Quote:
Originally Posted by albertGQ
I’m pretty sure the players fought AGAINST the 50/50 split. Not for it.
In 2004/2005, it was the owners that wanted linkage but the players preferred the current system.
In 2013, the owners wanted 50/50 as the players were currently getting 57%
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch Root
They fought against going from 57% to 50%, naturally, but that doesn't imply that they were against revenue sharing in general.
Even though they originally didn't want it, it quickly became apparent to them that it meant more escalating salaries.
|
Okay, so I went back and looked at what happened, and I was wrong about the players fighting for their salaries tied to revenue. If you go way back to the 2004-05 lock-out, they basically lost the season over fighting against a cap and having their salaries tied to revenues. Then the 2012 lockout they lost some of the revenue sharing that they were forced to back in 2005 (from 57% to 50%).
Now I'm conflicted on which side I like worse. It seems like the owners have slowly over time made things better and better for them by basically stopping hockey and forcing the players to agree to slightly worse conditions (so are they doing the same thing again here?) However, the players did agree to share revenues and now revenues are gone, so its hard to argue to get paid more than what you previously agreed (even though you were kind of forced to by the owners way back then?)
Both sides suck.