out of all the people i think Fehr might have come up with a solution roadmap for the whole dispute.
in his letter for proposal 3, what Fehr basically said that under the immediate reduction to 50% player contracts are reduced by roughly 12%, so what Fehr proposed is to take the contract and split it, he said 13% of the contract is set aside and paid out in full, the other 87% would then be what gets counted against the cap and thus is subject to the escrow each year.
that is basically going to even out for the next year.
now suppose this, what if the owners who want immediate cuts do this, do as Fehr suggest, split the contracts, something like 85% for payed, and 15%, but the 15% they would pay starting year 3. this way players get full value of their deals, and also the owners get the cuts they desire to help reduce pay this year.
essentially if you make $1,000,000, you would get 850,000k, with 150,000k being deferred to year 3 of the deal, this way the contract is split and NHL gets their reduction, while players get their full value. also the deferred amount gets paid over years 3,4,5 of the deal unless a player retires in which case they get full amount when they retire.
i dunno if i worded that to make sense.
A reduction to 50% from 57% of HRR is a 12.3% cut (that is, 7/57), but the loss in an individual player’s salary would be about 13%. (This is because benefit costs do not fall and these come off the top.)
• The owners honor all existing player contracts. We do this by dividing an existing contract, on a yearly basis, into two separate parts: the 13% and the remaining 87%. The 13% is paid to the player in any event, and it is not counted in the players share and is also off the cap.
• The remaining 87% of existing contracts, plus all new contracts, go into the players’ share (plus all benefits). Thus constructed, the players share will become 50% of HRR, immediately.
• This means that an individual player under an existing contract would receive the 13% segregated, plus a normal payment, subject to escrow, of 87% of his salary. A player with a new contract would have 100% of his salary subject to the 50/50 split. However, since the 13% of existing contracts are off the cap, this should create more cap space, which will be important as the cap will be squeezed.
• Over time, the existing contracts expire, and the share will fall towards 50%. Below is a chart showing the anticipated savings, but these could be greater if there are a significant number of buyouts.
also clean up the math a bit, but this is the gist of it, also i don't think its needed to segregate contracts for more then two years, 2nd year is up in the air depending on growth. also i believe the key to my proposal for solution is that portion being deferred by two years giving owners immediate relief while still ensuring players get their money also one thing i need to mention is the deferred amount will be adjusted for inflation, to ensure that what is taken in today's dollar value is paid in two years dollar value, this doesn't mean players get interest just that they get their amount adjusted for inflation.