(For those who aren’t totally up to date on these talks, that’s one of the biggest money debates.)
For those of us who aren’t math-minded, the numbers thrown around can be rather difficult to contextualize. Luckily, the Globe & Mail’s James Mirtle crunched some numbers to make it all seem a little easier to understand.
His verdict? The escrow (aka “making whole”) issue might just submarine the negotiations.
Follow the link to get the specifics, but here’s a more palatable summary from Mirtle:
Ultimately, players would get back a large chunk of what they lost in escrow in Years 1 and 2, but it would ultimately be coming out of their share in Years 3 through 6.
Essentially, as we’ve heard PA sources already grumbling, taking from some players to pay others.
Mirtle points out that things could be a little different if the cap rises slower than anticipated, but the message is largely the same.
The NHLPA might look at that setup as the players essentially giving themselves the “Robin Hood” treatment.
The union is expected to present a counter-offer covering a wide variety of the CBA topics, but for many, it will once again come down to this complicated way of cutting up the revenue pie.