View Single Post
11-14-2012, 11:07 PM
Mac Truck
NYRFAN218's Avatar
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 12,966
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by DutchShamrock View Post
Yeah, thats a bit disingenuous. One season of "delinked" salaries is a far cry from the stance you are projecting onto the players. And the league essentially agreed to fund the "make whole", so your position that the delinkage is holding up a deal is off.

One issue is players are looking for two seasons of guaranteed money. The league is kn board for one... hence the $200m and $600m discrepency. One season vs two with interest and I believe 5% growth.

The other issue, according to just about everyone including Daly and Fehr, is contractual. The honest to god sticking point is unclear, but PA stance is the league wants controls beyond 5% variance. League says they have conceded enough... "no more give and take."

At this point, the only way to salvage would be moderates on both side circumventing leadership and working out a cooperative deal. There is no way games should have been lost. Bettman crapped on the NBA CBA. That should have been our template: 50% split, two season escrow cap, contract limit (5% variance), revenue sharing increase. League gets the two big issues, players win on rev sharing and keep inked deals. Players lose overall... significantly. How are they getting squeezed beyond that?
The players are getting two years guaranteed under the NHL's make whole. I don't remember the numbers off the top of my head but $140-150 million was to cover year one with another $60-70 million to cover year two. That plus two percent interest. The proposal was made with the belief that revenues would rise enough to cover the rest of the deals at 50/50 year three and beyond.

I really have no clue where the PA is getting the $600 million number from. The only thing I can guess is they want every single contract covered in its entire duration.

NYRFAN218 is offline