View Single Post
10-29-2012, 02:01 AM
Registered User
SJeasy's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,538
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by thinkwild View Post
Making salaries whole i beleive is an nhl term not a PA one. And their method is to get future players to take less to pay them. It is a clever phrase, but it distracts from the fact the owners are asking the players to take an immediate overall salary envelope pay cut to solve a problem while revenues and overall profits are increasing. It would surely be understandable if revenues were dropping.
I'll buy revenues increasing, profits not so much as there is no proof of increased profitability. And, danishh made a good case for profitability peaking and sliding down hill since the last CBA.
Originally Posted by thinkwild View Post
I know the owners want that. I dont see it as justifiable, but what do i know. The players have seen the books and they dont see it as justifiable. And they arent going to accept it because it looks like plain bullying. You ask what the problem is and try to solve it and they change the problem.
I seriously doubt that more than a couple of players have seen the owners books and I doubt whether any player has seen all of them. Both the HRR reports and the 76k pages. That's work for financial professionals not players.

From the rhetoric it is certain that part of ownership issues lie with the weak sisters. Fehr offering Bettman a $100mil rev share pool for his personal account to distribute certainly indicates that he is well aware that there are problems outside of the current system of sharing.

If you want an alternative that I haven't seen proposed, it is to remove the current escrow system. I am sure part of Fehr's agenda is to remove or mitigate it. There have been individual complaints from players every year about escrow. I am sure that it grates on them. An alternative would be to make contracts whole each year but to adjust the subsequent year's cap for the overage. An effect would be to make the owners wait one year to pull even with percentages, taking risks one year at a time. Another hit would be a one time hit to the players when it was enacted to suppress the value of new contracts and extensions. Neither side has proposed this solution.
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
Adults don't need to be gagged. What is Bettman afraid they might say?

What could an owner possibly say that warrants him not being allowed to talk about the team/business he paid hundreds of millions of dollars to acquire (or currently valued as such)?
I would believe that part of the reason for the owner gag is to prevent league liability during a labor negotiation. It would not surprise me if many owners had no experience with collective bargaining where labor law is a bit more stringent. That is not to say that this is the only reason for the gag as Devellano's words definitely merited censure.

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote