Lockout Thread: I told myself I wouldn't do this| Part IV
View Single Post
11-20-2012, 10:59 AM
Join Date: May 2008
Originally Posted by
Is the CBA a 2-way street that applies to both parties or just to the Owners benefit?
Instead of a Owners lockout, say we had a players strike instead, when the previous CBA expired and then NHLPA offered the Owners a new proposal that increased their salaries from they're current contracted ones to +10% increases across the board in a take it or leave it offer, would you be okay with that?
After all the new CBA supersedes the previous one and so players would be totally within their similar rights as the Owners are now in changing the $$$ value on current contract deals. Players could demand earlier UFA age status, unlimited contract lengths and dollars (within the cap limits), greater arbitration rights to get contract disputes settled, no limit ELC contracts etc, and unless the Owners caved to all their demands they would hold the Owners and the fans hostage by legally striking until all their terms were meet.
Hey what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
So the players woudl have striked last time and asked for 84% share of revenue????? Unless your talking about now where they already have 57% of the revenues and would look like total *******s!! You can't strike for more money when you already hold the majority share.
Once this deal is done and the 50/50 split is in place. Owners will no longer be able to do this. They only have a little leeway now because many people see that 50/50 is fair and needed. Also done by many of the other major sport leagues.
This is it! This is the last lockout that the league will be able to recover from if they can even recover fully from this.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Leafsman