View Single Post
Old
11-09-2012, 11:10 PM
  #630
PensFanSince1989
Registered User
 
PensFanSince1989's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,551
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chancellor Vitale View Post
If we can get confirmation on the league offering straight 50/50 and making salaries whole spread over two years and willing to negotiate on all contract terms except back-diving deals (which I agree with), then I'm officially on the owners' side at this point. Fehr's interview tonight is on TSN and it's not impressive.

Although he did say that many players are present during each of the proposals and so there is no way for him to "leave stuff out" (that's the implication -- that it wouldn't' fly because players who were there would say something if there was a big discrepancy). If a player comes out who was in the meetings and says the memo was wrong then Fehr can drop dead.

And asking for 82 games of salary for this year is ********. I don't know how he can turn away from a straight pro-rated amount of money for each player at the original value. What else would a reasonable person expect? It's stupid.
I don't think there's much question as to what the actual NHL offer was now (apart from some minor details on contract rights). Straight drop to 50-50, with deferral of parts of salaries to be paid in year 1 ($150 million) and year 2 ($61 mlilion) +2% interest. The NHl would pay this and it would be gauranteed and would not come out of the players share. By year 3, the NHL estimates that the players will be made whole based on revenue growth of 5%.

Now, what have the players said? They've had the gall to ask 'but what if revenue doesn't grow?' Then they aren't made totally whole after year 3! Yes, the players, who are proposing a delinked salary cap with gauranteed raises every year and calling it 50-50 based on projected revenue growth of 5 - 7.1% is now who ing about the NHL using growth estimates. Yes folks, I think that is what we call hypocrisy at its finest. When used in the NHLPA proposals, the growth assumptions are totally reasonable, but in the NHL proposal? NhLpA is suddenly worried 'omg, what happens if the revenues don't grow'.

Well PA, I'll tell you what happens if the revenues don't grow as projected.

Under the players proposal: if revenue growth underperforms, it can threaten the financial viability of multiple teams. If growth is slower than the NhLpa gauranteed raises, or declines even, NHL could see itself paying out more than 57% or even 60% in players salaries. If this happens, not only is Phoenix in trouble, so is 3 or more other teams by the end of the CBA

Under the Owners proposal: if the revenue growth underperforms, the majority of players are still made whole. Players like Sidney Crosby, Kovulchuk, Ovechkin though would face the horror of maybe missing out on a few million of their gauranteed $100 million + contracts.

Gee, golly, hard to decide who to support and who's being reasonable here.

PensFanSince1989 is offline