View Single Post
12-10-2012, 05:26 PM
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
Nalyd Psycho's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: No Bandwagon
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,340
vCash: 500
Agents can definitely be disruptive to negotiation processes. They will do everything in their power to convince players that the best union deal is the one that nets the agents the best commission. Irrelevant to whether or not it is the best deal for the players.

Originally Posted by LeBlondeDemon10 View Post
The history indicates that unions were required in sports so that the playing field became more level and the players got their piece of the pie. Men like Marvin Miller and Donald Fehr were integral to the pieces of the baseball pie being divided up somewhat fairly. From what I understand of the current lockout is that the owners, at one point, were willing to offer a 50/50 deal. Fehr and the NHLPA rejected the offer based on concerns that it only appeared 50/50, but in reality was an underhanded maneuver by the owners. Obviously trust is still a major issue. However, none of the current players have to work construction jobs in the off season, pay medical or dental bills for themselves or their families and many won't have to worry about a paltry pension. A some point, you would think the players would realize that they are losing valuable time in their careers and not making a dime while waiting for the perfect deal to arrive at their doorstep. I wonder about how much they get caught up in Fehr's "shoulds" and end up forgetting that time is of the essence. Sometimes you just gotta say 'good enough'.
Shouldn't the owners be the one's saying "good enough" they aren't the revenue generating party.

Every post comes with the Nalyd Psycho Seal of Approval.
Nalyd Psycho is offline   Reply With Quote