View Single Post
11-15-2012, 05:46 PM
Registered User
Flyerfan808's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Honolulu, HI
Country: United States
Posts: 2,001
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.
I disagree, I think that teams offer those kinds of contracts for two reasons:

1) There are teams out there who are desperate enough to pay it.
2) The players demand them.

For that, I think that the players are at least partly to blame for getting us to where we are.

Flyerfan808 is offline