View Single Post
09-28-2012, 12:39 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 794
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Grind View Post

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.

Yes Caved. they took a 24% cut in thier contracts. Tell me you would be happy with your boss if he came and cut your pay by 24%. forceing you to give up money you were legaly entitled to. Imagine that for a second. you sign a contract legal and all with lawyers, and accountants, and witnesses, and agents, and managers all signing stuff and agreeing to stuff.... and suddenly the other party decides to just change the terms... and lock you out without pay till you have no choice but to acctept the deal. that is why i say caved.

A huge barometer on this for me is Danial Alfreddssson. in the last strike he voulintarily offered to take a paycut, before the NHLPA agreed, just because he realised he was making enough money and just wanted to play. This time he's standing with his union brothers. that to me speaks to the mentality of the players. it tells me that they feel like they are being fed a rough deal and are being asked to clean up the owners mess by taking it on the chin again.

you can say it wass a win for the players last time ,but at the end of the day the Owners got every single thing they asked for. And they promissed they had fixed the system. they shouted out words like economic stability and "sound foundation for the future"

Again I'm not saying the players are being bad in this lockout, i attribut anything between 25-45% of the blame depending on the particular issue being discussed.

But I think the owners wanted a lockout from day 1 of the negotiations. so i give them the lions share of the blame.

Also this notion of the owners being "shafted" for 25 years before that? are you aware of how the NHLPA came to be? what the situation was before CBA's existed?maybe you should read up on that. then you kight see what "shafted"means.

Again , i get it. the league has financial inequality, alot of teams lose money, however the deal the owners are throwing about won';t really fix that. which is what the NHLPA are saying

you all say the players haven't moved...but they infact have, they are agreeing to limits on future contract values and lengths(not specifics yet but they are discussiong it), but they will not accept rollbacks. And right now every legitimate news source I can find seems to indicate the NHL's offer still includes a rollback in one form or another. and the NHL knows that after the last contract that's a deal killer. so if you put out an offer you know, know will not be accepted, re you really negotiating?" or are you just spinning pr to look good in public while being a big jerk?

Skidooboy is offline