View Single Post
11-15-2012, 04:30 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,600
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by CharlieGirl View Post
I'm disgusted with both sides in this lockout, however, I have a bigger problem with the owners expecting the players to accept all of their proposals with no interest in real negotiation; and expecting the players to save them from themselves. We've gone around and around on discussions surrounding contracts and the fact that the owners spent like drunken sailors up until the moment the lockout took effect. If the owners truly felt that salaries had gotten out of control and that they couldn't afford to continue on, then why go insane with signing players at inflated contract values?

I'm not convinced that teams like Minnesota didn't act in bad faith with the Parise/Suter contracts. If they entered into those contracts with no intention of ever paying out the negotiated amount, then they don't deserve my sympathy or support.

The ownership group wants change and wants it now, and wants everything their way. Period. The players have agreed to 50%/50% revenue sharing (which is the right number), but have offered to compromise and get there in a couple of years instead of immediately. Apparently compromise is of no interest to Bettman & Co. If that's the case, screw 'em.
At the end of the day who are you screwing?

By sticking to your guns you lose salary that you can't get back. The players don't have a lifetime to earn this type of money. The owners just move on to their other toys.

If by some miracle the owners actually caved and kept things the way they were there would be somewhere in the neighborhood of 3-5 teams who would be bankrupt in the next 5 years. If 1 teams folds that's 40 or so union members with no job. If 5 teams fold, that's 200. But hey, at least they didn't have to have a rollback and they got a cushioned landing to 50/50.

Snotbubbles is offline