View Single Post
Old
11-13-2012, 01:38 PM
  #280
rt
Usually Incorrect
 
rt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Rarely Sober
Country: United States
Posts: 41,660
vCash: 500
^ I should also defend the NHLPA a little bit, as I can't really understand why the NHL is so obsessed with contracting rights. Get your 5% variance rule, and be done with it. Everything else is fine, as is, in contracting rights. Some apparently mutually beneficial changes could be tossed in, but why fight tooth and nail for other DETAILS?

Go with:

HRR Split: Immediate 50/50 HRR split with “Make Whole” as presented in current NHL offer.

(Illustrated in table below which demonstrates the impact of make whole on a player with a five year, twenty five million dollar deal, without any bonus money and no year to year variance in compensation)

12/13*13/1414/1515/1616/17
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

Revenue Sharing: Increase Revenue Sharing from reported 150m to 210m (half way to NHLPA’s demand of 260m, and only 10m more than NHL’s current offer of 200m)

Contracting Rights: No greater variance than 5% in year to year compensation on future contracts, all one-way contracts count against the cap (No term limits, no changes in ELC term, UFA age/experience minimums, NTCs, NMCs, or salary arbitration) **I’d also look at allowing teams to retain certain percentages of contracts/cap-hits for a certain number of years in instances of player trades

....... And everybody gets something approaching what they wanted on what they would consider the most important aspects.

Be done with this crap.

rt is offline   Reply With Quote