View Single Post
Old
10-20-2012, 12:29 AM
  #418
PensFanSince1989
Registered User
 
PensFanSince1989's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,711
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Jiggyfly View Post
How is it a BS proposal? Any contracts signed under the new CBA go to 50%.

Are you saying in five years there will be no new contracts signed?

I severly doubt that happens.

And again, what concessions are the owners offering the players for dropping to 50/50?

I haven't seen any.

Funny how the owners having to honor the contracts they signed is BS, but forcing the players to drop 7% of their share, with no concessions from the owners is somehow not BS?
I didn't say any of that last paragraph I've already said they'll likely have to work some way of lessoning the blow, opposed to a straight rollback. The league tried with their 'make whole' provision, but from my understanding, that will work to actually take the players share below 50% in years 3 and a few beyond, so yes, I see why the NHLPA isn't jumping at that one. However, it's BS to call it 50/50 immediately. There may be a mechanism there to eventually get it to 50/50 (though it's up in the air whether or not that would even happen in the short 5 year lifespan of the deal) but it's certainly not a 50/50 split immediately. It's a 56/44 split, at best immediately. That's why it's b.s. There's absolutely no gaurantee it ever gets to 50/50, labelling it as a 50/50 split immediately is BS, and even if it does get to actual 50/50, it would likely only be for the final year of the CBA.

And that's the other thing that bugs me about the players proposals. You keep hearing NHL players whine about "if we give in now, what's to stop the NHL from doing this next time"?...Well, if you're concerned about that, why the hell do you keep making such short CBA terms compared to the owners. It's the owners trying to propose the longer deals.

PensFanSince1989 is online now