View Single Post
Old
11-29-2012, 10:47 AM
  #386
NotProkofievian
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 3,139
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Wallach View Post
Just thinking out of the box here, but if the players' concern is the next CBA and being forced into continuous claw-backs and the owners just wanted the player's share to be a percentage tied to HRR, why not put in a clause that players share will be held at 50% in subsequent CBAs?

No matter what happens to the economic landscape, a 50/50 split will always be fair. It'll address both sides' concerns. And best of all, it'll mean a major stumbling block is already settled for future negotiations.

I know this isn't how things work (historically) and it's unlikely to ever fly, but you can't blame me for trying, can you?
I think it'd be more useful as a "force." If the owners reject such a notion, and they would, it would give real teeth to the players' argument that it isn't necessarily about this lockout, it's about future lockouts, and stopping the buck somewhere.

NotProkofievian is offline