View Single Post
Old
11-20-2012, 10:53 PM
  #27
Iggy77
Registered User
 
Iggy77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 1,431
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ottawah View Post
Actually under the old CBA, which they would be playing under, that is incorrect. The players paychecks through the year are entirely irrelevant, just like the nominal dollar value of their contracts (other than comparing player to player). What matters is that the players are GUARANTEED 57% of revenue, and that includes playoffs. So it would be absolutely short sighted for the players to go out on strike for the playoffs, it would cost then far more than the owners (players 57% gross revenue, owners 43% minus all expenses). The paychecks they got during the year would be hit with an escrow bill that would make their heads spin ......
They've already shown they're willing to lose money (that they're not going to get back) to fight the NHL "on principle".

I think they'd gladly sacrifice that to stick it to the NHL and force favorable terms, Fehr would even try and get them compensated for lost revenues due to their strike.

They wouldn't hesitate for 1 second before going on strike.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkGio View Post
Fehr has a history of one strike and people assume he's no good for the sport but Bettman locks this game out like it's protocol and he's a saviour?
Goodenow went on strike in 1992 as well. No one's saying that Bettman is a savior but until there's trust and a serious willingness to negotiate a CBA for both sides we're going to get a lockout regardless what CBA is in place.

Iggy77 is offline   Reply With Quote