2012-13 Lockout Discussion Part V: The "Back to square one" Edition
View Single Post
10-26-2012, 01:14 PM
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: New Jersey
Originally Posted by
I don't think anyone is saying the players don't/shouldn't have the right to make a proposal of their own, with their own ideas. My problem their proposals were (in my view at least) unreasonable. If they were to have come up with a unique, reasonable original offer, I would have been encouraged.
I think the fact that we were lead to believe the proposal would be working off the NHL's offer was problem as well, though I don't think that was the PA's fault.
Unique and original like the owners' proposal. They pat themselves on the back about the success of their CBA and overnight cry poor, victims of the greedy players. The system is broke, their words. Their original solution: Same thing, bigger cut. Wait, same thing? This was question #1 from the players. If it's broken, lets find a new solution. Denied.
The main problem is the floor is too high for bottom teams. This proposal doesn't get them more pre-split revenue outside of some sharing. Give it a few years, and I guarantee, with growth and northern relocation, the bottom teams will not keep pace with the cap floor. They are just increasing the profit margin of big city teams like NY, PHI, TOR, and BOS. Wait a second, Boston and Philly? Jacobs and Snider... 50% of the negotiation committee? That's a mighty strange coincidence.
How does the league proposal make the league healthy? I wouldn't surrender money if it's just going to profitable teams.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by DutchShamrock