Quote:
Originally Posted by Flash Walken
He's established the public high ground of the negotiation, that his side has been 'proactive and progressive' and established a timeline that favours their side and tables an offer they believe is fair.
So now the flames as the other negotiating party are reactive and not proactive, regressive and not progressive, delayed or been slow in how they have conducted the negotiation so far and have not tabled a fair offer.
This is more than neutral pr, imo this is aggressive negotiating language. It's not offensive but it's clear from their side this negotiation has not gone well from their perspective.
This is uncommon language for an agent publicly I think. If there's an agent in the league who understands the cap realities this summer it's him, and I think there is some urgency here now to get a deal done before the options for Calgary become even more limited.
If you put that statement in front of a public sector labour negotiation for example, the next salvo of statements would be talking about ending talks in favour of a strike.
|
Yeah... I don't see any of this being in line.
The context of the statement is that they are not basing their ask on Marner, they've already created the parameters and are in the process of negotiating based on it. He also took a shot at agents who are waiting on Marner to set their asks, saying agents should be able to properly evaluate the market.
You're reading way
way too much into it. If you look at the quote, again in context), it does not position the Flames as regressive but other AGENTS as regressive, and I don't think it does much at all to suggest the Flames are reactive, slow, or unfair. In context, the comparisons are against the negotiation tactics of other agents in familiar RFA territory, not the Flames. There's not a negative lobbed the Flames' way in any of his quotes, literal or inherent.