Triumph, you're smarter than this. As presented that idea doesn't work, it was basically written on a Tim Horton's bag before the meeting. You can't have a zero escrow 50% year when all of the signed contracts are at 57%. It's literally impossible. Under that system they can't reach true 50% until Shea Weber's contract ends 14 years from now.
that's not entirely true - they can get there well before that but it will come out of future contracts. you are also incorrect that it is "literally" impossible to do in year 1. it is merely 99% impossible.
here's the best way i can explain this. let's say for easy math that revenue growth is 0 for the next five years and the league revenue is $100 dollars every year.
right now, players are entitled to $57 of that $100 and if you add up all the contracts on the books for this year, they will either equal $57. The players are paid over the season about $50 and the extra $7 is held in escrow just in case the league doesn't actually get $100 in revenue. If the league only makes, say $90 in revenue, the players will not get that extra $7. they'll get $1.30 (which would give them a total of $51.30 or 57% of $90).
so the players want to keep making $57 of that $100. the league wants them to make $50.
but here's the problem with the nhlpa's 50/50 year 1, no escrow suggestion: the players are already guaranteed about $57 for next year of $100. Teams have already committed to that in existing contracts and every side says no rollback is on the table. so unless the leagues revenues go to $114 next year, 50/50 is impossible and there is no way the league's revenues can go up 14% without every team selling out every game and every fan at every game buying a $300 authentic jersey. oh, and the winter classic would have to bring in about $60MM on its own.
in the owners proposal (again, assuming zero growth for easy math sake), you'll get let's say 7 years of $100 in revenue with a 50/50 split. that means the players' total contracts can add up to $50 every year.
as of RIGHT NOW, guaranteed existing contracts likely add up over the next 7 years to something like $57, $54, $50, $45, $42, $35, $20.
what the owners are saying is that the $7 this year and $4 next year that are over $50 will go towards the last 4 years in some way.
So instead of $45, $42, $35, and $20 of existing contracts, you've got $47, $44, $38 and $24.
assuming the same $50 available to players in future contracts, that means new contracts can be $3, $6, $12, and $26.
now in the real world, revenues are increasing and the total value of contracts drops way more each year than in my analogy. but this explains exactly what the owners latest offer is.
again, i don't think it's fair. i agree with triumph that what is "fair" and what would grow the league the most would be 50/50 with a soft cap and a luxury tax league that gives the 10 highest revenue teams a chance to use their advantage and fund the rest of the league through revenue sharing.
Edited by sundstrom, 18 October 2012 - 08:33 PM.