View Single Post
11-13-2012, 12:00 PM
Registered User
SuperUnknown's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,887
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by CerebralGenesis View Post
Pro rating whatever they decide on core economic issues should solve #3 though no? Get to 50/50 and if the owners agree, toss in a wage inflator to solve #1 and we are left with contract rights. I would extend UFA to 28, add in a 5% movement from year to year and cap them at 10 years or something.
It depends on escrow. If NHL believes they can only earn $2.5B for a shortened season (60 games), then 50% of that would be $1.25B to the players, or a 34% shave off the initial contracts. Then for the make whole, they would say we will pay 66% of the $230M difference between 50% and 57%, which is $151M. In total, players would be paid this year $1.4B with a 15% escrow risk (to the upside or downside).

On the other hand, players could say they think the shortened season will bring in $3B in revenues, so they'd want $1.5B in salaries + the full $230M for the make whole, all with a lower escrow percentage (out of the $1.5B). Players would earn $1.73B this way.

Just "pro-rating" on different numbers could make a $300M+ gap between players and owners.

Considering players would have earned $1.65 by having a full season at 50/50, getting prorated to the owner's scenario would be a net loss for the players in the first year of $250M (which btw shows the pure idiocy of thinking a better deal will come later) while using their own "split" proposal would still see them salvage $80M over accepting the NHL's 50-50 offer for a full season if revenues are higher than projected by the NHL (as if you take out the $150M in escrow they still come up short by $70M).

SuperUnknown is offline