Lockout Thread II
View Single Post
12-02-2012, 10:55 PM
Join Date: Feb 2010
Originally Posted by
A few things I suppose. First, the owners initial proposal back in July would have seen the players share drop from 57% down to an effective 43% share of HRR in Year 1. So yes, I suppose it was not quite a 24% rollback, instead it was more like a 19-20% rollback, since at that time the NHL was not offering any sort of "make whole" provision. Thus, it WAS a salary rollback, in every sense of the word. Second, I am not sure how you can really say that NHL salaries will not be affected by a 7% drop in HRR % in year one. The owners entire make whole provision is contingent on a 5% annual growth in league revenues. Which may happen, may not. The PA counters with having 1.8 billion dollars in the pot, in order to guarantee all existing contracts are honored. Neither side is innocent in all of this. Both sides are trying to find ways to manipulate the other party, there is no doubt about that. By the way, those "signing bonuses" that were given out were given voluntarily, and without force. Some of you are making it seem like these players were holding these owners up against their will. Think about it this way. If you owned a business, and you thought the business was struggling, and were worried about its future and profitability, would you then decide to go out and hire new employees at a very very substantial cost? You absolutely would not. It wouldn't make any sense to, correct? That is what a lot of these owners' want the public to believe. That somehow their thirst for fielding a competitive team has gotten the best of their financial judgment. I'm not buying it.
The Bonus money was a requirement to even meet with Parise ,Suter. I will find you the link. His agent made that a requirement(to protect them from the CBA).
So yes they did hold the negotiating rights hostage. Although I would blame the agents more than the players for that.
Also the first NHL offer, everyone knows that wasn't a serious offer. So trying to frame your argument around it, is not going to convince anyone.
Like wise the NHLPA's offers (all of them) are nothing but smoke and mirrors. The only offer they have put fourth that is even in the realm of reality, is the last one they just submitted.
Both sides are complete tools. Neither side is serious about playing hockey. Both want to play the victim, both are dumb as rocks.
Also it's not about being competitive. Most of the owners want to see a return on investment.
Just cause you own a sports team, doesn't mean you should lose money.
If that were the cause, their wouldn't be ANY sport leagues.
Last edited by damacles1156: 12-02-2012 at
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by damacles1156