2012-13 Lockout Discussion Part VI: The "What Comes Before Square One?" Edition
View Single Post
11-13-2012, 01:09 PM
Join Date: Jun 2006
Originally Posted by
Back to this? Yes, they have more risk. They pick franchise locations, when to expand, dictated the last cba and circumvented their rules. The players, without any real say, were along for the ride. Would profits be higher with better choices? Undoubtedly.
I still maintain that if owners want to pass off some of the consequences of their mismanagement, the players deserve a say in franchise relocation, expansion and a cut of expansion fees. I also push this point because not an owner would accept that. They want all the control and profit but hate the risk.
Further more, its tiring to see the owners' number run through filters but the players' number is seen one way. Its irrelevant at this point. The majority on both sides is comfortable with a compromise on the contract stuff and the agreement on the revenues. Bettman needs to relent.
The players don't have a say in franchise relocation and don't get a cut of expansion fees because they are not making an investment. No owner would accept your proposal, and no player would agree to splitting hundreds of millions in business costs with the owners.
Similar to how other employees can't choose where their offices are located. If they feel the business is that mismanaged they would be better served leaving for a competitor (aka Europe).
View Public Profile
HatTrick Swayze's albums
Find More Posts by HatTrick Swayze