View Single Post
11-13-2012, 07:49 PM
Fugu's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Posts: 29,943
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by therealdeal View Post
I've enjoyed reading your post, but this is extremely disingenuous.

If the PA knew that the NHL was going to go after 50%, and the players were willing to go to that mark as well, then why wouldn't they have made that offer as early as February. The PA used non-negotiation as a tactic, I don't know why you won't admit that. This lockout is entirely equal between the two parties.

They ~probably~ knew what the NHL was targeting. In between all the bluster, the NHL transferred 75K pages of financial records. After the PA reviewed those records, there was no denial from their side that "a handful of teams" indeed needed an economic re-set.

Fine. That isn't what's being disputed. What IS being disputed is how much of that help should come from the players. The NHL's proposals appeared to put it all on the players' side. The PA countered with a much more aggressive RS plan and their growth fund. Please note-- the teams who would contribute to that RS are the ones who will benefit the most by the reduction in players' share. I don't think it's ridiculous for the PA to say that if they take a cut why shouldn't the teams that get the greatest financial benefit-- the ones that do NOT need any help -- also contribute?

Isn't that reasonable-- to have the rich and the PA give some money back to save the flailing franchises?

In addition to all the economic items, the NHL also wants to revamp contractual rights. The only one where I can discern there may be legitimacy in managing the economic system is the cap circumvention aspect. That can be targeted directly via variance.

It's not just about the economic issues. The league wants more than that.

Fugu is online now   Reply With Quote