2012-13 Lockout Discussion Part V: The "Back to square one" Edition
View Single Post
10-26-2012, 09:24 AM
Join Date: Aug 2008
Originally Posted by
Hand over fist is inaccurate. A $39m cap isn't hand over fist. It got there sure, based on revenues and escalators. The health of the league, of individual franchises, is still very much open to debate. And running a team into the ground and opening a franchise on a frontier aren't rights to immediate profits, cutbacks or subsidization.
Real concessions? What about these proposals aren't real concessions. They both moved 7 pts to 50%. With everything else, they can't ask for some relief for roughly two seasons?
7 years overdue? So now the players bent the owners over on 2004. That was the same battle cry 8 years ago. They got their terms. Maybe the same morons that botched the last CBA shouldn't be running this one. Again, if the last CBA was so bad, why are they insisting on the same system? It won't save teams in a few years when they can't afford the same high caps.
I'm no economist... But reading and understanding the proposals to the best of my ability, it seemed like the league's and the players' were both a little unfair in each direction. The players' didn't seem to be able to get to 50% for years.
I'm of the opinion that the owners did win in '04 but that they also left out a bunch of things that would help the league attain "healthy" status. That is on them. However, as "owners" it's well within their rights to try to fix that. They can't do it while a CBA is in place... So they had to wait until now. Could you imagine how long '04 would've gone on if they had proposed a 24% rollback along with a 50/50 linkage?
I feel the players had it pretty damn good for the past 2 decades or so... Maybe more. They can give on this (they'll have to at some point regardless of how they feel) and operate in a "healthy" system and still make a killing on salaries.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Riche16