View Single Post
11-22-2012, 02:25 AM
Just One Cup
Registered User
Just One Cup's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,009
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by jeety mcjeet View Post
It has also been suggested that future lockouts will be avoided when both sides have something to lose. The word exploitation probably shouldn't be used to describe a average salary for union members of 2 million+. Perhaps "protecting the owners" creates an environment that is beneficial to the players as a whole.
So true, both sides have to be worried about losing something to stop these frequent lockouts. That won't happen until most teams are returning profits. It's bad when teams are losing less money during a lockout then if the season was being played. For the owners who do turn a profit, they know the cutback in player salaries over the course of the contract will be much more than a season or two of revenue. The players seem to ignore this and then wonder how owners can be so content to wait them out.

Just One Cup is offline   Reply With Quote