I think what they meant was that on future contracts, a player like Odom would be making $2.6 million. I do not believe the owners had a rollback of current salaries in their proposal.
Now, stranger things have happened (during the NHL lockout, the players agreed to roll back current contracts), but from everything I have read, the owners are not even trying to mess with the current contracts.
If a hard cap is agreed upon, some teams would already be over that limit, so my belief is the owners are angling for salary cuts. Another reason to believe that is the owners warned if the player's union were to decertify they would try to void all existing contracts. Any way you want to slice or dice it, the owners are looking to reduce operating costs by reducing player salaries.
If they do implement a hard cap, they will likely ease into it over a number of years.
There has been discussion of a system that allows teams to cut players, and have them not count against the cap, but still be paid the rest of their contract...possibly spread out over more years. And I think something like this will almost certainly be part of the new system...although it remains to be seen what the details will be.
but if only 7 or 8 owners are making money, then 22 or 23 owners would have no losses to recoup. The owners can't make that claim nor negotiate like it or it will prove the players correct.
I am not sure if I am following. If only 7 or 8 teams are making money, then all those other teams are ONLY losing money. The whole purpose of this lockout is to make it so those teams are making money going forward. So, if the lockout causes them to lose even more revenue, then that means that they will have even less money to pay the players, while still making money.
Or let me explain it this way.
Lets say the revenue next year would be $3 billion if no games are missed, and the owners right now would offer the players $1.5 million of that revenue.
With each month of games missed, about $375 million of revenue will be lost. So, lets say they lose 3 months of games. That would leave the revenue for the year at $1.875 billion.
However, the owners are going to look at that and instead of saying the players half is $937.5 million, they are going to point out that while no revenue has been coming in over the last 3 months, they have still been building expenses. They have still been paying rent, paying other employees, still marketing the league, so people will come back, etc.
So, they are going to run those numbers, and tell the players that they need to cover the other expenses before giving them half of that revenue.
The 50/50 split would be based on a full season of revenue, however, with every month missed, more and more of that money will have to go to the expenses.
Topic: who will cave first? owners or players (Read 34254 times)