Anti-lockout protests in Buffalo and around the league
View Single Post
09-13-2012, 09:21 PM
Brainfart 4 Reinhart
Join Date: Mar 2011
Originally Posted by
Actually, it's not, because the owners don't collectively share profits or losses. Each franchise keeps its own books. So it's take that 1.4% and see who's making money and who's not.
It would be like one McDonald's franchise somewhere struggling so all the McDonalds in the world decide to cut employee wages just to help that one McDonalds out, but the only real end result is that now all those other McDonalds now keep a bigger profit.
Let's not forget it's the owners that first wanted a salary cap and pushed to tie the cap to revenues. They created the first lockout. Now because of a few struggling franchises that cannot turn a profit even under the terms they first mandated, they are going to create the second.
Which leads back to the proposal that makes the most sense. The players have not only agreed to take a minor pay cut, but also formulated a plan to stabilize those franchises in the red. But for some reason, the owners that are making the most profits have no interest in helping out the ones that aren't. Hmm... and it's only the players that are greedy, right...
But if the league as a collective is running a deficit, the only way to fix it necessarily includes cutting player costs - you can't revenue share your way out of a leaguewide net loss. You can just spread the loss out.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by haseoke39