View Single Post
Old
01-04-2013, 03:25 AM
  #101
Scheme
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 285
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
Your not a party ( neither am I) so our opinion is moot but it was pretty clear that the players were not going to accept the reversal. Not then, not now.

If the owners want to go to 50/50 on total revenues, I'm sure the pa signs.
PA have never fully agreed on 50-50 across the board. An eventual 50-50, or 50-50 with tricks to make it actually not 50. Even the make whole unbalances the whole thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
The pa is trying to get what they can. Cap and rollback last time, reduction in HRR contract length and variance
Last negotiation there was more of a systemic change (the cap) so I understand them fighting. But this time? It defies logic when the issues are that small. Also, rollback was proposed by the PA.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
It is true the players dont assume risk but they are employees not partners. I like Geoff Molson, but I'm not paying 75 bucks to see him do his job.
Really? Then why do the PA insist they are not employees but are the product? And they sure don't want to be treated like employees but as partners.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
Until the owners stop viewing the PA as an ATM, at the end of every CBA poorly run teams or teams in crappy markets will cry poor and this whole process starts again.
Hmm, haven't heard the ATM analogy yet, but this is really just more hyperbole. You yourself said none of us are in the room but you assume the owners view the players as such? That's a pretty serious accusation and you should back that up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sandysan View Post
If your assumption that 50/50 is equitable, when the owners ask 60/40 you gonna change your tune? Casuse its gonna happen.
Right, and let me borrow your crystal ball for next week's lottery numbers.

Scheme is offline   Reply With Quote