Quote:
Originally Posted by WantonAbandon
But hey guys I guess the players should have just readily accepted a 43% at the start and then happily accept 30% eight years later.
I'm sure all of you would eagerly do the same in your profession.
|
I kind of do, my stock options get diluted every time we have to raise more money
And I might accept that if it came with a guaranteed contract paying a minimum of $500k a year. Also, I think most professions don't have salary tied to revenue, so it probably isn't uncommon for a salary as a percentage of revenue to go down for a lot for people who work a companies that have growth (like I would if my company ever made money...).
I view it kind of this way. The players could get what they want, and in turn the league could contract several teams that aren't viable. So, what percentage of jobs in the NHL are worth it to get a higher revenue stream? Would losing ~100 contracts be worth it? Maybe for the rich guys, but not for the 4th liners who bounce around the league. In a normal business, if you a union won't renegotiate a contract that is unaffordable for the employer, people get laid off. It's like a city laying off police officers if they can't afford to pay them an the union won't reduce their pensions. Or like a manufacturer closing a plant because it doesn't make enough money to be profitable. That's the concession the owners are offering them. Of course, if the players sign a deal that should keep everyone afloat and then the league contracts that's sort of ********, but ideally that wouldn't happen.