View Single Post
Old
11-27-2012, 09:20 PM
  #301
Reiher
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 615
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirk Muller View Post
Again, stop being completely ignorant, its just semantics. Its a lockout or a strike.

Without an agreement owners must initiate the lockout because their is no agreement. Damn that was difficult to understand. Either way there is no hockey. This stoppage is players initiated just as much by not negotiating along time ago and for that matter still havent negotiated.

Semantics is your only argument here for siding with the PA tooth and nail.

And no the players didnt get screwed. No job that pays you on average 2.2 million dollars has you being screwed. Thats why the PA has very little support. Arguments like that.

So what is the lockout really about? I think it is more about morals, prevention of this continuous cycle and fighting to keep what was earned.

I totally agree with the players stance that signed contracts should be honored. I mean contracts were awarded that extend well beyond the life of the CBA, if those contracts were written with the knowledge that they would never actually reach completion because of work stoppages and changes to the CBA, it cannot be deemed a contract awarded in good faith.

So is it the players that are striking because they think that their contracts aren't fair? I mean come on! The owners are essentially telling the players that they are not going to pay the players what they said they were because the owners down south (mostly) are tired of losing X amount of money. The owners have all agreed that they won't pay the players what had been agreed upon to ease these losses, and if the players don't like it, well the owners won't pay the players at all until they agree to less, hence the lockout. Now don't get me wrong, if I were an owner I would also fight to get more of the pie, but I would think that given the circumstances contracts awarded in the previous CBA at a minimum be honored. The Players have AGREED to let the owners take more of the revenue provided that current contracts are honored.

I don't have the numbers in front of me so I have no idea what amount of money is needed for the make whole, but if I were the players, the make whole provision must come from the owners and not my fellow teammates. I believe this is were there is a difference between the owners notion of this and the players, but why on earth should the players concede any of their negotiations rights on top of that when it comes to contracts? It's the owners that need control over ridiculous contracts, and I think the players are understanding of that and have given them the owners options that would prevent front loaded 10 year contracts that undermine the cap cost certainty that was fought for last time.

I just don't see how you can argue that the players are being greedy here, if you bought a TV with a 1 year manufacturers warranty and your TV broke after 6 months for no reason and you went to the manufacturer to get them to fix it and the manufacture returned to you and said we will fix it but you need to pay 30% of the cost to fix it. I would think you would be pissed off. You could just accept the fact and pay, you could fight it or you could not pay and have a broken TV (I'm sure there are more options but I'm not going to imagine them all). ultimately though, when you bought the product, the product came with a 1 year warranty and you as the purchaser have expectations of what that entails.

I think that the players acknowledge and have come up with solutions to help solve the NHL financial situation though I don't know all the details. It is my opinion that these solutions should come from both the players and owners AFTER the players have been given what has been promised in contractual form from the past CBA.

It is quite shocking that this stance of well what's the real damage of the loss of a few $100k when weighed to a few million is taken. I think on principle the actual dollar amount is irrelevant, it really is about the big guy trying to get away with as much as possible after the fact.

Returning to the TV example, if everyone just internalized being pissed off maybe the next person would need to pay 40% of the cost, until eventually there are no manufacturer warranties. The example is to illustrate a scenario of hidden intentions and frustration about having to pay for something you thought you had. It is also to try and illustrate the fact that it doesn't matter if it's only a $500 TV or a few $million dollars the sentiments are somewhat the same, you would feel ripped off!

So you tell me, what would you do if your TV broke?

Reiher is offline