View Single Post
11-03-2012, 01:22 AM
Fugu's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: ϶(o)ϵ
Posts: 36,745
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by billybudd View Post
That's a second snarky, useless response to a pretty logical point in a row.

Can I get an answer to my request for clarification, now? Why is it, exactly, that testing the water for what Dreger describes would not have been far more constructive in seeking a future deal than showing up late with a worse offer than your previous ones claiming you haven't "run the numbers yet?" Why, exactly, would thinking it is a more constructive course of inaction make one a, ahem, "sockpuppet."

Is that something you can answer, or is the next step to accuse me of some new weird thing.
Since your questions here don't seem to make sense (to me), I've pulled up your first post:

You tell me, the players' big rallying cry was wanting their contracts honored. The previous make whole provision, which was explicitly spelled out as negotiable, was something Fehr told the players was bad because it was "players paying players, not owner paying players." This solves that, too.
Some of us are operating under the impression that the only thing that was negotiable was the Make Whole clause.

As for your claim that 'this solves that, too'... What is 'this'? Do you have the details?

Are you saying it was more reasonable to show up 90 minutes late with two variations on a Bob Goodenow offer that was rejected in 2005 and a third that represented a percentage increase on present salaries that Fehr "didn't run the numbers on" is somehow more constructive than, I don't know, showing up on time with something like what Dreger describes?
I don't believe I said any of that. How did -->you<-- get from point A to point B?

Fugu is offline