View Single Post
Old
11-16-2012, 08:58 AM
  #917
Snotbubbles
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,528
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharlieGirl View Post
The players aren't demanding that nothing changes though. They're looking to work together to get to the point where owners feel they need to be to keep teams financially viable. The owners aren't looking for reasonable - they want immediate rollbacks, plus pushing back the FA age so that they have the players under their thumbs for at least 3 contracts, and limiting contract lengths (which may end up blowing up in their faces, in some cases).

You're right though - the players have more to lose than owners do, particularly in poor markets.

Would you be okay if your boss gave you a raise and then came to you 2 weeks later to tell you that you were not only not going to get the raise you were promised, but that he was going to start paying you less than you did previously?

Yes, the players are well paid, but they also make a lot of money for the league. And let's not pretend that some owners didn't make an absolute ton of money as a result of the salary cap, our Flyers included.
If my alternative was to take a pay cut or not get paid at all, I know what I'm choosing. Would I be okay with it, no. But I know a ton of people in the last few years who were given the option to: "Take a X% decrease in salary or get laid off". People took the salary reduction.

I also find revenue sharing a bad idea without some serious guidelines on how the revenue share money should be used. I don't want a Jeff Loria-type owner to get a ton of revenue sharing money, and instead of using to make a market viable, they pocket it as profit. The owners against revenue sharing just got a ton of ammunition this week thanks to Mr. Loria who is the poster child for why revenue sharing is not a good idea.

Snotbubbles is offline