Lockout Discussion Thread 3.0
View Single Post
11-30-2012, 04:13 PM
Join Date: May 2007
Originally Posted by
If this were true, why would any owner sign a contract that goes beyond the CBA? If that were really true, all players should no longer be on contract at the end of a CBA, but that's not the case, there were players signed the day before the lockout and you're telling me that those agreements are now void and can be changed to whatever the new CBA entails because the owners feel like it? Believe me I would be ridiculously pissed off if I just signed a contract and the next day my boss is telling me that the contract is now going to be reduced in dollar amount.
And what I'm saying above here is NOT going against the phase in of a 50/50 split! I think that the players are what makes the NHL not the owners, so maybe a greater than 50% of HRR is deserved, maybe not, but that's not the argument here.
I don't disagree with Drydenwasthebest's point of view of yes the players will make big steps in the future as the game grows, and hopefully it does grow, BUT the same can be said about the owners, if the players are making more so are the owners! Why is it unreasonable to uphold the contracts that the players have signed?
The make whole provision that is being negotiated at this point is the pool of money that is there to uphold these contracts, and it's just a matter of when 50/50 of HRR is achieved.
And note here that just because there is a 50/50 split of HRR doesn't mean it's actually 50/50 of everything, it depends on the definition of HRR which I quite frankly know very little about.
CBAs can be extended, or go through small minor changes. So that's why contracts are signed over their expiry date.
Owners want 50-50 split right away. If that's the case, rollback is unavoidable.
View Public Profile
Kriss E's albums
Find More Posts by Kriss E