View Single Post
11-30-2012, 07:56 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 7,260
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by redbull View Post
Assuming Forbes' info is neutral and close to correct, and I believe it is, I think the players should really listen and understand that having 13 teams losing money (and a lot more that make meager profits) is simply not good for the league, the # jobs of NHL players, over the long term. It's extremely naive and short-sighted to look ONLY at "last summer" and suggest they are being SCREWED by having to take "less" - immediately. Compared to inflation, total salaries over the past 5-10-15 years, they are way way ahead - maybe TOO far ahead.
Ah. So do you also believe that Fox News is "fair and balanced"? Or actually, news? We're talking about a publication that takes Dinesh D'Souza seriously. (No apologies to anyone who takes Dinesh D'Souza seriously. Dude's a joke.)

Still, it's interesting to note that what the Forbes article has recommended, the players have offered - 50% revenue to players. The rest (moving stupidly placed southern franchises like Carolina and Phoenix) is not in the hands of the players.

There's a reason why people in the media have been increasingly lampooning the owners: the obvious spot for reasonable agreement was reached quite a while ago. When you pretty much get a statement of the player's position from Forbes, you pretty much know the lay of the land.

The current fight is not over revenues. It's over shortening non-entry level contract lengths, extending team's rights over players over their entire reasonable prime (between 28 and 30), and extending entry-level contracts with a fixed structure. The NHL is currently not willing to make concessions on any of these points.

The owners are, essentially, trying to pit players like Hamrlik (at the end of his career) and role players, the guys these contractual and player movement issues do not effect, against top-6 forwards and top-4 dmen. The current offer to bypass the union head and go directly to the players is an obvious ploy. Similar maneuvers were leveled to get non-guaranteed contracts in the NFL (if there weren't non-guaranteed contracts, most of the guys who fill out the bottom of a roster may never get a shot).

When Bettman suggests going directly to the players around the union structure, he's said, in effect, "Decertify? Go ahead, make my day." He's threatening to treat the union as the non-exclusive bargaining partner even if they don't decertify. But he's saying it in such a way he thinks fans are too unsophisticated to understand.

BTW, your inflation argument is an exemplary non sequitur. Bravo! Bettman might be on to something.



Dan-o16 is offline