View Single Post
Old
12-18-2012, 04:11 PM
  #1007
Number8
Registered User
 
Number8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,876
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roll 4 Lines View Post
First of all, I don't think that even remotely resembles what happened.

I think the owners said something along the lines of,"Revenues in the previous CBA has been split 57%-43% in favor of the players. Our first offer reverses that to 57%-43% in favor of the owners."

Then very shortly they had come real close to 50%-50%, or had even agreed to it.

But the players, instead of keeping things in perspective, and keeping the best interest of both themselves and the sport in mind, are playing the victim because the first offer hurt their feelings, at least according to the article I quoted.

And, in no way shape or form to I resemble Mahatma Gandhi, but in negotiations I have no issues with laughhing it off and presenting a counter offer.

And call bull crap all you want, I could not care less what you think of me, but I would never dream of giving up 1/3 of a year's salary or more because of feeling insulted by an initial offer.
I'm sorry. I didn't meant to come off like a dick. Just frustrated.

My point is just that if I have a contract based on a 57% split of revenues (reasonable or not, that's what the CBA that the owners "won" the last time said) and someone tells me it will go to 43% -- that is a 24.6% haircut. Further, it comes on the heels of me giving 24% immediate payback if I was in the league the last time around.

I'd say you've locked me out before, you're obviously intent on locking me out now, and my guess is you'll do it again the very next time we do this dance.

If I were a player, I'd tell Gary Bettman that he could stick the partnership between the players and owners up his backside. Which, whether it's a smart move or not, is exactly what has happened, I think.

Again, I didn't mean to be a dick though. Apologies.

Number8 is offline