View Single Post
Old
11-02-2012, 07:12 PM
  #60
mossey3535
Registered User
 
mossey3535's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,468
vCash: 500
I don't know how you can keep spinning the NHLPA's poor offers so far.

Just for everyone's information, here is 5% growth rate with flat revenue year 1. I calculated how many UFA dollars are removed each year. In order to get to 50/50, BOTH NHLPA and NHL plans have to reduce contracts by 13% (or 7% of total revenue). The only difference is that the NHLPA plan 'hides' it outside the cap and the NHL plan defers it to future years.

Either way, this 13% has to be paid somehow, sometime, by someone. Now (NHLPA) or later (NHL) and who is to be determined.

Revenue: $3.3B, $3.4B, $3.6B, $3.8B, $4B, $4.1B
Player salary (in pre-lockout dollars, billions): 1.8, 1.4, 0.9, 0.7, 0.5
13% of player salary (millions): $229, 185, 131, 102, 73....

By year 4 the two offers have essentially converged at 1% more for players.

If the NHL absorbs $150M out of $229M of the first year devaluation, that means they are willing to take on 66% of the 'make whole' cost. This would have to be re-evaluated on a yearly basis. If I was the NHLPA, I would negotiate a guaranteed re-calculation of the 'make whole' for the entire term of the CBA (if league revenues do not grow fast enough, there will be shortfalls for more than two years).

I'm sorry, but if the NHLPA aren't willing to wait a little extra time to get the face value paid out on this, they're utterly stupid.

In case someone is going to question my math, these numbers are slightly above what Fehr put in his own memo (I trust capgeek's numbers over his, and I think it's best to be conservative).

mossey3535 is online now