Twitter burns as Owners ratify

[Defensewins]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

1- there is a reason why there are representatives.
2- why does it not take longer for the owners to look over the proposal?

There are 32 reps just like owners. The reps are in place to make decisions for the players of their teams. And there already should have been a decision made that if the reps thought the deal was fair then they could agree to it. But first is first the players should have had a plan on how to agree to become a union again especially when things started looking like it was coming to an end. Maybe they were out partying too much and not enough trying to understand the material as it was being formed and a plan for how to talk to the players for a reformation.

I think the players lawyers were too busy trying to figure out how to derail the system or shaft the process vs planning how to reform and get all the players involved.

It just seems the players were I'll prepared all around. Maybe if they needed all 1900+ players opinions on the matter they should have found a venue where all the players could show up instead of just the reps and should have gone over the material and voted on whether to reform and then gotten their "Union Cards" and voted on the CBA.

They only need a simple majority vote to approve this CBA deal. Not every player will or has to agree to it.
I think what is not being discussed in this thread is the owners got what they wanted in this proposal. They got the majority of the revenue split. The rest is gravy. So of course the players are having to wrap their heads around this loss and trying to incorporate a 7 year out clause. The owners that won the revenue split will resist it. If incorporating the 7 year out clause is a deal breaker for both sides then we will have more delay and negotiations.