Players you'll forever like or dislike because of their lockout "activity"
View Single Post
12-07-2012, 10:18 PM
Join Date: Dec 2005
How can anybody be pro-owner in this lockout?
I hear a lot of people being ridiculously simple by talking about how "I would play for $50, so the players should too". It's about market value. It's also not as if cutting the player's salaries is going to lead to lower ticket prices. Did it last lockout?
And how can people talk about the greed of players, when that's less than a drop in the bucket compared to that of the owners? My theory is that there are a lot of people who think that with a little more talent or dedication that could be THEM in the NHL. But the owners are so rich that people view them as an establishment.
Is this what the deification of free-market capitalism (such a flawed system) in the U.S. has created?
The owner's are the ones who were literally signing players to big contracts until zero-hour, with the full intention of not paying that contract and trying to negotiate it so that the players wouldn't get the money from the contracts that they signed legally.
Also, why is it always the players' responsibility to save the owners from themselves? No player has ever offered another player a contract. The owners and GMs fall all over themselves to find loopholes in their own system. Then want the players to save them from themselves? Ridiculous.
Finally, the deal breaks down because the owners wanted the deal to be signed by the players without Fehr's help? That's the most obvious bullying move I've ever seen. The owners are in the room because many of them are brilliant negotiators. But the players aren't allowed to have their own negotiator?
Would you go through divorce proceedings if your wife/husband got a lawyer and you didn't? If you answered yes, you're a fool.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by MarkusNaslund19