t want to take the loss from playing this year even under the league’s new proposal so the comment doesn’t carry much weight with me to be honest.

Neither you nor I can determine if that's a bluff or not, but given the calculations it sure doesn't seem like it.

The league knew they would lose money this season, so they agreed to a system to mitigate their losses that they projected they could live with, now they are claiming their projections were wrong but their new ones are going to work. This league has a long history of negotiating this way but in this case you really have to ask yourself why, if the league’s representatives did such a poor job the first go around, what credibility does the league have when they have done nothing to deal with the people who put them in this spot other than say go try and negotiate some more? Most businesses would hold people who sign that bad of a deal accountable. I don’t but the “a lot has changed” argument since the league predicted this exact outcome and still agreed to the deal without any other safeguards included in it, which to me strongly suggests they were ok with it.

As I said ... 36% of the $5B is where the industry would be in a 60 game season. Losing 64% of your income vs only 28% of your biggest cost would easily destroy the profit you are claiming (Your link had it at $25M/team for $775M)

I get where you are coming from but you’re ignoring the fact that there will almost certainly be significant operational cost savings outside of the player salaries this season. The question we need to be asking is whether the difference the owners are saying they need(an extra $10M or less in losses this season) is really their breaking point or if they are just trying to see if they can force the PA into accepting these amendments which reduce their losses at the players’ expense.