Quote:
Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule
People who point to the opt out moment are generally trying to deflect criticism away from the players. They tend to disregard that the opt out was a valid option for either side and agreed upon by both sides. If you call them on that, they will go to the unethical tv contracts, this is completely valid, except that the owners have been found guilty, and will face a triple damage punishment, tha brings us to the nflpa disclaimer, which has yet to have a final judgement of intent but doesn't pass a simple smell test. If the 8th district and NLRB both say it was valid, then I will not point to it, but at this point in time, that act of disclaiming with the purpose of subverting the 6month time period written into the CBA is, to me, the point where fault lays.
But rather than lay fault at this point both sides know what it takes to reach a deal, the NFL has put offers out there, somebody on the players side ought to get a response back to the owners, so that everyone can get moving forward to a final solution.
|
In regards to the 1st para, it doesn't matter who has "leverage", if the players are found to have decertified illegally (which I think will happen) then the owners hold the leverage.
but in regards to the 2nd para, no matter who holds leverage both sides need to get an agreement which means sitting at a table and agreeing on a new CBA and signing it. You can't work on anything if only one party is throwing out offers and the other side does not respond or does not throw out counter offers. As you said both sides can have fingers pointed at them, but they need to negotiate and that can't be done by just one side.