View Single Post
11-11-2012, 05:03 PM
Holden Caulfield
The Eternal Skeptic
Holden Caulfield's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,447
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by thinkwild View Post
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.
It was considered a big owner win at the time the deal was signed. I never denied that.

What? I NEVER called linkage or a cap player wins. I specifically said those were what the owners won. I have no idea how you could misinterpret that. Except how would guaranteeing players a higher share be in ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM a owner win? The guarantee that the percentage would rise with revenues is CLEARLY a players win, since it adds to their side. The owners were willing to give there since they made a huge error predicting where the growth would come from, clearly they felt top end markets were pretty much tapped out, the growth would come from weaker markets. The opposite happened.

Oh I guess the ONLY thing that could ever matter for players is money...picking where they can play rather than being committed to a city they never chose for 14 years is not a win for players? The owners did not HAVE to give that for the cap to work, the owners were never under obligation to sign the player to the next contract after ELC, but if the owners wanted them the players were stuck till 31. The UFA age was a huge win for players. The 24% rollback, a huge win for owners, ending up being irrelevant 1-3 years into the new CBA, as salaries very quickly rose past old levels.

Originally Posted by syc View Post
Yeah we'll see if this make whole stuff works out. If the players get a penny less then the contract they signed it could be used as an out clause.
UNDER THE OLD CBA THE PLAYERS COULD EARN LESS THAN THEIR CONTRACT. How many times does this need to be said. Under the old CBA players were subject to escrow, same as the new deal will be. The players are actually demanding something that was not guaranteed under the last CBA. This is NOT a rollback, never has been. Not sure how a player could argue they are not getting their full contract, when they signed it under the old CBA, under which they could lose money to escrow, and with it being subject to the new CBA, where they could lose money to escrow. How do they have ANY kind of case?

Holden Caulfield is offline   Reply With Quote