View Single Post
11-14-2012, 04:47 PM
Registered User
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 873
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Ginu View Post
Just because league offered something completely ridiculous and then offered something a little better doesn't make that a concession. I can say I'll give you a penny for your car and because I offer you $1,000 for a $5,000 car, I've given a concession?

If the owners want the players to go down to 50% of revenue, covering their salaries on their way there isn't a concession. A concession in this CBA negotiation is something the owners give the players. Saying drop your salaries 12% but we'll let you do that slower than requesting it immediately isn't a concession. Please check the definition of concession.

I'll give you that the current system doesn't work for these teams. But both the league and the players have to work together to make sure that the league is sustainable in the markets that they've chosen to be in. The league selected those markets and are asking the players to compensate the owners for poor league choices. I agree that reducing your biggest expense is the easiest way of fixing it but the league is exacerbating the problem with five year contract limits and the other player contracting issues. Those aren't necessary beyond what fixes cap circumvention. They're both talking revenue sharing now and it must be a linked 50-50, but the markets that the league has decided to put teams in has contributed to the league's financial position. And these additional CBA complications are demands by the league.

The part I agree with you on is it should be a linked 50-50. But don't be fooled by these concessions you speak of. Concessions are things that you don't benefit from that the other party does.
Interesting tweet I like to see answered:

Scott Cullen ‏@tsnscottcullen

Regarding the give-and-take of CBA negotiations, does anyone know what the NBA or NFL players gained from last year's lockouts?

Orrthebest is offline   Reply With Quote