Quote:
Originally Posted by The Messier Scowl
If it takes a lost season or two (please God no) to get a long-term sustainable economic model in place it'll be worth it. Players and owners both have to give concessions on this.
The owners have to reconcile their internal differences so big market teams and small market teams all benefit. The players will have to give a chunk of their salaries back (again) to make it work. They felt they got hosed last time, but they ended up doing all right in the end.
As much as I'm pro-player in this iteration of the lockout, in the long run the economic model has to benefit everyone. Otherwise, we're going to see this every time the CBA expires.
|
Amen.
The owners pulled the "we're making hockey sustainable" card in the last lock-out and with about 18 teams claiming they lost money it is pretty clear they were wrong.
This lock-out is idiotic from both perspectives as fighting over the largest share of pie by shrinking the pie is stupid.
The league should have gone in with the goal of getting as near to 50-50 as possible for the next 5 years without disrupting the game's growth and their own revenue growth. Surely they realize that the teams who are going to suffer from the lock-out are the money losing teams that they are doing this to save?
The players should have similarly realized that 50% of 4 billion is as good as 57% of 3.5billion... and not missing half a year's paychecks is nice too.
Pragmatism is not a dirty word people.
That said, with this much farce behind us they have to be going for longterm stability now. If this happens again in 5 years? Sheesh.
Unfortunately they will probably stumble into the deal they should have realistically aimed for at the start of negotiations and do nothing to address longterm economics at all...
