shakes
Pep City
gscarpenter2002 said:I have never understood why some feel that "the owners have to give something". It is based on an unknowledgeable expectation that negotiations are "give and take". Some are, but many are not. The ones that are, are only that way when there is a desire to partner with someone. The league wants to partner with the players, but not with Goodenow.
If i were advising the owners, I would be counseling them to do everything in their powers right now to avoid Goodenow from claiming he got the players anything that wasn't being offered in February. If they do, they run the risk that he will somehow survive. I can tell you that is the LAST thing the owners want. They want Goodenow to bear the brunt of the players' anger over signing the deal they will be eventually required to sign and the anger of losing a year's wages to do so. They will want Goodenow to be the scapegoat (as he should be). If they do not, Goodenow will come back sometime, somewhere in the next negotiation loaded for bear, and the owners will have sown dragon's teeth. If Goodenow goes, the players can at least say "well, we got screwed by bad advice" and maybe move forward.
Jeremy? Jeremy Jacobs is that you?