Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi
Its likelihood is irrelevant since the league could have and ought to have asked for more language to protect itself in that scenario, the same as the players did by asking for language to reduce escrow should revenues bounce back sooner than expected. The league for whatever reason opted not to do that.
“Half” might be an overstatement but regardless, this isn’t how you negotiate in good faith. If the league needed to have two separate MOUs they could have done that, instead they opted to get it all done under one which makes it comprehensive and now they want a do-over after they already got the first “half” of what they were to receive from it.
To be clear I’m not trying to badger the league here for trying to get more money out of the deal, that’s just business and I get that they have to try, especially when that is the mandate given by the owners. But the way they are going about this is wrong. Under the previous agreement the players didn’t like escrow, but they agreed to pay it so they did. The league should do the same here unless they can prove that there has been an actual significant material change in circumstances from what they thought could be a possible outcome when they signed this MOU.
|
I think that's exactly what's going on isn't it?
It's pretty easy to see they underestimated the downward impact to the industry or they wouldn't have negotiated such a small deferral.
I don't think anyone is debating that at all.
Nor am I debating whose fault it is.
But they are where they are. The players had better have a good sense of both roads if they're firmly going to make the owners stick to a road that will see them lose billions.