2012-13 Lockout Discussion Part V: The "Back to square one" Edition
View Single Post
10-19-2012, 01:29 PM
Join Date: Oct 2012
Originally Posted by
Right now the owners aren't making money.
First of all, they didn't design it unilaterally. They agreed to it with the players. So the players had an equal hand crafting this last CBA, and the owners were trying to give the players as much as they thought they could reasonably give them and still be profitable.
Forbes is reporting that the owners still aren't profitable. That means the CBA has to be lowered again.
Have fun in Europe
Because of who?
Id be playing and have much better job security, wouldnt I?
The players agreed after nearly a year of not giving in. Conceding on the basis of wanting to play, not necessarily the best deal.
If im a player, how many times do I wanna deal with owners not cutting it financially?
The average NHLer probably deals with one or two restructured CBAs, but its about setting a good precedent for future players.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by AceintheSpace*