View Single Post
01-07-2013, 12:22 PM
Veni Vidi Toga
thinkwild's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,557
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by haseoke39 View Post
This is such a brazen disregard for math I don't even know how to respond to it. If I propose you pay yourself $5, and then later we negotiate that I pay you $5 instead, you don't get to say that you negotiated for me to pay you $10. It's ****ing incomprehensible.
Even if i were to look at it in your model, you cant say its net neutral for the players as a whole. Its maybe net neutral for that one player who had the contract that was affected and rolled back. But for the players as a whole, under the owners initial make-partial offer, their escrow would be based on all of their salaries, plus the what they are representing as the money that was negotiated for escrow at 57% and is now clawed back at 50%. Thats not a $200 mil swing, but nor is it nothing though.

I cant imagine anyone is trying to say the players won this. Of course they didnt. They never expected to. Their opening offer was a loss to them. So pointing out they lost seems rather pedantic.

They fought with solidarity, as a reunited union with purpose for things they believed in and eventually settled to save the season with contracting and transition rules they are comfortable with. All concessions again. Not to come out ahead. Over the life of this cba, some $2-3 Billion that would otherwise have gone to players, will now go to owners. That was surrendered early. What did the owners gain by extending the fight from that point - how much money?

thinkwild is offline   Reply With Quote