Quote:
The 2012-13 season would see the players receive a 51.6 per cent cut. In 2013-14 that total would drop to 50.5 per cent, before further dipping to 49.6 per cent in 2014-15.
For the following three seasons (2015-16 through 2017-18) the players would see an even 50 per cent.
The cap for 2012-13 - projected to be $70.2 million under the existing CBA - would be cut to a fixed $58 million under the latest proposal.
That number would rise to a fixed $60 million in 2013-14 and then to a fixed $62 million the following year.
Projected cap numbers for the final three years of the deal include: $64.2 million in 2015-16, $67.6 million in 2016-17 and $71.1 million in 2017-18.
can someone explain to me how the players share can go down (then sticks around 50%), but the cap can continue to rise over the years? and how can you fix the cap number when you're splitting revenue by %? like if revenue goes up isn't there a potential to have a crap load of money stuck in escrow or something? someone walk me through this, bc i'm just not getting it on first read.
this proposal seems pretty stupid, like we'll go through all of this, just to get back to where we are now in about 2017-18 and have another lockout, if revenue hasn't increased sufficiently. but even if it has, we'll probably just do it anyway.
jfc is it really that hard to relax to give the players 50-52%, relax the ceiling with some kind of luxury tax for the rich teams, add in more revenue sharing for luxury tax money and a relaxed floor for the welfare teams, profit. maybe a small rollback in the amount that the cap is decreasing from the projections bc some stupid teams went out and spent up to $70m.