View Single Post
Old
11-21-2012, 03:14 PM
  #43
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Beefitor
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 38,904
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krishna View Post
Wonder if this clause will shut Cheesesteak up about the players not being greedy

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/story/?id=409992




What if revenues go down? Or do they not care as long as they get their money?
I never said they aren't "greedy," whatever that's supposed to mean. But you pro-PA people clearly fail to notice the owners are just as ****ing "greedy" as the players. You're blinded by this bizarre bias. Both sides are arguing about money, there's obviously greed there. It's not like the owners are acting out of concerned charity and good-will.

Shall we discuss how the wealthy owners don't want to establish more comprehensive revenue sharing that would help float the struggling franchises, even during revenue fluctuations, because it would mean less money for them?

What's the word for that? Oh right. "Greed."

I'm sorry I don't share your identical opinion. I'm also sorry that your blind bias against one side prevents you from seeing the whole picture. No, I won't "shut up" because I'm not incorrect and I'm trying to help you out by presenting the wider situation...instead of focusing on "PLAYYYERSSS EVIL."

Edit: by the way, wanting to maintain your current pay rate, one established by contract, isn't greed. They aren't asking for more money. It's natural for any person, anywhere, EVER, to want their income to at least remain steady. It's also perfectly natural to not want your income to drop. I don't get why that's "greedy."

__________________
Down in the basement, I've got a Craftsman lathe. Show it to the children when they misbehave.

Last edited by Beef Invictus: 11-21-2012 at 03:20 PM.
Beef Invictus is offline