View Single Post
11-10-2012, 10:36 AM
Registered User
Alesle's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oslo, Norway
Country: Norway
Posts: 530
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Mr Jiggyfly View Post
Could be, but the same could be said for the league. An argument could be made either way.

We don't have to listen to Fehr's words... Adams came right out and said the owners new "make whole" offer is being grossly misrepresented. He called it the "make partial" provision.

I don't classify a Harvard guy like Adams as a dumb player, so I am giving some merit to what he says.
The most accurate description seems to be that it's 'Make Whole' if revenue growth averages 5 % or more a year, and 'Make Partial' if the average growth is less.

If there was a full season this season, with revenues increasing by 5 % from last seasons, the difference between the players pay last season and a 50 % share would be about $150 M, while the next season would see about a $60 M difference, and the following season a 50 % share would've surpassed the players share from last season. The NHL offered to guarantee those $210 M in difference, which would make the contracts 'whole' if the league experienced an average growth of 5 % or more.

The question then becomes if you believe a 5 % average growth to be too optimistic (in which case I'm not sure what to call the NHLPA's initial proposal of a 7.2 % average growth rate).

Alesle is offline