View Single Post
Old
10-19-2012, 01:21 PM
  #18
DutchShamrock
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Country: United States
Posts: 4,984
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mschmidt64 View Post
They are willing to miss two seasons to get it lower than it was before, you mean.

I don't see how anyone can credibly argue that the NHL doesn't have an income problem.

Most of the teams lost money.

If most of the teams can't make a profit without the top 3 teams covering their butts, then costs are way too high.

That means labor costs have to go down. That means the players have to lose again.

Sorry, Don Fehr. You guys have to take another cut. That's what's right.

I don't know if that's 47% or 51% or whatever, but you are coming down from what you got before, period.

So I have no real sympathy on this "honor the contracts" thing. The players knew when signing those deals that they were contingent on a new CBA. It's not like this negotiation is a surprise to them.
Then get a new system. Is it working or not? It's not a matter of a few percentage points. One day the league won't maintain this pace so they need relief. The next, the union should sign this deal because 5% growth is feasible. In year 6, 50% is going to put the floor way over the current level. The poor teams will still drown. This isn't a fix.

The league pushed to bad markets. They prop up weak franchises instead of moving north. Players get no say in this.

Are contracts guaranteed? When Yashin didn't play a year, he got zero dollars AND owed the sens another year. The league expects the players to hold up their end. If a player took off 12% of the games no one on their right mind would think he deserves 100% of the money.

Legal or not, the players want the full value of these deals. It's what makes them comfortable giving up every single other demand. Everyone needs some kind of "win". Some way to maintain some dignity. It's not about millionaires, it's about human nature.

DutchShamrock is offline