Quote:
Originally Posted by NC_Skins
Obviously they had that "right" to opt out. Were they "right" in doing so? No. If you want to claim you are losing profits, be prepared to show the numbers.
|
Ok. Ignoring the second part for the moment. You agree they had the right to do it. Nowhere did the CBA say the side opting out had to show any type of proof or level of support in order for the opt out to become effective. At least we agree on that.
Now the 2nd part is more fuzzy. But let's say that the owners didn't help their case by not immediately giving the books to a neutral party, redact the names and identities and say to the players here are the numbers and projected path. Further let's say that the owners royally stepped in it with the tv deal. It still comes to a point that there was a federal mediator working with the group that could have (if both sides wanted to) put a deal together. You misquoted the mediator before, he did not say both sides were at a stopping point, he said it was clear no more was going to be done, and that (imo) is because the players knew that they were going to litigate, and they weren't going to let mediation get in the way of decertifying. The owners had every desire to stay within the labor framework because that would give them leverage over your "irreplaceable" players.
Finally, paraphrasing JR, the players are precious, but not irreplaceable. (As an entertainment analogy, CBS is not going to end because Sheen is off 2 1/2 men, another eager actor is stepping into that role) Peyton Manning may be indianapolis' all in all but I wouldn't shed a tear if he was out of the league - maybe he would go into commercials full time, that would be awesome. As all Redskins fans know the next Peyton is due out in 2012/2013 well after this fiasco is over. Heck maybe if the season gets cancelled the NFL will do a lottery (with the agreement of some group of players) and get the number 1 pick .