LeBrun: Fehr Letter Outlines NHLPA Offers

You've seen* the rhetoric from the NHL claiming the NHLPA's latest three counteroffers "didn't even begin" to approach 50/50.

*Or maybe you didn't, because you've mercifully ignored all this nonsense.

Now you can see the NHLPA's version of events, thanks to Donald Fehr's letter to the membership, which was conveniently shared with ESPN's Pierre LeBrun (in html-friendly format!). It has the full breakdown of numbers, if you care to review the three proposals.

Fehr closes with a summation, and a naturally down note:

Our hope was that the owners would find one of these three approaches worthy of serious discussion, but the owners rejected these ideas in less than 15 minutes, and further advised the players that their last offer was, in essence, a take it or leave it offer, subject to "tweaks only".

That proposal contains, as you know, an immediate reduction in the share to 50%, a 2012-13 cap with a 51.9M mid-point, and, among other things, player contracting provisions including a change in the ELS, a reduction in salary arbitration eligibility, no UFA status until after 8 years or at age 28, no contract longer than 5 years, no contract may have a year to year variability of greater than 5%, and all money paid under NHL contracts to players playing in the minors or in Europe counts against the team cap (except for the first $105,000 per player).

[...]

At the end of yesterday’s meeting, Gary did say that the players were prepared to agree to all of the other parts of their offer (subject, perhaps, to "tweaks") then I could call him about this issue.

So yeah. Don't expect the owners to compromise on anything that exists in the just-expired CBA, save for some modest improvements to the revenue sharing system (that, in truth, would help the New York Islanders).

True to Form: NHL, NHLPA fight, whine, get nowhere

After Thursday's meetings, the NHL and NHLPA returned to their familiar routine of repeating what they think is important in the next CBA, then publicly whining that the other side doesn't agree.

In the NHLPA's defense, they countered the NHL's latest proposal with at least three proposals of their own -- at least two of them, according to NHLPA director Donald Fehr, which would move toward the NHL's wish of a 50/50 split of hockey related revenue, as long as the NHL honored existing contracts.

Ah, but honoring existing contracts was too much for the NHL owners who signed them.

Commissioner Gary Bettman disagreed, claiming none of the PA's proposals "even began to approach 50/50." Bettman was also quoted as saying, he was "totally disappointed," and called the day a "step backward," as he is wont to do when he doesn't get his way.

Deputy commissioner Bill Daly went further, releasing the following statement:

"The so called 50-50 deal, plus honoring current contracts proposed by the NHL Players’ Association earlier today is being misrepresented. It is not a 50-50 deal. It is, most likely a 56- to 57-percent deal in Year One and never gets to 50 percent during the proposed five-year term of the agreement. The proposal contemplates paying the Players approximately $650 million outside of the Players’ Share. In effect, the Union is proposing to change the accounting rules to be able to say ‘50-50,’ when in reality it is not. The Union told us that they had not yet ‘run the numbers.’ We did."

What a surprise that both sides can't even agree on reality, right?

Fehr, rather than simply point out the absurdity and apparent bad faith of the NHL's position -- which is like shooting fish in a barrel, really -- couldn't resist returning to his own hyperbole playbook by claiming the players "gave up $3.3 billion in the last CBA."

This oft-repeated assertion is true only if you believe that the CBA that expired in 2004 would have continued in perpetuity, in a land of pixies and fairies, where 30 surviving franchises would have continued to pay out 75% or more of their revenues but for the grace and generosity of the players' collective hearts.

Fehr also asked "what is the reason [NHL owners] want this other than the NFL and NBA got a better deal?" A good point that the NHL hasn't quite answered publicly other than to say their costs have increased. (Of course, one could also ask, "What is the reason the NHLPA believes it deserves 57% other than that that's what they had in the old CBA?" But fair and reason are in the eye of the beholder in this spat.)

In this laborious battle, what will actually engender a solution does not appear to be the priority for either side, which is why they've been shouting at each other from distant, opposite sides of a reasonable middle ground all summer long. Instead, who will win the war while hanging on to their money (for the owners) or their pride (for the players) appears to be the driving force.

And if the owners' gamble will be realized and they eventually break the union, then pride goeth before greed. Owners, players before fans.

NHL, NHLPA Bring Heavy Hitters to Toronto Standoff

The NHL's Oct. 16 CBA proposal to "save the 82-game season" has been dissected by the NHLPA, and both sides are bringing a heavy cast of characters into Thursday's meeting in Toronto to discuss that proposal and/or a counter-proposal from the union.

The meeting was pushed back slightly to 1:30 p.m. Oct. 18, after a lengthy internal NHLPA conference call.

According to multiple reports, including TSN's Bob McKenzie and Darren Dreger, the sides are bringing their heavies, including:

NHL: Gary Bettman and Bill Daly, as well as Boston Bruins owner Jeremy Jacobs, Washington Capitals owner Ted Leonsis, Minnesota Wild owner Craig Leipold, and Calgary Flames owner Murray Edwards.

NHLPA: Donald Fehr and Steven Fehr, as well as a group of 18 players that includes Sidney Crosby, Shane Doan, Jarome Iginla, Eric Stall, Jonathan Toews.

Quite a crew. And most likely, quite a standoff will ensue. For a not surprising but ominous tone, we quote Dreger:

As bad as the players think Tuesdays NHL proposal was, some owners think they offered too much.

— Darren Dreger (@DarrenDreger) October 18, 2012

Sometimes that's a sign of a solid compromise on the path toward agreement. But in these two warring parties' case ... not likely.

NHL's 'Make Whole' provision delightfully, Orwellianly named

So you're an NHL owner. You want the players to take a reduction in their share of the league's revenues but you don't want to blatantly request (anymore) an immediate rollback in their salaries for the coming year.

How do you reconcile this dilemma?

Why, you give it an awesome investment-ese name with a connotation that would make Orwell proud:

The League proposes to make Players "whole" for the absolute reduction in Players' Share dollars (when compared to 2011/12) that is attributable to the economic terms of the new CBA (the "Share Reduction"). Using an assumed year-over-year growth rate of 5% for League-wide revenues, the new CBA could result in shortfalls from the current level of Players' Share dollars ($1.883 Billion in 2011/12) of up to $149 million in Year 1 and up to $62 million in Year 2, for which Players will be "made whole." (By Year 3 of the new CBA, Players' Share dollars should exceed the current level ($1.883 Billion for 2011/12) and no "make whole" will be required.)

Any such "shortfalls" in Years 1 and 2 of the new CBA will be computed as a percentage reduction off of the Player's stated contractual compensation, and will be repaid to the Player as a Deferred Compensation benefit spread over the remaining future years of the Player's SPC (or if he has no remaining years, in the year following the expiration of his SPC). Player reimbursement for the Share Reduction will be accrued and paid for by the League, and will be chargeable against Players' Share amounts in future years as Preliminary Benefits.

The objective would be to honor all existing SPCs by restoring their "value" on the basis of the now existing level of Players' Share dollars.

Dirk Hoag of On the Forecheck puts that in English:

Now this is interesting - basically, the league is aiming to ensure that the players don't actually lose any money in 2012-2013 compared to 2011/2012, by spreading out payments covering that gap over the duration of their contracts. The kicker, however, is that those deferred payments will count towards the Players' Share in those future years, so it will hold back their progress on the financial front.

Eureka! Hockey renewed by fire made whole!

From USlegal.com:

Make whole is a term used in reference to compensating a party for a loss sustained. The precise definition varies, according to contract terms and local laws...

Or make-whole call provision:

A stipulation in a bond indenture that permits the borrower to redeem a bond prior to maturity by making a lump-sum payment equal to the present value of future interest payments that will not be paid because of the early call. The provision makes the bondholder whole by providing compensation for interest payments that are missed because of an early redemption.

The NHL is going all investment- and legal talk* on the players here, acting as if lowering their payment now but paying it out later out of the players' share makes them, well, "whole." All square.

*Or hey, maybe they're actually going all Biblical, alchemy, or astrology on us.

Of course, guessing where revenues are going is, well, a guessing game. The players themselves modeled their offer off higher growth rates, which would make them "whole" sooner and be less of a hit to them. (Unless you view 57% as their divine right, in which case they will always and forever be "losing" more and more money to the owners because each year of revenue growth, in the NHLPA's terms, simply means more money they could have had but didn't.)

Dear Players: You Already Steal from Each Other

Indeed, while it's fun to pile on the owners for this clever word usage, let's not forget that every time an NHL player signs a front-loaded, cap-navigating deal that gives him tons of money up front while spreading the cap hit over a decade, that player is in essence stealing from his fellow players' share of the revenue pie. The yearly cap is determined by revenues, but the players' share is affected by what's actually paid out -- i.e. in actual salary, not in cap hit.

When players complain about escrow, they always sound a little oblivious. Why? Because some mechanism like escrow is necessary to maintain the system, but they pretend that it's not. It's like complaining about taxes simply because you don't like paying taxes. The only way to ensure a specific share of revenue is upheld when the actual season-ending gross revenues are not yet known, is to initiate some control that accounts for over- or under-spending, hence: Escrow. Stop whining.

But players also sound like they're avoiding the elephant in their own room: Every time a player takes home $10 million in a year where his cap hit is only, say $7 million, he's altering the balance of what cut he "should" be taking home and what he's actually taking home, thanks to the difference between his actual pay and his averaged cap hit. Escrow hits his peers harder.

The players, in a letter from Don Fehr to the PA, are naturally skeptical of the "made whole" concept. But even there, Fehr himself is guilty of his own fundamentalist spin:

"It is players paying players, not owners paying players. That is, players are "made whole" for reduced salaries in one year by reducing their salaries in later years."

Well for one, that depends on what the revenues are in future years. And two, even if you're making less than what you hoped, it's still actually owners paying players. No amount of "but we made concessions last time!" whining can change that.

The Oct. 16 NHL proposal has made things interesting again, but the PA's initial internal response should remind you not to get your hopes up. This battle still looks long and bloody. The two sides are too in love with their own rhetoric and righteousness to find a solution soon.

Bottom line, the owners want a change to the old system that gives them a bigger piece of the pie. The players feel they shouldn't give that up because they gave things up last time. Until someone bends, we'll just be laughing and crying over the language.

NHL CBA proposal includes New York Islanders in revenue sharing, limits business performance hurdles

We've discussed how the NHL's CBA proposal would affect the New York Islanders after reports of the proposal filtered out Tuesday night.

But on one of the more interesting aspects emerged after the NHL decided to post the entire thing online and distribute to media with an explanatory addendum.

Namely, not only would teams like the Islanders be eligible for revenue sharing for the first time (previously their metro market size excluded them), but the proposal would eliminate some of the hurdles that previously kept even eligible markets from receiving revenue sharing:

All Clubs in the NHL except the top 10 Revenue Grossing Clubs will now be eligible for Revenue Sharing, including Clubs in large media markets who were previously ineligible (such as Anaheim, New Jersey and the New York Islanders, among others).

Further, our proposal eliminates some of the current "business performance" thresholds that had the effect of materially reducing the amounts a Club might otherwise qualify to receive in revenue sharing. Instead, under-performing Clubs will be expected to enhance their business planning capabilities, will be provided on-site assistance to meet enhanced business objectives and will be provided with much greater counseling as to "best practices" in business operations.

Now, how would the revenue sharing pool work? That's not entirely clear just yet, though naturally the NHL calls its proposal to help teams over the next two years "historic" and "unprecedented."

Here's what else the NHL's proposal said:

The Revenue Sharing pool will be redistributed to those Clubs who are in the most need in order to enable those teams to have sufficient resources on hand to compete for and compensate Players within the Payroll Range, and otherwise to provide a basis for their continued financial stability. In this regard, we are proposing to commit for the next two years revenue sharing payments to recipient Clubs that are equivalent to or greater than what those Clubs will receive on account of the 2011/12 season. The effect should be to continue -- and even improve -- the historic and unprecedented quality of play and level of competitive balance we have jointly been able to achieve during the period of the recently expired CBA.

Of course, all of this could be moot. The NHL has good publicity reasons to make a "save the 82-game season" push now, and the NHLPA will have to look at it and decide how seriously they want to engage on these terms, which still represent concessions from the previous CBA.

That said, it's an interesting window into how the NHL is looking at addressing some of its long-running problems.

NHL CBA Proposal: Full text, including free agency changes, revenue sharing

Under the wonderfully Orwellian banner of "saving the season" which they themselves put at risk, the NHL Wednesday morning released the full text of the CBA proposal they submitted to the NHLPA Tuesday, Oct. 16.

Tweets ran wild the night before with reporters releasing bits -- usually accurately -- about different facets of the proposal. So this post should help clear things up (and further the NHL's PR interests as it hopes to apply pressure to the NHLPA to respond).

The full text from the league, with their preamble:

***

We have reached a critical point in our collective bargaining negotiations. In an attempt to save an 82-game 2012/13 season (including the usual schedule of Playoff Games), the NHL is making a substantially revised proposal to the NHLPA regarding the critical issues on which the parties have been separated and which are essential to an agreement with the NHLPA on a new CBA moving forward. We believe that the proposal set forth below is fair to the Players and the teams, and good for the game and our fans.

This proposal is based on what we believe is a fair sharing of revenues as between the Players and the Clubs.

This proposal does not require any roll-back in the salaries of Players, and attempts to recognize and protect prior contractual commitments.

This proposal provides for increased revenue sharing, targeted to those teams that are most in need.

This proposal is our best attempt to save an 82-game 2012/13 season, and is, in fact, the best we can responsibly do.

Our negotiations with the NHLPA have failed to progress on the most critical economic and system-related issues. After considerable deliberation, we have decided to make this proposal because time is of the essence. Specifically, in order to save the full 82-game season, the Regular Season schedule will have to commence no later than November 2, with 7-day Club Training Camps that must open by October 26. As a practical matter, this means we must conclude a new written CBA by October 25. We believe the parties can achieve this and that by working together, we can jointly preserve an 82-game season for our Players, our Clubs, and most importantly, for our fans.

Delay (beyond October 25) will necessarily leave us with an abbreviated season and will require the cancellation of signature NHL events. Failure to reach a prompt agreement will also have other significant and detrimental impacts on our fans, the game, our Clubs, our business and the communities in which we play. All of this will obviously necessitate changes to this offer in the event we are unsuccessful in saving a full season.

Here are the elements of our proposal and a brief explanation:

Term

The term of the CBA proposed by the League -- 6 years, plus a mutual option for a 7^th year -- is consistent with the term of the expired CBA. It will allow for our fans, the Players and the Clubs to enjoy a reasonable and extended period of labor peace thereby enhancing the short to medium term business planning of the parties. During this time, the League and the Players can work together to continue to build on the momentum the NHL has experienced over the course of the past 7 years, both on and off the ice.

HRR Accounting

We agree to retain the CBA's current HRR definitions. Further, we propose to formalize the various agreements the NHLPA and the NHL have reached, and lived under, during the course of the expired CBA, and to clarify mutually identified ambiguities in the CBA. Importantly, we do not believe any of our proposed clarifications should have any impact either on the amount of the Players' Share or the amount that any individual Player is entitled to receive. None of these clarifications for instance, would have had a material impact on the 2011/12 Actual HRR number. This proposal is all about certainty, clarity and speeding up our complex, end-of-year accounting process.

Applicable Players' Share

We believe a 50-50 sharing of Actual HRR is a fair allocation and a reasonable compromise as between Players and Clubs. The simple fact of the matter is that it costs Clubs more money now to operate and to generate revenues than it used to. These increased costs include amounts dedicated to the health, safety and enhanced comfort of NHL Players, the increased costs associated with generating ticket and gameday revenues, and the significant capital investments that are regularly being made around the League to enhance the fan experience and to create new revenue streams. The proposed 50-50 sharing arrangement, comparable to the sharing arrangements in the NFL and the NBA, will enable the NHL to protect and promote the long-term future of the game, the financial health and stability of the Clubs and the long-term earning capacity of the Players.

Payroll Range

We propose to set the 2012/13 Payroll Range on the basis of last season's Actual HRR, using the same methodology as used in the recently expired CBA. While this will result in a reduced Upper Limit for 2012/13, we have also proposed to permit the Clubs to exceed the Payroll Range this year, to a maximum of $70.2 million - which was the Cap established prior to this past summer. This will allow a Club that chooses to do so to maintain or enhance its current roster during a full-year transition period.

Cap Accounting

We are proposing that a Club's Lower Limit obligation be satisfied without reference to (or inclusion of) performance bonuses. This will effectively increase the minimum commitment of actual compensation paid by the "Lower Limit Clubs" to Players. The proposal acknowledges the League's agreement to a request made by the NHLPA earlier in our negotiations.

We are proposing that all years of existing long-term contracts in excess of five (5) years be counted against a Club's Cap regardless of whether or where a Player is playing. While such contracts (and Cap charges) can be traded during their terms, in the event a Player subsequently retires or ceases to play, the effective Cap charge would revert to the Club that originally entered into the contract. This proposal is consistent with our other proposals intended to address the harmful effects of long-term, front-loaded, "back-diving" contracts.

We are proposing that the salaries of minor league Players on NHL contracts (above a threshold of $105,000) be counted against a Club's Cap. This provision is intended to prevent Clubs from "stashing" or assigning players to the minors (or any other professional league) for "Cap management" purposes. We are not proposing that any salary paid to minor league Players on NHL contracts be counted against the Players' Share.

Finally, we propose that to facilitate more trades and create increased flexibility in managing Cap Room, Clubs be allowed to allocate portions of a contract's Cap charge (and related salary obligations) in the context of a Player Trade. This will facilitate additional Player movement and trades between teams as they manage their respective Caps and Payroll Range obligations.

System Changes

We also propose making certain modest modifications to existing elements of the current system, none of which will affect the total dollars to which the Players are entitled; they will address instead the allocation of those dollars as among various categories of Players, and we believe should ensure and improve the competitive balance and quality of play around the League as a result.

In our opinion, and as we have expressed in prior bargaining sessions, certain elements of the current system have produced a dynamic that has led to a misallocation of Players' Share dollars in favor of those Players coming out of the Entry Level System at the expense of other, more proven and established Players. We are therefore proposing the following to hopefully address this dynamic:

(1) We have withdrawn our initial proposal that would have provided Clubs with an option to extend the terms of Entry Level contracts, and instead are proposing to reduce the duration of the Entry Level System from three years to two years, thereby allowing entering NHL Players an earlier opportunity to become Restricted Free Agents. This will free up more money currently committed to Entry Level Players in their third years who are no longer legitimate NHL prospects and will also allow talented NHL prospects an opportunity to negotiate non-ELS contracts earlier in their careers.

(2) We have withdrawn our initial proposal to eliminate Salary Arbitration. We are instead proposing to maintain the Salary Arbitration mechanism, and are further proposing that the rights of Players and Clubs to elect Salary Arbitration be made mutual. Moreover, we are proposing to revise the eligibility criteria for Salary Arbitration to five years of professional experience (instead of the current four years), the same criteria as existed under the 1994-2004 CBA.

(3) We have withdrawn our initial proposal to revise the eligibility requirements for Unrestricted Free Agency to 10 Accrued Seasons, and are instead proposing a modest single year adjustment to 28 years of age or 8 Accrued Seasons. This proposal still allows for the possibility of early UFA status for Players -- as early as age 26.

All three of these system proposals are designed to shift the current allocation of Players' Share dollars away from "second contracts" and toward "third and subsequent contracts" to ensure what we believe to be a more equitable and effective allocation of Players' Share dollars to more proven, established Players who are playing in the prime of their NHL careers.

We are also proposing two additional system modifications that are intended to address the recent phenomenon of long-term, front-loaded, "back-diving" Player contracts that we believe has proven harmful to the interests of our Clubs and has clearly had the purpose and effect of circumventing the letter and spirit of our existing system. In addition, these contracts have increased the Escrow obligation and reduced the effective salaries of Players playing under "normal" contracts. In order to mitigate the consequences of these contracts, we have proposed 5-year term limits for SPCs and tighter restrictions on the year-over-year salary variability of contracts.

Due to our proposed change in the Cap treatment of minor league Players on NHL SPCs, we are proposing the elimination of the Re-Entry Waivers provision. The elimination of this provision, coupled with the ability to allocate Cap charges and salary in trades, should lend themselves to fewer NHL-caliber Players being relegated to minor league service for prolonged periods of time.

Finally, in order to help preserve the vibrancy and stability of European professional leagues as a continued source of NHL talent, we are proposing to convert the typical four-year period of exclusive negotiating rights that attach to European Players from the current "two-plus-two" model (with each Player being subject to having to re-enter the Draft) to a straight "four-year" model (with no obligation to re-enter the Draft).

Revenue Sharing

The NHL has proposed to increase the Revenue Sharing pool for 2012/13 to $200 million (assuming League-wide revenues of $3.303 Billion), representing an approximately 33% increase over the amount that will be distributed on account of 2011/12. This enhanced amount is at least comparable to the levels of revenue sharing in the NBA and MLB, and will be adjusted proportionately upward or downward based on Actual HRR results in future seasons.

At least 50% of the Revenue Sharing pool will be funded by the Top 10 Revenue Grossing teams. The remainder of the Revenue Sharing pool will be funded from League- and Playoff-generated revenues.

The Revenue Sharing pool will be redistributed to those Clubs who are in the most need in order to enable those teams to have sufficient resources on hand to compete for and compensate Players within the Payroll Range, and otherwise to provide a basis for their continued financial stability. In this regard, we are proposing to commit for the next two years revenue sharing payments to recipient Clubs that are equivalent to or greater than what those Clubs will receive on account of the 2011/12 season. The effect should be to continue -- and even improve -- the historic and unprecedented quality of play and level of competitive balance we have jointly been able to achieve during the period of the recently expired CBA.

All Clubs in the NHL except the top 10 Revenue Grossing Clubs will now be eligible for Revenue Sharing, including Clubs in large media markets who were previously ineligible (such as Anaheim, New Jersey and the New York Islanders, among others). Further, our proposal eliminates some of the current "business performance" thresholds that had the effect of materially reducing the amounts a Club might otherwise qualify to receive in revenue sharing. Instead, under-performing Clubs will be expected to enhance their business planning capabilities, will be provided on-site assistance to meet enhanced business objectives and will be provided with much greater counseling as to "best practices" in business operations.

In addition, we have proposed the formation of a functioning and active Revenue Sharing Committee, on which the NHLPA will have representation and will have an opportunity to provide input, to determine the best and most effective distribution of revenue sharing funds.

Supplemental and Commissioner Discipline

We are proposing to amend current Player discipline provisions to introduce additional procedural safeguards to protect Player interests, including an ultimate appeal right to a "neutral" third-party arbitrator with a "clearly erroneous" standard of review.

No Rollback; Players' Share "Make Whole" Provision

The NHL is not proposing that current SPCs be reduced, re-written or rolled back. Instead, the NHL's proposal retains all current Players' SPCs at their current face value for the duration of their terms, subject to the operation of the escrow mechanism in the same manner as it has worked under the expired CBA. (In other words, under the expired CBA, the compensation a Player received each year was either higher or lower than the face value of his contract depending upon Club-Player contracting levels and the level and growth rate of HRR.) Under the expired CBA, in two of the seven years Players were paid in excess of the face values of their SPCs and in five of those years they received less than their face values. That process would remain intact under the new CBA.

Under our "make whole" proposal, which is premised upon a 5% anticipated growth of HRR both this year and in future years, every Player will be paid compensation based on the full value of the Players' Share under which his current SPC was signed.

In order to effectively transition from a Players' Share of 57 percent to 50 percent, including importantly to protect Players' current SPCs against an absolute reduction in Players' Share dollars, the new Agreement contemplates, in its initial years, a "make whole" mechanism that will effectively pay each Player currently under contract the difference between 50% of Actual HRR in 2012/13 and 57% of HRR in 2011/12 -- which was $1.883 Billion.

Again, premised upon an assumed 5% growth rate between 2011/12 and 2012/13, the "make whole" amount is calculated to be a maximum of $149 million for the 2012/13 season ($1.883 Billion minus $1.734 Billion (57% multiplied by $3.303 Billion minus 50% multiplied by $3.468 Billion). Similarly, utilizing that formula and our 5% growth projections, the "make whole" amount is calculated to be a maximum of $62 million for the 2013/14 season.

To accomplish the "make whole," each Players' pro-rata "make whole" will be determined for the first two years of the Agreement and will be paid to each Player as a Deferred Compensation benefit over the life of the Player's existing SPC. For those Players whose contracts expire after the 2012/13 season, the benefit will be paid when final HRR is determined for this season (in October/November 2013). Player "make whole" payments will be accrued and paid for by the League, and will be chargeable against Players' Share amounts in future years as Preliminary Benefits.

The "make whole" obligation will be operational only through the 2013/14 season because, beginning in Year 3, the projected growth in League-wide revenues should have resulted in an increase in absolute Players' Share dollars (in excess of the Players' Share of $1.883 Billion in 2011/12). This will effectively restore "full value" to all existing SPCs without any continuing need for a "make whole."

We note in regard to this proposal, that while the NHLPA's August 14 proposal was premised upon a 7% annual growth rate in HRR, we instead used the more conservative growth rate of 5%, consistent with our prior proposals. If the NHLPA's estimate of revenue growth is more accurate, then the amount of money needed to effectuate a "make whole" would actually be less.

* * *

The parties have already reached agreement on many of the non-critical but necessary items needed to complete a new CBA. We hope the NHLPA and the Players will view this proposal in the manner in which it is intended -- an invitation to complete an Agreement in the necessary timeframe so that a full 82-game 2012/13 season can be saved.

NHL CBA Proposal: How It Would Affect the New York Islanders

If we pretend that the NHL's latest proposal has half a chance of leading to a deal and a full season, we can pretend that some of its tenets will actually help the New York Islanders.