The saddest thing is that the majority of the people that are replying to Barch's tweets are supporting him.
Yeah, it's a bit odd to be honest.
Has any "average Joe" seen their paycheck be doubled within 7 years?
For all of the talk about the owners wanting to "take" from the players, if an office workplace paid everyone 100K instead of 50K within a couple of years for the same work they always did, then wanted to reduce it to 90K but keep room for further growth, would anyone honestly complain to the point of risking their jobs? Specially when the other employers can only afford to say, only absorb a fraction of the employees at the current wages and everyone else has to fend for 25K-30K positions?
The problem is that a lot of people - and for the looks, many players themselves - think that the previous CBA was "forced" upon them and the owners stole everything from them or something like that. The matter of fact was that it was meant to cut short-term costs, but it was incredibly favorable for the players in the long term thanks to the cap floor and favorable HRR distribution.
Another thing is that the CBA in 2005 was negotiated in the context of that time. It's an entirely new situation now. The old deal has expired. Given some big losses some franchises are experiencing, it clearly shouldn't be the standard bearer for a new CBA. And if costs can't be kept in check then people simply won't want to own teams in the league.
Here's something that hasn't sunk into the heads of the players AND the public: a difference of say, 10% in costs for owners might be the difference between making a healthy profit and being quite deep in the red - it's the margin that matters. Essentially, it's the gap between being a viable business and NOT being a viable business. Say all you want about greed this and greed that but if you don't have the economic incentives for billionaires to own teams then no one will buy them be interested. Whereas a grinder earning 1M instead of 1.1M will surely keep playing hockey.
