The Lockout (is over!!!!!)
View Single Post
09-17-2012, 05:44 PM
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Berzerkeley, CA
Originally Posted by
It's the players responsibility to fix the problem because they have less leverage and are going to lose the fight. There is no right or wrong, just the reality of who has more control. I'd also argue that the onus is more on them because they've been getting more than 50%, but honestly that's arbitrary to begin with and depends on how you define HRR in the first place so is probably meaningless.
It's true that players will probably take escrow into account when signing their deals (well, the smart ones will) but they probably should also have taken the chance of some form of rollback into account even if they planned to fight against it... just to be pragmatic. Neither here nor there though, wouldn't justify it either way. The nature of escrow means they really have no idea exactly how much they'll bring in in a year; increasing the escrow % wouldn't change too much (and if it was a small enough increase they realistically wouldn't lose any more than they originally planned for, since IINM they never end up losing it all).
I just think the players are (at least appearing to be) needlessly hardheaded about the "no rollback" issue when it's presented as a form of escrow. Now it may be that the form laid out to this point is really unfavorable, but drawing a solid line in the sand comes across as silly to me given that they've never had guarantees before now. You don't sign for $X, you sign for $X+-Y% Changing that Y shouldn't be an outrage as long as its part of a reasonable bigger picture. Heck, if they do it right they might be able to milk some decent concessions in other areas out of the owners for agreeing to it (which is partly what I think they are doing, or at least what Fehr is doing).
As for owners-vs.-players rather than owners-vs.-owners, that's just how it goes. You could say the same thing with players-vs.-owners rather than players-vs.-players. The guys who don't make much or have short careers are getting royally screwed by any real lockout,
and are gaining almost nothing from any hard-line wins by the PA.
But that's the nature of these kinds of negotiations.
Good points. I would only question the bolded portion. It strikes me that it's a bit like a flat tax. If I'm a league minimum player and I lose an extra 10 percent to escrow or revenue or whatever. In real-life terms that hurts a lot more than Ovie losing 10 percent, even though the dollars are bigger for him. The hard line against "rollbacks" however you may define them seems to protect those lower salary players the most. Unless I'm entirely misunderstanding this, which is surely possible.
Also, on the owners vs. players issue, it seems to me that owners have a bigger stake in the fanbase and so should be more on the hook for league-wide fiscal health. That is, a player has what, 15 years average in the league? But an owner needs that fanbase longer term. So it seems unwise for rich teams to not help support poorer teams. Yeah, Rangers fans aren't going anywhere, but as Spector points out in that article I linked to earlier, it's the TV contract that matters. And that requires fans all over the place. That was the whole argument for southern expansion. The owners--even rich ones-- stand to gain a lot more from the financial security of all the teams than do the players. Yet another reason I think they should shoulder more of cost.
Bottom line for me, and maybe it's way oversimplified, is that we lost a whole year in '04-'05 so owners could get the structure they wanted--and they did. Now a mere 8 years later, they're all dissatisfied again and complaining about their costs again. I just think they had their chance to ***** and moan about player salaries and costs. If they blew it, that should be neither the players nor the fans problem. So I'm pissed.
I just hope they figure it the **** out and soon. (But I doubt they will.)
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by californiacapsfan