This is not important to me. Carry on if it makes you feel better.
I think when individuals are attempting to push forward an upopular cause they exaggerate projections to make their cause more tolerable. It is my assumption that future projected liability was communicated as a range, since it was called a projection and the comments made providing specifics were at the highest end of the range.
Again, you are missing the point. Several owners indicated that the price would be more than twice as much as the previous season. One owner gave more specific figures that matched that . Do you think he inflated the previous years total? Why? It could be looked up. If you don't want to believe it, just say so. That doesn't mean "we will never know" because we were actually told by a source what it was.
I am not missing my point, My point is crystal clear, and it has nothing to do with the current year totals (where did this come from?) only the future year projections. Those several owners may very well be the ones that chose to opt out and in order to make them appear more sympathetic to the public for their very negative decision, the information they made public regarding future projected obligations may be at the highest level of an estimated range. The figure was not going to be known, according to Kennan, until July.
I think you overestimate my interest. My only interest is that you made a point and still have yet to validate it. Here is your comment:
"you really need to point the finger at those teams that had not paid their fair share already - you know, the skinflints that Mudd used to work for."
I asked if you knew that teams were not paying into the pensions before the change and who those teams were.
Your cited article does not reference any team that had not ponied up their fair share to date and thus invalidates your source and you. What the article appears to suggest is that if, after opting out, these teams fund less than 80% of the standard then there would be no guarantee that Mudd or Moore could take the lump sum in a future year. Unless you have some other source you've yet to reveal, then I think you missed the boat on this one. By the way, the skinflints you speak of actually include your beloved pats and validates my point that the pats did have something to do with Mudd's retirement issues.
Actually, Kennan mentions that several teams are not fully funded in the previously mentioned ESPN article. I did note that I had read several articles on this. If I put the wrong link up, I apologize, but, had you actually read through both, you would realize the information is there. I guess that expectation was too much.
Really? Because I reread that ESPN article and I have to say that I think you are mistaken. Here is why - according to the article the pensions must be funded to 80% in order for a retiree to take the lump sum
"So you take a guy like Howard Mudd, who is pretty diligent about everything, and he was already concerned about losing some money because the market index was going to change in July. Then you throw this at someone like that -- and he finds out that several teams have not fully funded their pension plans at an 80 percent level, the mark they need to hit for any employee to take a full lump sum payment. ...Well, Howard Mudd's not waiting around to see what happens with all these signals."
If Howard Mudd's former employers had not previously fully funded their pensions (as you attempted to originally suggest) then per Kennen's comments, Mudd would not have been able to take his lump sum even at the time of his retirement in February, which he did.