2012-13 Lockout Discussion Part VI: The "What Comes Before Square One?" Edition
View Single Post
11-13-2012, 03:59 PM
Bleed Ranger Blue
Join Date: Jul 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.
Back to this? Yea, back to this so long as it doesnt have a credible response.
The players are supposed to have say now in key business decisions? How about they get some skin in the game before we even attempt to broach that subject? The people who have the say have it because they assume the risk and provide the capital.
I would also take any news reports you're hearing right now with a grain of salt. If the revenue split and make-whole issue is really solved, and Bettman is haggling over the age of free agency and contract stuff, then it really is his fault. But in reality, you only have the twitter musings of a few hack writers to go by on this.
Bleed Ranger Blue
View Public Profile
Bleed Ranger Blue's albums
Find More Posts by Bleed Ranger Blue