Blinkage, Linkage & Stinkage (CBA & Lockout Discussion) XVII
View Single Post
10-28-2012, 11:36 AM
Powdered Toast Man
Is he a ham?
Join Date: Nov 2005
Originally Posted by
Of course. But what's "best" for the owners and what the owners can afford are two different things. What would be best for the owners would be the players play for free and the owners make pure profit. But what the league can afford refers to what's best for both parties. The owners simply aren't going to let the game be played until a deal is on the table that makes it worth their investment. That is good for all parties involved, because the league doesn't survive long-term without being a good investment. Players don't want contraction, either. And right now, the math isn't even close - owners are getting shafted. The NHL is a terrible, stupid place to put your money. If players think them taking a piece of the pie so big that the median owner
money trying to keep their team afloat every year is good for anyone in the long term, they've got another thing coming.
And that's why owners are going to win this one. They just sent a letter saying "Dear players, it's not worth it for us to continue funding the league under anything close to the proposals you've put forward. We'd just as well just shut it down. Thank anyways, Owners." So this isn't about getting what's best for owners. It's about getting owners barely enough to make it worth their while to run the damn show.
This is exactly what the owners are telling everyone, whether it's one hundred percent factual or not has yet to be established. I for one choose to believe neither side is exactly righteous so tend not believe that the explanation that the owners are only asking for the absolute minimum to ensure the long-term survival of the league is accurate. It looks like they are swinging for the fences with a man on second when they need a single run to win the game, to me.
Powdered Toast Man
View Public Profile
Powdered Toast Man's albums
Find More Posts by Powdered Toast Man