Quote:
Originally Posted by SmootSmack
Talk about totally misreading what NC wrote. He didn't say the owners opted out in 2006. He said they opted out of the 2006 deal. The 2006 deal gave either the option to opt out a year or two before the deal expired, an option the owners exercised in 2008
NFL owners opt out of CBA |
Ok totally wrong sorry. Misread. But although they opted out did they not extend the 2006 CBA each year in order to reach an agreement? or were they simply playing under the 2006 CBA but did not actually have a CBA in place due to the owners opting out.
In any event the owners might have "opted out" in 2006 but they have been trying to get a new one in place. In other words if both sides had the option to "opt out" then either side could have done it. Legally. Now if the side who opted out ... also chose not to work out an agreement I'd be pointing fingers, except thats not whats happened. The owners have been showing up at all meetings, they have offered 2 CBA offers, Both the players walked away from with out even a counter offer, players decertify (possibly illegally which is where the finger pointing should start), owners lockedout, mediation, and 8th Circuit upholding the lockout but asking the owners to, yet again, send the players, yet again, another CBA offer, which was, yet again not counter offered.
I understand the owners and players are most likely talking about the issue's but... it should not stop the players from taking whatever offer the owners hand to them and making the adjustments they would like to see happen and sending the offer (on paper) back to the owners.