View Single Post
10-19-2012, 05:19 PM
Registered User
PensFanSince1989's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,618
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Mr Jiggyfly View Post
First of all, this isn't about how the players make millions of dollars so it is ok to **** them over. Do you know how much the idiots from Jersey Shore make? Pointing to the players being rich already is a poor argument to justify screwing them over.

This is a new CBA and things can be altered, correct? So then why isn't it ok for the NHLPA to take the cap off the table? That is within their rights. The last CBA didn't say it had to carry over forever.

God help us if they do that, but at least the players are being reasonable and not doing it. They could though.

I'm also quite aware of the legal language that allows the contracts to be changed, but they were signed in good faith and just because that language allows them to legally do rollbacks, doesn't make it ethical.

You had an owner in Leipold in that room yesterday asking the players to give back money, after he just signed two guys to over 200m.

How much more disingenuous could he be?

The owners want their cutbacks now. Which is total ******** and propaganda. They can make adjustments with their RS system to help carry the teams supposedly losing money, for the next two years.

The problem is they don't want to take from their own pockets to fix their mistakes, they want to take from the players (again).

The big market teams who are making a killing under the cap will now get further cutbacks and their profits will grow exponentially. But somehow, asking them to help out their partners is wrong, while extorting more money from the players is ok. Its like bizzarro world that people are too blind to see the obvious here. Jesus.

Once again, I am not going to put my ethics aside because I badly want to see hockey.

It truly amazes me how people can justify what the owners are doing. Either they have ethical standards like the owners, or they just want hockey so badly, they throw reason out of the window.
A few quick points before I go on about how unethical and how many morals I lack...

NHLPA doesn't actually propose getting rid of the cap because they know it will get them nowhere (though they have threatened it and have proposed delinking the cap..)

Secondly, if Leipold didn't give them the contracts, some other team gladly would have. They were working under the old CBA, and had no choice but to. The CBA dictated the rules each team had to follow, and to try to make their teams better; gm's signed players under the old CBA and to rates and terms that had become dictated under that CBA. I guess Leopold could have let some other team sign major free agents, but that wouldn't stop us from being here today, all it would mean is that the Wild are worse off going into the future.

Still, is there something sketchy given Leipold giving those contracts given his status on the negotiating committee? Was it not well known the NHL was going to be going after roll backs and a bigger share of revenue?

The owners aren't saints, by any stretch of the imagination. But to take such a stand based on ethics or morals makes me want to yell get off your high horse. No, I don't feel sympathy for players making an average salary of $2.5 million especially when one of their arguments seems to be that they lost so bad last time...the old CBA actually worked out quite well for them. But, yes, I don't exactly feel bad for the owners either, especially torontos, Montreal, Rangers, etc. I agree with you that revenue sharing must be implemented more effectively.", owners can't expect just the players to pay for the inequality in the league.

However, yes, in who I side with more, it's the owners. Not based on any moral high ground, or anything of the like, but because I think their proposal, especially their latest is better for the league. I think there's a serious issue financially when the Penguins, despite their fan support, tv ratings, sellouts, having the most marketable player in the world are still struggling to make a profit. And I doubt revenue sharing will help the Penguins. With that said, I think the owners should at least go towards a bit more gradual decrease (as said, use the players own growth assumptions against them and tell them no raises until we actually hit 50/50, hopefully in year 2.

It is a complicated issue; I'm not sure how you deal with existing contracts, but there must be some creative minds I the room that know the exact numbers and can figure something out.,

PensFanSince1989 is online now