Sportsnet: NHL Shooting for Weekend Deal

[ArtG]

Can someone elaborate for me the whole escrow situation? 15% of players salaries goes into this account and if the players are to make more than 54% then it goes to the teams, and what if the players are set to make 50%? Then where does the extra $$ come in? Or do they just raise the cap?

 

[Boltsfan2029]

Judging by published reports, I doubt the extra cash will do much but allow some teams to break even in the best case scenario.

That's pretty much what I meant when I said "If they're in the red & need the extra money to be bailed out..."

 

[GSC2k2*]

Can someone elaborate for me the whole escrow situation? 15% of players salaries goes into this account and if the players are to make more than 54% then it goes to the teams, and what if the players are set to make 50%? Then where does the extra $$ come in? Or do they just raise the cap?

Well, firstly the players get their escrowed salary back. Plus, the owners would top up to 54%. Exactly how is their business and would likely not be in the CBA, as it is not properly a subject of collective bargaining. If the salaries came to 54% because the revenues were higher than expected, yes the cap (and floor) would increase. The increase formula is undoubtedly going to be in the CBA, but I would be willing to bet the previous year's revenues would be a part of that formula.

 

[GirardIsStupid]

You guys are both missing the point. What drives everything is the guaranteed percentage that will go to the players - 54%. If teams try to pocket their cash but the league goes under 54%, the cash is going to be topped up by the teams. If it is more, the teams get it back.

I am well aware that a certain percentage will go towards the players. While you're discussing the ramifications of the entire league's failure to reach that percentage, my posts focus on the monetary acitivities of the bottom 10 teams that would apparently receive an extra 6 M of revenues. Since I'm assuming the top 20 teams will more than make up for any short-comings of the bottom 10 (d/t to the cap figure being so high and the lack of a luxury tax to act as a deterrent), I'm arguing these struggling franchises will keep these monies (to either break even or make a profit) rather than spend it on player costs (after having met the cap floor). It was, however, wrong for me to assume these 10 teams will all virtually make a profit as a result of this revenue sharing...just about when I was ready to proclaim it profit sharing. It also isn't a foregone conclusion the player's percentage of total revenues will be met through team payrolls alone as I have also assumed...

If the projected revenues for next season are correct (1.8 B), an average of 32.4 M per team would gaurantee the players 54%. Hypothetically, if the cap is as high as 39 M (with the top 10 teams reaching that max and the middle ten having payrolls around 32.4 M), all that would be needed from the bottom ten is an average salary of 25.8 M (close enough to the 22 M floor anyway and highly attainable without the help of revenue sharing)...these bottom ten could easily pocket the shared profits they receive from the large market clubs.