Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi
That isn’t what I’m saying at all, and to be honest I don’t think your approach of trying to put words in my mouth is making your position any more credible so I’d appreciate if you would refrain from doing so. The league saying they need further adjustments (whether it’s true or just posturing) isn’t illegal, but them using it as an excuse to lock the players out would be.
You provided an opinion piece defending the league’s position, written by someone who as I’ve made you aware also literally defended the players’ position the next day and continues to point out how the courts may not agree with the league’s position. That being the case, why would you expect that article to change anyone’s mind?
Oddly enough I’m the one who is actually defending the owners for not being as incompetent as yourself and others are trying to frame them as. I’m not trying to convince you that the players are perfect or that the owners are bad, I’m trying to help you understand how the league’s actions suggest they aren’t acting in good faith, how from a business perspective there are more reasons for them to be doing what they’re doing beyond the current terms being unmanageable and that IMO those factors will likely work against them in a court of law.
It would appear the league disagrees, otherwise they wouldn’t have signed that deal because the numbers that you claim don’t add up were the same in July as they are today.
|
Oh please ...
Not trying to put words in anyone's mouth any more than you have been mine in responding to me.
I'll make this really simple
I think things must have changed since July. That's why I think it's more about economic health of the league or franchises and teams not wanting to play than not acting in good faith.
But you don't have to agree with that.
It's common sense to me, but doesn't have to be for you.
Maybe it's time we move on.