Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin
I am still waiting to see a link or something concrete that shows the owners in some way, altered the terms that had been agreed upon or inserted language that was either contrary to that agreement or was simply never discussed. Show me the link as to the specifics parts of the agreement that "THEY come up with, and act as if was something the players also agreed on". I haven't seen it. I have heard allegations and diatribe and read Vonnie Holliday's tweet, but nothing referring to the specifics parts of the proposal that the players did not agree to.
Ahhh, but the owners are constantly evil and have money so it MUST be there fault, evidence is simply not needed to prove that immutable point. <sigh>
|
I don't think you'll find that. I think the issue is the players like the agreement but they have to poll all 1900+ players, in other words the players must vote to be a union again. Then they can vote on accepting the new CBA. So technically the players are not ready, but it is their own mistake for not having found a way to quickly get their vote ie; a simple e-mail from each player using employee numbers or something.
The issue of the owners adding things I think is the owners demanding the players reform prior to being allowed to show up at team facilities. I think the players were hoping the owners would take all the risk and open their doors and them allow the players to come together to vote on reforming then the player rep could send the vote to whomever and with the majority vote then the player reps could vote on the new CBA as a union. But the owners don't want to take the risk and I don't blame them.
As far as the other issue's like injury settlements that's all arguments a union would have to argue which can't take place until the players reform.