View Single Post
11-29-2012, 11:25 AM
Tim Wallach
Registered User
Tim Wallach's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Kitchener, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,459
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by NotProkofievian View Post
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.
Very true. I know the owners would reject it out of hand since they'd never want to lose their leverage to negotiate and craft a better deal going forward.

But you're right... it'd sure highlight the players' claim. It's hard to argue 50% of an agreed-upon HRR definition would ever be unfair. How could the owners really argue? No, it wouldn't be an amount they could control, but it's a percentage, so they're protected.

Tim Wallach is offline