Thread: Greedy owners?
View Single Post
Old
09-21-2003, 10:07 PM
  #20
SuperUnknown
Registered User
 
SuperUnknown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,608
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russian Fan
As for unions not starting negociations ,it's because they are in the strong side, even in real life , union such Quebec Nurse Syndicate a few years ago didn't negociate until the deadline & did go on the strike. Same thing apply for the Montreal Casino with their dealers, security agents & others. You dont start negotiation when you are fully aware that your employers is only talking about taking away what have been years on territorial ground that you gain.
Actually, for a rare occasion, I think the owners are on the strong side but have enough sense to understand a lock-out will hurt both sides.

Let's face it, the players earn 75% of the total revenues. In other words, players lose 75% of the revenues while the owners lose 25% of the revenues minus their operating expenses.

A year of lock-out will cost the players 1.4 billion, while it won't cost much for the owners. Their collective losses last year were $300M and they estimate that if they do not operate for a full year they won't lose more than that. In other words, they don't really lose anything if there are no operations next year.

The true losers are fans if both parties can't agree on a CBA before next year. I don't know if you remember the shortened 48 games season, but it was far from being memorable. That's why fans should urge both parties to start working together so that they come to an agreement during next summer.

Whenever there's a strike or a lock-out, I think the party that has the more to lose will bend first. This time around, it is clearly the players imo.

SuperUnknown is offline