View Single Post
Old
01-07-2013, 12:28 PM
  #94
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 16,256
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
No, the original "make whole" provision did no such thing as take money away from the players. That's ****ing ridiculous. "Make whole" money would have worked like this: players take a 12% haircut now, and later that 12% is paid back to them by taking it out of future year's caps, effectively lowering the available cap space for future players. But with all players on net, the PA still gets exactly 50% every damn year.

The only way you get to add that $211M is if the owners said, "you players will pay us owners $211M, which we keep." Otherwise, you're just making a mathematically absurd argument. And I mean absurd in the fullest sense of the word. Please stop.
It wasn't fiscally net neutral. The original make whole provision was coming out of the players' share. It wasn't money "outside of the system". The make whole paid by the league in the final agreement is outside the system.

http://espn.go.com/nhl/story/_/id/85...-step-backward

Quote:
Management included a provision to ensure players receive all money promised in existing contracts, but the union is concerned with what management termed the "make-whole provision." If the players' share falls short of their $1.883 billion in 2011-12, the players would be paid up to $149 million of deferred compensation in the first year of a new deal and up to $62 million in the second. However, the union believes that money would be counted against the players' share in later years.

Tawnos is online now   Reply With Quote