View Single Post
Old
09-28-2012, 11:59 AM
  #557
Grind
Stomacheache AllStar
 
Grind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Manitoba
Posts: 4,179
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TCsmyth View Post
Why is this term "caved" thrown around so much? People say the players were not unified last time...huh? We lost a year of hockey because they were unified.

My view is the players came to a "realization" that there was going to be a new framework (cap), and that they should negotiate the best deal they could so as to not lose anymore paychecks. Why does nobody point to the fact that the owners said to the players "we need a cap, go with us on this, and you will do very well". Hmmmm...kinda went that way - didn't it?

The very deal they supposedly "caved" on is one that they are fighting tooth and nail to preserve. The business owners feel they got the numbers wrong, and are paying too much - and want to change it this time around...pretty simple to me. Now the players can "cave", and we can have a season
exactly,


there's a few misconception/assumptions that I think through the whole thing for a loop for a lot of people.

league revenue- they focus on league revenue when its 4 teams holding up 26. that is not healthy (both sides can agree on this) but should be noted that obviously somethings bizarre (again, individual players getting paid more money in one season then 10+ owners make combined).

The original deal was anything close to reasonable- it wasn't. the league was in piss poor shape because of it. the Players "caved?". Caved and gave in because they had extraordinarily outlandish demands to begin with, demands that were not in line with other pro sports entiities? your damn rights they did, and even "caving" didn't bring it in close enough to be a "fair" deal, it's still, VERY EVIDENTLY a sweet heart deal for the players.

But they gave them those contracts!- again, yes the optics are bad, i will admit, but the treating of NHL teams as the exact same as the NHL as an entity on its own is ridiculous, these are not one in the same. the NHL provides a framework for franchises to compete in. the level of that competition determines how valuable the "framework" of the NHL is. To expect teams to do LESS then they're allowed to do within that framework is ridiculous - regardless of the optics.

the biggest issue currently is the players have rallied around the idea taht they got shafted last time. Did they? yes, but that's only because the owners were being shafted for the 20+ years before that. And time's shown that they didn't even really get shafted in the end!

we all agree more revenue sharing would be good, the problem is the Players haven't proposed any alternatives to their original proposal.

Arguing the ******** that they are, and not negotiating "on point of principle" is infuriating. The players have up and said "it's about principle". Really? That's how your going to win me over? Refusing to negotiate, knowing you have a sweet heart deal, Knowing what the inevitable result is, knowing where the middle ground is, but standing your ground on principle?

this is what drives me nuts.

Grind is offline