View Single Post
Old
10-30-2012, 05:53 PM
  #204
forthewild
Registered User
 
forthewild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,651
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
You gravely misunderstand.

Reality is a situation where (ignoring make whole provisions which make the entire argument null and void) players are potentially threatened with losing up to 9% in a single year of their contracts at 50/50. Yet people continually make the outright claim "owners want to pay only 86% (on in the case of the post that triggered this, 75%) of contracts they agreed to. In reality, the Suter and Parise contracts that are most targeted by this claim would have been paid to 99.6% of the agreed upon amount (plus a later make whole payment for the shortened 0.4%) under the league's last proposal. Trying to equate that to a 14%-25% salary reduction is incredibly intellectually dishonest.

i'm not saying owners only want to pay that amount, all i'm saying is, while not everyone (guys like suter/parise/weber need not be in this conversation, their entire deal is built around the lockout and protects them from it) but lets use backstrom, he is due to make 6 million, under him losing 9% that is 540,000 dollars, big sum, still a nice payday but a pretty nice sum of change. its guys like him who i'm talking about, their deal isn't built around signing bonus.

also the "make whole" nhl proposed just seems like smoke and mirrors, i was excited about it at first but it seems like its not a step in the direction.

all i'm saying is, even if the clawback is 9% its still a clawback and there isn't a clear solution that owners would pay that 9% back to players from the owners share.

i just feel that any reduction this year in player pay needs to be paid out of the owners share in any make whole scenario, i've suggested that owners start paying back the 9% in years 3 and on, which i feel would give the owners immediate reduction in player pay while honoring player deals for full value.

say its 9% that a player lost this year to get to 50/50, owners wold pay that 9% back in years 3,4,5 in a increasing amount, say 2% in year 3, 3% year 4, 4% year 5. to not be confusing, its not 2% of what they owe, but 2 out of that 9. (2+3+4=9)

so say a guy lost 100K, that was what a 9% reduction for him was, year 3 he would be paid 2 of that 9, so 2/9=22.2% or he would be paid back 22.2k/100, year 4 he would be paid 33.3k and year 5 he would be paid back 44.5k making up the full amount he lost over 3 years.

i think in this scenario, owners get a lower cap now, get lower amount they have to pay now, and as we hope the game grows they are able to pay back over time.

again my point isn't using the PA numbers, just saying any reduction for most players who's deals aren't made around the lockout, (even mikko's deal is heavily paid to him his year a signing bonus because of the lockout, kessel is another player) those guys are going to lose on their deal, that is why i think NHL needs to come up with a real solution that comes from owners share.

forthewild is offline