This lockout to me at least is just bogus. Players offered to continue under the old CBA till a new one is finalized, league declined add to that the shameful lowball starting offer, I don't even have to think about whom to side with.
I watch the players not a bunch of havanna smoking CEO types, who aren't in this business to win it but to make a quick buck. I am glad the best owner in all of sports is against RS and all that crap just shows us how lucky we as Red Wings fans can be, to have such an outstanding person running the show. Let's not forget this is an owners - BOG? - lockout.
Yes, the money has to go to someone but I'd rather see it going to the guys who are giving their all each and every night, risking injuries and are working their asses off just to entertain us, instead of a bunch of "we are losing money" guys who at the same time are buying secondary mansions worth 20 m$.
Not to mention that the last time the league locked the players out, the players were forced to accept the current terms and conditions of their employment or risk losing another season. Unfortunately for the League, profits grew and so did the cap, which means that the players are getting more money.
I am baffled that the League would insist on a rollback and a salary cap then, and now blame the players for being greedy because they're making more money now than they did then.
Last time I sympathized with the owners for the reasons that many have cited here: They take the financial risks and take the losses if they fail, so they should reap the profits if they succeed. The players are employees.
However, now that the employees have agreed to what the owners wanted, they should be paid that which the owners set forth as allowable in the last CBA for contracts that were signed under that CBA.
I got to thinking last night about this. The League wants the players to take a smaller share of the smaller pie. The players want contracts honoured. This won't work out for some teams as this means that the cap will go down.
Would this be possible? Agree that each team may spend up to the cap on 23 players (at a time, IR is another kettle of fish). However, current contracts must be honoured first. If the team reaches the cap without filling the 23-man roster, that team may extend above the cap by filling its roster only with league-minimum players until they either trade some of their higher-paid guys or until the current contracts end. After that, they must be cap-compliant.
This would screw the ones who rushed out and signed huge contracts anticipating a rollback and reward those who planned wisely. It would also mean that the players would get the money they agreed to.
I would also do away with escrow. If the league miscalculates the cap, or if owners spend right up to it and the league and/or team doesn't rake in as much as they thought they would, then tough titties. They still have to pay what they said they would and it would have to come out of the owner's pocket who gambled that it would be covered.
Just some thoughts that entered my head.
(EDIT for clarity)
Edited by 55fan, 28 November 2012 - 07:57 AM.