View Single Post
11-29-2012, 09:45 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,339
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
The thing is, even if players have agreed to 50% of HRR, it's only for one year.
It's not an "even if," that's what their proposal says, and no it's not just for one year. It's for the course of the CBA with some conditions.

Originally Posted by Kriss E View Post
After that, if the league loses money, with the 2) you listed, they would be entitled to the same salary as the previous year, so, all the loss would come out of the owners pockets.
That's a big if, and here's why:

1.) Even the league itself projects something like 5% per annum growth.

2.) If this year were to count as the 'first year' then the absolute dollar amount would amount to something like 30% of a reasonable full season.

3.) Even if it weren't, because of the drastic 12% reduction in salary in year one, the league wouldn't have to just not break even to lose money compared to the most recent CBA. They would have to lose a lot, and I don't think that's remotely foreseeable.

4.) Even that scenario is only losing money compared to the last CBA, not losing money in absolute terms

5.) This is the most likely provision to be altered. Most likely it's a wedge to get the NHL to budge on the make whole.

So, now would be a fairly good time for you to stop insinuating that the players have made 0 concessions.

NotProkofievian is offline