Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattyk
There is no difference here unless you're looking for one.
|
There is a huge difference. What I'm referring to is what the Cowboys apparently have done.
Quote:
|
Cowboys said they didn't approve of the brief, but didn't outright mention support of the owner
|
Making a statement about not supporting the brief is one thing. Making a statement that you are siding with the owners is entirely different situation. Huuuuuge difference. One is staying neutral by not picking a side, the other is siding with the very people who the players distrust.
The coaches(any of them) supporting the owners publicly are ****ing stupid to say the least. Now come training camp, you have coaches who ask their players to trust them? lol If I were a FA, I'd never play for a coach who openly sided with a owner in a labor dispute unless he was part of management. (a GM/HC combo) They have no dog in this fight. None. What reason do they have to support owners? I can understand the ones in dual roles in both coaching and management, but for most of these coaches, it's a stupid move.