Quote:
Originally Posted by Blueline Bomber
I side with the players because they were/are content to play with the current CBA. It's the owners that want the CBA to change to to better suit their needs, despite the current CBA being largely of their own creation. Therefore, any games lost to a lockout would be on the owners, not the players.
|
No they aren't. They never were. It's two things.
1) A PR tactic.
2) It means they can go on strike at any time they want to since there's no CBA to stop them from doing so. Fehr did it in 94-95 with baseball.
Both sides are at fault here. Maybe if it didn't take the players an entire ****ing month to respond with an incomplete proposal, we wouldn't be in as bad a situation as we are now.