View Single Post
11-10-2012, 10:43 AM
Shady Machine
Registered User
Shady Machine's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 12,203
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Alesle View Post
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).
Exactly. It pisses me off that now the players are crying about the growth rate issue when they are the ones that projected 7% growth earlier on. It is absolutely make whole if the league's revenues grow at 5%. The notion that the players believe their pay should be made whole this season is ludicrous since it will be a shortened season. You don't get paid a full paycheck for partial work. The players are being unreasonable. Adams' isn't stupid but he is toeing the party line with his comments and he's "technically correct" but it's an asinine thing to say.

Shady Machine is offline