Lockout Discussion Thread 3.0
View Single Post
11-27-2012, 05:54 PM
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Originally Posted by
no sport in their right mind will play without a contract especially after Fehrs stunt in baseball
It is nothing about Bettman loving work stoppages. Thats one of the most idiotic statements i have heard to date. Pure logic dictates no sports league will play without a contract. It puts 100% of the risk the owners that it can pulled from underneath them anytime the union wants.
and really, Bettman does what the owners want. These guys are billionaires. Laughable to think Bettman is controlling them.
What this lockout is about is that players somehow bought into this "we were screwed last time" argument when in fact the average salary has risen over 1 million since the last negotiations.
The players believe the we lost last time rhetoric so we should win this time and thats why we have a lockout.
You're right, assigning all the blame/credit onto Bettman is silly. I do it, and probably others do it, because we're not sure which of the 30 owners have the most say. I know that the Minnesota and Boston owners are on the executive committee, but I don't know who the other five members are. Even if I knew the 7 members, I wouldn't know which one is the alpha male, though Twitter (for the $0.02 that's worth) implies it is Jeremy Jacobs. Last lockout it was clearly the Calgary owner. As I don't know exactly who the leaders are among the owners, I will keep using the word "Bettman" as shorthand.
Bettman certainly has some degree of command, and that his administration believes in the lockout as a negotiating tactic. They didn't need to play without a contract -- they could have offered to extend the CBA by one year, at which point the players can't quit. You can say Fehr would have turned them down, that's fine, but they didn't try, so too bad.
The players were screwed last time. They went from the free market level of 72% of revenue to 57%. Yes, average salaries rose, and they would have risen faster without the rollback. In any case, I don't think anybody expects perpetual 8% annual growth. But maybe that's wrong?
The lockout isn't caused by the players, it's caused by the owners, that's the definition of a lockout. The first offer from the players was sensible: a salary reduction from 57% to 54%, increased revenue sharing, and a cap of some sort on non-player hockey-related expenses. The owners said no. I would support the owners if they supported a substantial increase in revenue sharing and a cap on non-player expenses.
Last edited by DAChampion: 11-27-2012 at
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by DAChampion