View Single Post
11-10-2012, 11:20 AM
Mr Jiggyfly
Registered User
Mr Jiggyfly's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 18,429
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).
To me it seems reasonable, as growth has consistently been above 5% through the prior CBA.

This is probably why Fehr said they aren't as far apart as the league is claiming.

So why would the league get stupid and pull that **** last night?

Mr Jiggyfly is offline