True but the owners want cost certainty. Designing the system so that the owners always/almost always have to be the ones contributing extra after the season isn't certainty. The way it is set right now, Ottawa is set to payout ~$72M and then get some of that back. Imagine if they had to set out $72M and then pay extra while missing the playoffs and having terrible attendance.
'Certainty' to the BOG as a whole means 50% of HRR. It is not a term intended to apply to individual franchises.
In truth, the players would not want a system where they get extra at the end of the year, because that would mean that their pay which should have gone to them through the year and been available to them for investing was instead in the hands of the owners. It would be like a free loan.
The contrast in the 2 sides is this:
DURING THE YEAR: A certain %age goes into escrow, where it isn't available to anyone.
At the end of the year, if escrow was too large, the players get the amount in escrow, or a part thereof. Note, this is rightfully THEIR money, but was unavailable to them through the year. This happens the vast majority of the time
At the end of the year, if HRR exceeded expectations by a large enough amount, the players get the escrow (which they should have had earlier to invest if they wished) AND... the owners pay the players more. NOTE that this is money which was NOT in escrow, and thus the owners had it.
So, the players have a system where THEIR money is not available to them when it could be, and perhaps (although this has rarely happened) is actually in the owners' pockets.
In contrast, in NO WAY is owners' HRR ever put into escrow.
Thus, the system is unbalanced in a small way to the advantage of the owners, or, more likely, neutral to the owners and a disadvantage to the players.