Tim Thomasen wrote: MRandall25 wrote: Tim Thomasen wrote: MRandall25 wrote:
I'm not about objectivity, right now
I'm still angry it was even locked out in the first place (though I understand why now, I'm still not happy about it).
The fact that the owners keep throwing hissy fits every time the players don't do what they want them to do also has something to do with it.
It's actually not that difficult to keep an objective mind throughout their debacle
Yeah sure and the players have acted like gentlemen every time they take to twitter to ***** about the lockout. You can make the case that both sides are throwing fits. Owbers don't want to give in on contract lengths and want to take more of the revenue. Players want to be paid for missed time and don't want to give up their revenue and give in on contract lengths.
Like I said above, both sides are putrid.
I've just been ignoring players on Twitter. Don't really care what they think.
When I say "fits", I'm talking when the owners have said "We had our best deal on the table and they proposed something completely different" about 3 times.
The "We want the contract lengths" and the "We want our money", IMO, is just part of negotiating. It's the stuff that happened after negotiations broke down that rubbed me the wrong way (and I realize it goes both ways).
I don't disagree that both sides are putrid, as I've said.
The stuff that Fehr has been saying has been misleading, that's why both sides are just putrid for how these negotiations have played out.
You ignore the players on twitter? Smart man. I've done that and ignore the thepensblog on twitter. All those twitter feeds are just a bucket full of dumb in my opinion.
I mean, I still follow them and such, I just skim past what they're saying.
But in regards to the Fehr thing, maybe he underestimated the owners' response. They literally had everything ironed out, except for a 20% difference in salary drop and how it was to be proportioned, 2 years of the CBA, and 2 years of player contract length. To me, it doesn't sound like the "Yes or No" thing was made clear to him (from the info we've gathered). It may have been (KEYWORD IS MAY) a communication error. I just don't see why trying to negotiate at this point was a bad thing. So it's not what you want as an owner. You've negotiated enough as it is. Why throw everything away because the PA didn't do what you wanted? With those issues above being the key ones that the owners highlighted, why not try to solve that difference?
If they want hockey so much, why do they throw it all away when they don't get what they were expecting?