View Single Post
11-03-2012, 03:38 AM
Registered User
mossey3535's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,400
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
That said, the mathematics of it never made sense for the PA. It won't make sense under any scenario where the owners can demand that the players take a lower share than the current share. This is one equation that will always favor the owners in net terms. The question then is, from the PA's side, how do you break that cycle? You either agree to always take whatever is offered because it will ALWAYS be greater than zero, or you draw the line. (Or you leave it to the next generation to draw that line.)
I still don't agree with you on this whole 'lockout to end lockouts' business.

Again, while not morally justified, at least the owners are predictable. If you look at the current situation, the league is looking at tweaks so they are actively trying to save the season.

Right now the NHL is agreeing to honour the face value of contracts that they don't have a legal obligation to honour, and negotiating against itself - and you think this is precedent for another similar situation after the end of the next CBA? If they are right and these tweaks fix things, they will have almost no financial incentive to go for another clawback.

Not only that, but you have no idea what the financial situation will be at the end of the next CBA. Maybe profits become so high league-wide that the players feel like they have to strike to get a bigger piece. That's their right - just as it's the owner's right to try to make them take a smaller piece.

mossey3535 is offline