View Single Post
11-10-2012, 03:46 PM
Usually Incorrect
rt's Avatar
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Rarely Sober
Country: United States
Posts: 45,665
vCash: 500
Interesting rebuttal...

Originally Posted by Alesle View Post
I didn't bother moving the deferred payments, for simplicity I included them in the years they would've been earned. Also, as I've understood it, the latest proposal would only guarantee the first two seasons of the contracts, using the 211M set aside for that purpose, to make the contracts 'whole'. Unlike the first 'Make Whole' proposal I was not of the impression that any additional money from the players (UFA pool) would be used to 'make whole' the contracts in the event of the 211M set aside would not cover the contracts fully. If you have any sources indicating otherwise, please share as I'd like to read it.

So with my understanding, the payments for the imaginary player would look like this when the deferred payments are moved to the correct years (and 2 % interest for one full year on the deferred salary included):

NHLPA offer 5M 5M 5M 5M 5M
NHL offer with 7 % growth 4.69M 5.32M 5M 5M 5M
NHL offer with 5 % growth 4.6M 5.24M 5.17M 5M 5M
NHL offer with 3 % growth 4.51M 5.05M 4.95M 4.93M 5M
NHL offer with 1 % growth 4.43M 4.88M 4.68M 4.56M 4.6M
NHL offer with 0 % growth 4.38M 4.79M 4.55M 4.38M 4.38M

This poster should not be taken seriously under any circumstances.
rt is online now   Reply With Quote