I think it is stupid to call any one side of these negotiations greedy or more to blame than the other. They are both greedy, if the players are greedy so are the owners. It doesn't matter in the end, they are both working in their own self-interest.
That being said we need to finish out these negotiations, but why blame the players for the slow progress? Why should the players have to give up money that they are entitled to under their contracts? The players are willing to accept a reduction in revenue sharing so long as existing contracts are honored.
I want to see hockey as much as everyone else, but negotiating out of desperation is never a good strategy. Yes we all know the players make a lot of money and could get by on less, SO WHAT! Doesn't mean they should if they signed a contract. Contracts will have to be more resonable going forward under the new 50/50 HRR, but the owners don't want to honor what they signed. They want what they want now, they're being childish.
I know I will likely get a lot of negative responses about this, but the criticisms of the players association are rediculous. Why are they rediculous? Because the same criticisms can be made about the owners, so whats the point?
- rsj2588
Thank you -- it is a negotiation about money and not a Noble Peace Proze nomination
