2012-2013 Lockout Discussion Thread (Part II)
View Single Post
09-12-2012, 06:01 PM
Join Date: Feb 2006
Originally Posted by
The players are beginning to look very foolish IMO. Fehr said the big markets need to step up and so far that hasn't happened yet. Is he really hoping that there is a split in union between the owners so the PA gets a better deal?
How are the players looking foolish? Bettman initially asked for them to go from 57% to 46% and now he's asking for them to go from 57% to 47%. And for all we know they still want to get rid of salary arbitration, add an extra three years to get UFA status, add two years to ELCs, and cap contracts at five years. Why should the players agree to that? Don't tell me all of that's necessary to prevent cap circumventing contracts. All they need to do to stop those is propose that for all future contracts the cap hit equals the actual salary in the given year.
Revenue is way up. You can't tell me that doesn't equate to profit because over that same period the players share went from an uncapped 75% to a capped 57%. Why should the players give up a ton more on top of what they already gave up in the last CBA, when that very system has allowed the big markets to rake in the profits?
I'll use the Rangers as an example. In 2000-01 the Rangers had a payroll of $56.8 million. When they sign Del Zotto, their 2012-13 payroll will wind up a little North of the $60 million. Ticket and merchandising prices have gone way, way up over that same time period (not to mention tv revenue). Markets like Philly, Boston, and others experienced similar windfalls thanks to the cap. It's only natural for the players to ask for the big markets to use some of those cap-fueled profits to help make the small markets viable. The money is there. It's just that the owners would prefer to make another big cash grab rather than agreeing to a system that would both help the small markets and create something resembling real labor peace.
Originally Posted by
the players stance is basically to slow down growth rather than to take any losses now...meaning, they still want the cap to go up, and to keep going up, but at a slower rate. its ridiculous. the owners had farther to come, but theyve made steps..players havent.
Why should the players agree to take cuts in legally binding contracts that the owners agreed to? That's absurd. A contract is a contract.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Zil