View Single Post
12-10-2012, 09:02 PM
Fugu's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: ϶(°o°)ϵ
Posts: 36,745
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Master Shake View Post
That letter above was from Burkle whois a Liberal Democrat pro union guy. He flatout blames Fehr.

You know, I like Burkle. He seems like a good owner, in it for the right things, avoids the limelight, helped to save the Pens franchise, and so on. From that blurb:
We needed a response on key items that were important to us, but we were optimistic that we were down to very few issues. I believe a deal was within reach. We were therefore surprised when the Fehrs made a unilateral and “non-negotiable” decision—which is their right, to end the player/owner process that has moved us farther in two days than we moved at any time in the past months.
The way this has been reported over the weekend, after all the reporters had their chance to sum things up, was that those three things were not negotiable separately, and were part of the package. What the owners wanted from the players was a Yes or No to that package. The players, at least from how this was set up in the beginning, weren't supposed to 'negotiate' a CBA but explore ideas and options. When they got to that point, take-it-or-leave-it, they wanted Fehr back in the room. They were told that that would change the dynamic and the owners might not stay for that.

Obviously, we're not going to change each others minds on who was playing whom here, and both sides may have done some of that, but I still don't think asking to get your union head back in charge of the process was unreasonable if you still believe he's your leader. The players in that room clearly did so.

Fugu is offline   Reply With Quote