View Single Post
11-11-2012, 04:40 PM
Veni Vidi Toga
thinkwild's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,546
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Holden Caulfield View Post
Also, this whole "owners got everything the wanted" is just not true, IMO. Yes they got the linkage and hard cap they wanted, but lost bigtime on UFA, RFA rights, high minimum contract, high floor, increasing % based on revenues, etc. It's a classic case of winning the battle, losing the war. And again, the OWNERS did not cancel the season...a labour strife cancelled the season, NEITHER side could agree to a deal last time, same as this time.
That must mean there are lot of embarrassing threads here from when the lockout ended last time and fans were crowing about their and their owner partners complete and total annihilation victory over the PA. Ooops.

The owners locked the players out demanding one thing - cost certainty. The owners chose a system called a payroll range system, with a floor-ceiling difference of $16 mil, and insisted it all be linked to revenues. promising players as revenues grew so would their share and their percentage.

These were all owner demands they locked the players out to get. To now call those player wins because as revenues grew so did their share is a laughable attempt at respinning history.

They have linkage and a triple salary cap, and are lowering both again. What difference does ufa, rfa, and the falsely labelled cap circumventing contracts have to do with their profits? Its just shifting around where the money goes, not changing the amount being spent. How can such nominal concessions to rfa and ufa rights, things that they actually needed in order to allow for the lubrication to enable all the roster turnover a cap would require each year, be considered as costing the owners big time? That is self evidently nonsense.

thinkwild is offline   Reply With Quote