Quote
zn
Quote
RamUK
That really, really penalizes the owners that don't have serious cash.
It kinda seems unfair to teams like the Raider, but as you say, it protects the players.
See my other post this thread.
The players themselves argue against the escrow policy. They claim it was put in place in an older era when teams might actually default on payments. That kind of protection is no longer needed, they say. That kind of protection is no longer needed because in the era of big network money and the cap, the chances of a team failing to pay have decreased susbstantially. That's the union position. The union position is that the real effect is to limit guaranteed money.
This leads me to think the reason owners might back the escrow policy is precisely because it puts a hidden cap on guaranteed money.
I'm wondering if this is a situation where the policy was originally put in place to protect the players but now that's been turned on its end and it hurts the players.
I think you're right on the owners' motive for backing the escrow policy being that it functions as a hidden cap on guaranteed money. It probably didn't start out that way though.
