These are #2 and #3 bullet points in the new agreement.. Im not sure why you choose to ignore them.
• $300 million in “Make-Whole” payments (outside the system) to compensate Players
for the reduced value of Player contracts in the early years of the new CBA.
• No contractual “roll backs” of Player Salaries.
300 million in make whole payments for the reduced value of player contracts - This indicates a rollback
Furthermore this is simply HIGHLIGHTS from a 300 page agreement that is written by lawyers. You, I'm guessing are NOT a lawyer. You are not qualified to read and interpret an agreement of this magnitude. Coming from someone who has taken law, and passed the BAR, I can tell you this would be quite the work load even for a seasoned lawyer to interpret.
I have fairly extensive experience in labour relations and have been at the negotiating table for several very large contracts (on the management side). A very large part of my work has been interpreting CBA language and presenting in front of arbitrators.
You are clearly not reading and/or comprehending the posts that have been made by me and others. I even made examples.Rollback = a reduction in the pure number value of the contract. It has a specific meaning and mechanism that you are not following. You think that any dollar less in a player's pocket is a "rollback", that is simply not true. If you had passed the bar, you would understand that different language means different things. You are arguing with folks based on you wanting to use the term "rollback" as something general and vague when in fact it is a very specific term which means a certain thing.
A "rollback" is what happened LAST CBA (24% I believe) and according to BOTH parties is NOT what is happening this time. The owners aren't asking for it and the players are not offering it. The mechanism is escrow that will ensure the reduced player share. The "make whole" is not making up for a "rollback" but is instead meant to offset some of the reduction that will be felt by losing money in escrow.
The Sedin's contract is still for $6.1 million per year. It is not being dropped to $5.3 million per year as a rollback (which would apply to each of the remaining years of the current contract). A rollback would mean that even if league revenues tripled next year, the Sedin's would not get more than $5.3 million in salary... just that the total team salary cap would go up.
Using escrow mechanisms (different from rollback), if league revenues tripled next year... the Sedin's would make their original $6.1 in salary.VERY DIFFERENT THINGS!!!!
The owners will write cheques for the full bi-weekly amount of the pay owed to each player. A deduction off of each those cheques (just like CPP or EI) will be made and put into a 3rd party trust in "escrow". At the end of the year the league and PA will calculate the total HRR revenue and the total player salary paid. If it turns out that the player salaries have exceeded the 50% mandated (as will be 100% certain to account for the sudden drop to 50% from 57%), the owners get cheques from the 3rd party escrow account for that amount.,, any remaining goes back to the individual players.
An interesting note is that escrow owed to the owners gets split up evenly between all 30 teams, and not by percentage of their payroll. Phoenix gets the same back as Vancouver even though the Vancouver players put more into the account. This is a backdoor way to do revenue sharing (funded by the players of course).
The "make whole" money isn't making up for a rollback, it is making it so that not as much has to go into escrow from each cheque. To drop to 50% revenue and maintain a $70 million cap means that players would probably have to put 25-30% of their paycheques into escrow and likely get little of it back. It may be that full amount goes into escrow anyways, but each player gets a portion of the "make whole" separately in order to take a little of the sting away from it.
A couple pages back I put in what I thought would be the simplest and most agreeable method for reducing the player share without causing too much pain. It involved dropping the cap immediately to the $59 million but lowering the cap hit on existing contracts by the same proportion. The "make whole" funds as already promised are enough to top up those salaries to about 97% of their full value for the next 3 years (assuming the same revenue levels as last year).
Edited by Provost, 31 December 2012 - 10:36 AM.