Hockey Related Revenue versus Direct Costs
View Single Post
09-13-2012, 07:46 PM
Join Date: Nov 2011
Originally Posted by
See, this is one of the issues being trumpeted by certain media members that drives me absolutely nuts.
Their completely erroneous statements that follow this line of thinking is just an embarrassment of fail.
Owners give out these massive contracts. Owners want to "fix" this by sticking it to the players. WHY ARE THE OWNERS GIVING OUT THESE CONTRACTS IF THEY ARE BAD???!
The reason why this is full of fail is that it completely eliminates the rules and laws that govern a point in time. We don't live our lives according the laws that were on the books in 1923, do we? We absolutely cannot live our lives according the laws that may or may not be on the books in 2023, either.
The reasons why the Suter/Parise/Kovie/Nash/Carter/Richards/Richards/Luongo ETCETERA were given out, is that they were ALLOWED under a mutually agreed upon set of rules. Both sides chose to exploit those rules.
Do you think that Weber and his agent have ZERO responsibility for that massive offer sheet that they signed? I about guarantee you that Weber's agent had almost EVERYTHING to do with architecting that. It is how the business works.
To fault Leipold for acting within the current governing rules to put together a COMPETITIVE team is just full of fail.
Rob Simpson, Joe Yerdon and a slew of other "journalists" have all made inflammatory statements using this erroneous line of thinking. It just aggravates me.
Simply put, if the speed limit is 70 today, I'll go 70 today. If the speed limit is 80 tomorrow, I'll go 80 tomorrow. I won't go 80 today, without expecting a violation...
So what you're saying is that these owners signed contracts they never intended to pay. That's ******* level right there.
If I sign a contract I have no intention of paying I end up paying it... yet the owners somehow think that doesn't apply to them.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Wild48