Does the 49-51 band actually matter?

Post #1 » by **HartfordWhalers** » Sun Nov 27, 2011 4:35 pm

So right now there is a band that sets it at 49-51.

With 10% of salaries in escrow and 1% of all of BRI in a lootable (retrievable) player fund, if players sign for salaries = 57% of BRI, then even if the band says 49, the most that owners can get back is 6.7% (10% of 59% and the 1% from the player fund). Which leaves salaries at 50.3.

And salaries have been above 57 every year but last year, so unless the system issues reduce salaries enough, players look set to get at least 50%. With salaries at 59% of BRI, players could be getting 52%.

DBoys · Post #2 » by **DBoys** » Sun Nov 27, 2011 5:30 pm

Nope. Very misunderstood compromise. The agreement was that the DIRECT adjustments (end-of-year) to get the split down to the agreed percentage can only come from a 10% escrow and the 1% slush fund. The owners can't go in and get more directly out of players contracts, either in the same year or a future year. But if that isn't enough, the agreement specifically calls for system adjustments (to be designed) in a way that insures the players will have only gotten 50-50 (or whatever they were supposed to, in the 49-51 range) by the time the CBA ends.

Post #3 » by **HartfordWhalers** » Sun Nov 27, 2011 8:06 pm

DBoys wrote:Nope. Very misunderstood compromise. The agreement was that the DIRECT adjustments (end-of-year) to get the split down to the agreed percentage can only come from a 10% escrow and the 1% slush fund. The owners can't go in and get more directly out of players contracts, either in the same year or a future year. But if that isn't enough, the agreement specifically calls for system adjustments (to be designed) in a way that insures the players will have only gotten 50-50 (or whatever they were supposed to, in the 49-51 range) by the time the CBA ends.

Yeah, I saw that cap and lux tax will be set each year to try and accomplish the agreed to split, but unless there is some very strong language in the actual CBA specifying exactly how this is done, I'm not sure how they are going to agree to a new formula of setting both within this cba. Especially if it is a matter of the players supposed to be getting 50.7 and instead getting 51.3 or whatever, and not a massive discrepancy.

DBoys · Post #4 » by **DBoys** » Sun Nov 27, 2011 8:51 pm

It doesn't say anything about "try" to accomplish the split. Their agreement says they will ENSURE it "as may be needed" - in other words, the players have agreed that they are only going to get 50% (or whatever) and are not entitled to more. That's an important concession. They have merely ruled out "escrow" (beyond the agreed 10%) as being the mechanism to ensure it.

zennie62 · Post #5 » by **zennie62** » Mon Nov 28, 2011 1:42 am

Given overall, the percentages change with respect to "special growth targets" but it's still basically 50 percent. I make that point in my vlog here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tg9bRRbgpzo - but what is REALLY upsetting to me is that it took so long to get to a point they should have been at just a few weeks into negotiations!

zennie62 · Post #6 » by **zennie62** » Mon Nov 28, 2011 3:34 am

zennie62 wrote:Given overall, the percentages change with respect to "special growth targets" but it's still basically 50 percent. I make that point in my vlog here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tg9bRRbgpzo - but what is REALLY upsetting to me is that it took so long to get to a point they should have been at just a few weeks into negotiations!

And add to that, the overall reason for the percentage difference was just the owners making peace with the players, and vice versa. In other words, the whole percentage argument was a matter of who was most important to the league - players or owners - when in point of fact, they need each other.