View Single Post
11-22-2012, 02:48 AM
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ann Arbor
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,340
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.
This is pie-in-the-sky.

1) 50-50 doesn't change the economics of the game.
There's a leak in the NHL. 50-50 just bails water out a little faster. But not fast enough. And nobody is trying to plug the leak.
2) Right now, there are teams that make money. And every team voted in favor of the lockout. The Maple Leafs, Canadiens, Red Wings, Flyers, Rangers etc... they are losing REAL profit. And they voted for the lockout.

This isn't about profits, IMO. This is about busting the union for 2 reasons. 1) Owners always love to bust unions for short and long term reasons 2) Franchises are easier to sell and will fetch a better price if buyers think the union is a push over.

It's really obscene to me that anyone would suggest that some of these crooks who own NHL franchises need "protection."

RedWingsNow* is offline   Reply With Quote