Quote:
Originally Posted by Beatle17
And it pays them 50% of HRR, which if their salaries exceed they pay back in the form of escrow, which has been negotiated to extend for a longer period of time so they don't get hit with 80% escrow in one year. All other talking points are fluff.
I'll just leave this here:
https://www.espn.com/nhl/story/_/id/...rying-back-cba |
I think it’s pretty clear that the current CBA no longer guarantees a 50/50 split in revenue due to the caps on escrow. Otherwise the league would just let the CBA balance it out.
From your article where Bettman reaffirms the NHL’s position:
Quote:
|
"Under our deal and the one we've had for more than a decade with the players' association, whatever the revenues are, the players only get 50%" Bettman said.
|
This quote was the most intriguing thing I took away from what Bettman had to say. Basically if you’re right and a 50/50 revenue split is guaranteed then that means Gary’s only wrong about 1 thing in that sentence, but if I’m right then he’s wrong about 2.
The players clearly wouldn’t have wanted to play next season at such a high escrow amount, no one’s debating that but they were contractual obligated to do so. At the same time the league also needed to get buy-in from the PA to modify/extend player contracts and significantly alter both their working and living conditions(the bubble) so that the league could put on the playoffs during the summer. This CBA extension wasn’t an act of benevolence from the owners, it was a negotiation where both sides made concessions.