Quote:
Originally Posted by Rajmahal33
This is an area of sports that I'm not that familiar with...Why does the players union expect to get an even larger chunk of the revenue (according to the comments in the article) when the owners were the ones who terminated the contracts? Also, it would seem that if something was unanimously agreed upon to be terminated, it was never really that reasonable in the first place. Why didn't they write into the deal an opportunity to rework it (with mutual consent of both sides) without terminating it or letting it expire? That way you can avoid leaving the shelter of the contract at any given time.
|
I expect that once it became clear that there were enough votes to terminate the deal (9 owners I believe?) everyone voted unanimously in order to present a unified front to the players for negotiating purposes.
If the owners want to unring this bell, they will have to be willing to endure a strike or initiate a lockout. The Union seems convinced that they are unstoppable. Once some of these guys miss a few paychecks, though, Upshaw will find himself in a different position. He is not Donald Fehr. The NFLPA has been put in its place before and it may be time to do it again.