RelocatedPatFan
Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2009
- Messages
- 6,912
- Reaction score
- 5,724
From the owners tandpoint it may actually make sense...being that the agreed upon CBA does indeed have a shelf life and the players can't take too long to decide what to do.Berthelsen's email said the league "demands that the players reform as a union and provide evidence by Tuesday, July 26, that a majority of players have signed union authorization cards."
Obviously the final CBA can't be agreed to until the Union is reformed, however, the CBA itself didn't need to have any such language. The CBA should be about the agreement between the players and owners on the revenue sharing and has nothing to do with the players' end of things.
I think this issue is more about the pride of the player reps. Hopefully this will be resolved internally by the players and a deal agreed to soon. The questionmark to me is if the players insisted on that language being removed from the CBA, does that mean that the owners would have to get together again to vote and recertify? And what about if there were some other terms that needed to be modified? LOL it's a logistical nightmare.
As time is missed, the size of the pie does start to change. this can affect the overall % the players receive and adjust the salary CAP. Also, the owners do have fixed costs which aren't likely to change and if the players delay too long, the profit the owners get could be more significant.
Granted, I don't think the players are "thinking" in those terms and they want this resolved as fast as the oweners. Much eaiser to get 32 owners to agree than 1700+ people. At this point, the players have to put aside their ego and focus on the big picture and vote.











