CBA / Lockout Discussion Thread (Update: player tested, owner approved)
View Single Post
10-23-2012, 11:02 AM
Join Date: Jan 2007
Originally Posted by
And again, even if the contract wasnt dependent on the CBA laws, Im going to be pissed at the players that wont accept 8M a year instead of 9M a year to alleviate this lock out. Its a joke. I understand that the owners arent helping handing out these contracts, and rules need to be in the new CBA to combat that and frankly protect themselves from being able to do it just to compete with the huge markets. But the bottom line is... the lockout is over if like 15% of the players in the league will accept less than a million less over the course of their current contracts, and the ability of the league to pay some later rather than right away. But no.
Sorry I wont be crying over someone playing a game missing out on 2M of a 100M contract and complaining about just signing a contract he KNEW was going to be in doubt depending on the new CBA.
I think it's interesting that you use a pecuniary defense as to why the players are the greedy party in a lockout - not a strike - when almost all of their income is salary based, unlike the owners who are getting more money and at a lower percent of tax (most likely)
You can argue all day, but there's really no leg to stand on in the "why won't the players play for less for the poor owners" crowd
View Public Profile
Visit RussianGuyovich's homepage!
Find More Posts by RussianGuyovich