Lockout Thread II
View Single Post
12-03-2012, 01:45 AM
Join Date: Feb 2010
Originally Posted by
Except, you know, the literal sense. It was a readjustment of the %, contract values are not changing. You are assuming a)revenue stays flat, b)teams continue to overspend versus the expected midpoint, to come up with your nice number. Not to mention it's a first offer, not buying yourself anything here.
Try REREADING MY POST. You what, forget, I'll highlight it.
My my, isn't that amazing. I DID say OVERALL compensation is what is going to go down. And yes, they are factoring in a growth factor. A reasonable one THAT HAS BEEN BEATEN EVERY SINGLE SEASON SINCE THE LAST LOCKOUT. To say that wouldn't have happened had they gotten back on the ice in time for an 82 game is going against all evidence.
By the way, those nice numbers the PA was tossing your way about how much money they are "losing". Yeah those use a
growth factor, something that has only been beaten twice since the last lockout, both times due to in no small part extenuating circumstances that will not repeat (much larger new TV deal with NBC Sports and the ATL to WPG relocation).
Well something we can agree on. The owners are not saints, they hold plenty of blame as well. I'm just trying to clear up some myths.
Um, yeah I never said anything about the signing bonuses. Both sides wanted to protect their assets pre-lockout, those signings are fine. The pre-lockout signings are nothing but optics problems. Smoke and Mirrors. They have nothing to do with the real issues, I hate that they keep being brought up. One note, the owners are not trying to get that money back either, I just don't get the problem? That money is in their hands, Minnesota and the other teams are not taking it out of their pockets, nor are they complaining that they had to shell out big signing bonuses compared to other signings in past years.
OPTICS, OPTICS, OPTICS. Nothing ****ing real in those signings. These guys were going get signed, whether it's before or AFTER the lockout. The owners had to sign these guys to what was market fair deals under the old CBA, since they couldn't collude to keep those deals down pre-lockout could they? Was that the solution you prefer, the owners collude to keep those deals down?
It makes no ****ing difference when those deals were signed. Not to mention the entire idea of the make whole provision is to ensure that those contracts signed with those bad optics are guaranteed. So in reality, all the players that signed pre-lockout are going to benefit hugely compared to the Subbans and Benns who failed to sign and now will likely be looking at teams with less cap space, therefore reduced contracts.
Pretty sure your wasting your time.
Some people just assume it's the Really Rich guys fault. No matter what.
Then people wonder why the price of EVERYTHING goes up, and said Rich guy doesn't want to hire you.
Question for people, when was the last time a poor person hired you ?
Also I can't believe people still think Owners control Player contracts and prices.
NEWS FLASH THEY NEVER HAVE OR WILL. As long as Professional Athletes have unions; their salary WILL ALWAYS INCREASE.
That's not a bad thing, but to sit here and say owners are solely responsible for player contracts is just lunacy.
Last edited by damacles1156: 12-03-2012 at
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by damacles1156