Make Whole, Not War (CBA & Lockout Discussion) XIX
View Single Post
11-02-2012, 11:24 PM
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pac NW
Originally Posted by
again, of course they wanted to extend it. They have profited heavily off it. It was 57% to 43% in their favor. If they think that was so fair, why didnt they propose to play with the same percentages but in the owners favor until the deal was done.
Why do you think its the players right to play and negotiate if the owners feel its detrimental to them?
I can easily flip this and say, why dont the players offer to play with a no strike agreement? They havent done that because it reduces their leverage. So i guess you cant say that a strike isnt possible because the players never offered it.
What if both sides agreed to keep talking/playing --- no lockout and no strike. What then?
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Fugu