Re: STRIKE OVER?
posted at 12/7/2012 6:25 AM EST
In response to kelvana33's comment:
Players need to realize at the end of the day, they are the employees.Most can play a game and be set for life, all the while having oppurtunities as a result most can only dream of. The fact that the owners are willing to split revenues 50/50 should have been good enough.
That said, owners need to be on the same page. Can't be asking for a limit on contracts when some of them were handing out ones larger mere hours before the lockout. Can't be signing players to outrageous contracts you can't afford. Too many of these owners need to have their house in order. Your in the NHL, theres 3.3 billion doallars in revenue, if your not making money, look no further than the decisions you have made.
Yeah, a 50/50 split should be good enough. Heck, a 25% share should be good enough for these players. I honestly cannot believe that these guys are trying to hold the line on player contract length and a few other smaller details. I honestly hope that this is true:
@Real_ESPNLeBrun: Bettman says the Make Whole provision in its entirety as a concept is OFF the table.
Now the players are going to feel the sting of getting too big for their britches. Sometimes, you have to say "yes". It's like having your girlfriend finally bring her twin sister to bed with you, but you fouling it all up because you demanded to record the ordeal.
Kel, the owners that signed the longer term deals (see: Minnesota) are one of the reasons for demanding the lenght cap. The other, of course, is to stop players and agents from asking for deals that long. The length being capped at 5 years is logical. How many contracts have been for more than seven years, anyway? Less than 20 I'd guess. Maybe even less than 10. And yet, the players are going to hang onto the extended length with all of their might. SO DUMB.