They already agreed to 50/50. You admitted this.

So how was today significant? Your assertion.

So answer the question.
- Aetherial

The question was answered back on the other page. Repeatedly asking for me to answer the question, doesn't change the fact that I already did. I'll provide links to make it easier for you to follow along. Or you can continue to ignore the answers already given. If you ask again, I'll just ignore it and move on. And you can reply that I refuse to answer to your heart's content.

http://www.hockeybuzz.com...p?thread_id=102019&page=9

Here is what is in the offer.

Our players' share proposal is identical to yours in all material respects except for the amount of the transition payments added to the 50% share. There are no guarantees or fixed targets, other than a requirement that, beginning with the second year of the Agreement, players' share, expressed in dollars, may not fall below its value for the prior season. This proposal allows us to determine players' share regardless of the effects of the lockout and its aftermath.

wow

- The Upper Limit may not fall below 67.25 M in any year of the agreement. This is half way between the 11/12 Upper Limit (64.3 M) and the 12/13 UL (70.2 M).
- MJL

and that's what i said. a guarantee that their share can never drop below a higher number than it currently is

What I am doing should be crystal clear...

I am making you defend your ridiculous assertion.

While I refuse to defend mine.

It is working
- Aetherial

You are the Donald Fehr of hockeybuzz

What I am doing should be crystal clear...

I am making you defend your ridiculous assertion.

While I refuse to defend mine.

It is working
- Aetherial

What is crystal clear is that you can't defend yours. But you hide behind the vale of refusing to.

and that's what i said. a guarantee that their share can never drop below a higher number than it currently is
- hugefemale dog77

What is their share currently?

It's taking the lockout into consideration, in the HRR offer. Which is what the Owner's wanted. The players wanted to do that later. The player's don't see it as a guaranteed share.

I haven't quite wrapped my head around this yet, but I believe the below is how they can keep the Cap from never going below 67.25

- +8M/-8M payroll range becomes +/- 20% of midpoint beginning in 2013/14
- MJL

... which is a guarantee on their earnings by suggesting conditions under which there would be no revenue linkage.

This offer is a joke.

Not only am I refusing to substantiate my point... YOU are doing it for me.

This is very Fehr of me

Excellent point cause Leafs won so many Cups pre-cap. Tell me how NHL can work with a cap and the list of franchises we have now.
- Canada Cup

u had the most (or only) successful period in the last 40 years during the one time where it was all about spending and the low end teams had no chance.

led to the last lockout essentially.
the league was a mess.

more than 75% of franchises want no part of that.

get a good gm and u wont need to outspend everyone to be competitive

What is crystal clear is that you can't defend yours. But you hide behind the vale of refusing to.
- MJL

You still have not answered the question.

Your dancing has not improved.

u had the most (or only) successful period in the last 40 years during the one period where it was all about spending and the lowend teams had noc hance.
led to the last lockout.
the league was a mess.

more than 75% of franchises want no part of that.

get a good gm
- hugefemale dog77

Parity is overrated when you are rich.

... which is a guarantee on their earnings by suggesting conditions under which there would be no revenue linkage.

This offer is a joke.

Not only am I refusing to substantiate my point... YOU are doing it for me.

This is very Fehr of me
- Aetherial

There is no condition where there would be no revenue linkage.

- Player share will equal 50% of HRR, plus these fixed dollar payments attributable to the first four years of the agreement:

- 2012/13: $ 182M
- 2013/14: $ 128M
- 2014/15: $ 72M
- 2015/16: $ 11M

Parity is overrated when you are rich.
- Symba007

true! my bad

The first thing they will do is try to find holes in the CBA to find a competitive advantage. The league is trying to limit those holes.
- Symba007

They should either work harder at it, or admit "we really don't care too much about fixing that" - because their current plan is riddled with holes.

Salary cap is too high for many teams.....Leafs/Habs/NYR generate too much money for everyone else to follow. They either reduce the players share (57% to 50%) and increase the revenue sharing or change system where the rich teams will have an easier access to the playoffs via a soft cap with a luxury tax.
- Symba007

Or, cap the amount of revenues coming in from those teams in some way ... say, at 102.5% of what the #11 team generates.

There is no condition where there would be no revenue linkage.
- MJL

The Upper Limit may not fall below 67.25 M in any year of the agreement.
- MJL

hello?

The question was answered back on the other page. Repeatedly asking for me to answer the question, doesn't change the fact that I already did. I'll provide links to make it easier for you to follow along. Or you can continue to ignore the answers already given. If you ask again, I'll just ignore it and move on. And you can reply that I refuse to answer to your heart's content.

http://www.hockeybuzz.com...p?thread_id=102019&page=9
- MJL

Your word salad did not answer what should be a very simple question.

hello?
- Aetherial

Doesn't change the fact that the players share is still linked to revenue in every year of the deal.


Hello!

sure that is fine. But I dont see a point in that. If you are trying to say that just because 29 guys agree with you, they are right and I am wrong. Then I guess that is why we are sitting in a lockout and not playing hockey right now.
- KOS

If you want to claim that Bettman isn't serving their best interests and that they should find someone else to do that, fine - make that claim until you're blue in the face. In the meantime, the 30 guys who actually make that decision disagree with you - so it really doesn't matter what you, I, or anyone else thinks about the job Bettman is doing.

hello?
- Aetherial

- +8M/-8M payroll range becomes +/- 20% of midpoint beginning in 2013/14

- The Upper Limit may not fall below 67.25 M in any year of the agreement. This is half way between the 11/12 Upper Limit (64.3 M) and the 12/13 UL (70.2 M).

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=409992

Sell a company and see what they will ask for after your disclosure agreement is signed.
- KOS

Seeing as how I'm working for an insurer, EBITA is the least of anyone's concerns. It sure as hell isn't what we look at when we decide whether to undertake a transaction; IRR is.

You know, something that accounts for one of the items that EBITA ignores. But I'm sure you already knew that.

Doesn't change the fact that the players share is still linked to revenue in every year of the deal.


Hello!
- MJL

was waiting for this one...

yawn

Doesn't change the fact that the players share is still linked to revenue in every year of the deal.


Hello!
- MJL

LOL you are really too stupid to even acknowledge two quotes of yours that are in conflict.

The conflict in your statements is pretty simple. It is pretty funny that you can't see it, and you are actually still debating it.

This can't be good for the struggling teams.

- The Lower limit must be satisfied without consideration of performance bonuses.

was waiting for this one...

yawn
- hugefemale dog77

You were? I am actually shocked that he doesn't see the conflict in his statements.

If you want to claim that Bettman isn't serving their best interests and that they should find someone else to do that, fine - make that claim until you're blue in the face. In the meantime, the 30 guys who actually make that decision disagree with you - so it really doesn't matter what you, I, or anyone else thinks about the job Bettman is doing.
- Irish Blues

well I am not sure that is the case that 30 guys do want Bettman as the leader. I just said before I am not sure how many votes it takes to keep him. I would find it hard to believe it takes a 100% vote to keep him in.

This can't be good for the struggling teams.

- The Lower limit must be satisfied without consideration of performance bonuses.
- MJL

Yeah, cause that is the *only* problem with the offer.





Keep piling up evidence for my assertion though. Thanks!!

You were? I am actually shocked that he doesn't see the conflict in his statements.
- Aetherial

u were??