View Single Post
Old
11-17-2012, 02:04 PM
  #8
LPHabsFan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Montreal
Posts: 1,412
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to LPHabsFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugu View Post
It's really about how the question is framed, as you point out. If you use the original and 'draconian' offer the league used to start the negotiation, then yes, they have moved in the players' direction-- taking less than all that they'd demanded.


If you use the last CBA as the starting point, which is rational to some of us, because that's the last watermark and the CBA at least one party wishes to change but using the same framework, then the owners haven't moved at all in the players' direction. Players' direction being defined as the last CBA. In this frame, the owners have only sought changes on the core economic issues and contracting rights.
And it's like that because you do not consider the increase in revenue sharing, make whole, doctors, hotel rooms, etc as being within that framework because it defeats your argument. The make whole is a concession because contacts are subject to cba changes and so no they are not duty bound to honor the full value or partial value.

Giving up less POTENTIAL money by agreeing to take guaranteed less in raises while doing nothing if revenues don't grow is not a concession. If they're actually agreeing to go to 50/50 then yes that's a concession but right now whether or not they are is up for debate. What have they actually conceded in this so far?

LPHabsFan is offline   Reply With Quote