The Implications of NHL 'Cost Certainty'

I am just getting my head around the escrow language in the 2005 Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), the more I understand it the more concerned I am of its implications.

Here are the key terms of the 2005 CBA as related to 'cost certainty':

To ensure the correct revenue split, a percentage of player salaries could be placed in escrow. When total league revenues are determined at the end of the season, the escrow account will be divided among players and owners to ensure the target has been met.

The owners have the right to retain a percentage of players' salaries up to 20 percent until the exact amount of revenue and player salaries are finalized at the end of the season.

What a way to run a railroad! Are you kidding me. So if the salary cap increases (which it did this year by 5%) and the hockey-related revenues (HRR) decrease (and they will in this economy), the amount of escrow needed from the players goes up. So now we know why the escrow contribution is 18% this season.

Some big implications:

1) Your negotiated salary is really not your negotiated salary.

2) Salary cap escalators create 'no win' scenario.
(a) An increase in the cap causes an increase in escrow percentage (let's face it, the HRR is not going up over time) which pisses players off (I'll come back to this).
(b) A decrease in the cap causes less money 'in the system' to make a better team (i.e. free agent signings). The less better a team is, the less better the HRR (unless of course we are talking about the Toronto Maple Leafs).

3) Players pay the salaries of injury replacements and high-salaried players who are sent to the AHL.

4) KHL here I come. As the NHL escrow percentage increases, many higher paid players will not put up with it. Defections to the KHL will begin.

NHL escrow and related 'cost certainty' in the 2005 CBA appears to be an accommodation for having NHL teams playing in cities where they should not be.