Lockout discussion thread 2.0
View Single Post
11-02-2012, 11:25 PM
In Price We Trust
Join Date: Dec 2010
Originally Posted by
Don't you see the huge contradiction in this? Players are already on contract for 1,88 billion$... how can they make 50% of 3,3 billion in total revenues and get 1,88 billion which is about 57%????????
The solution would rather be, as revenues should still go up if they do play this year, to downgrade the % through many years like players proposed. The owners get the 50%, but after a few years.
I don't think it's a contradiction. I'd rather call it assuming it's choices [the owners]. They wouldn't register that much more revenue the first year, I know that, but as the cap rises up and as the pre-lockout contracts expire, they will get more revenues. One thing is for sure, the player have all rights to ask for their full salary, no matter what. It's a contract that the owner has to respect as well.
Originally Posted by
Some owners gave huge contracts, but we don't know what the position of those owners is. Maybe they're not the ones that want the lockout. Maybe they'd be perfectly fine moving forward with the exact same CBA.
But it doesn't even matter. Salary reduction sucks, big time, but as previously mentioned, can Kovalchuk live with 7M instead of 11M? What are we discussing here really, I mean, come on...
Are the players still going to make millions and millions of dollars? Yup.
Do they still get to live out their dreams? Yup.
Do they still get to play in the most elite hockey league in the world? Yup.
Do they still have guaranteed contracts? Yup.
The agents and capologists found loopholes around the previous cap. They made ridiculous offers possible to owners, once one owner decided to go with it, others didn't have a choice but to follow the trend.
It's not like they could impose a rule right after to ban those contracts, they had to wait for the renewal of the CBA, which is now. But before then, owners played the game.
Players were dumb if they did not foresee the rollback as very high possibility.
Suck it up, you got away with some, now the league is trying to fix that problem. Let it be.
You're not looking it the right way, in my opinion. Take aside the amount of money off the equation for a second and ask yourself, does that feel right? Does it feel right that a guy like Craig Leopold spends over 200 millions within a week, but then tells you: "Yeah well, these contracts are getting out of hand and I won't pay you the amount of money we discussed in the contract. Instead of 200 millions, I'll give you 150 millions. Suck it up, you're still rich anyway!"
The players have a legitimate case and have all rights to demand what they are owed. Once again, they caved in, saying they were willing to go down to 50% revenue sharing. All they need is the owners to fulfill their part of the agreements relatively to the contracts. And I won't even start on how it's basically Bettman's and the owner's fault if the league is in such a delicate posture financially.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Lebowski