Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynical
The entire idea that "the owners shouldn't have to hold up their end of a contract they freely signed with players because it's inconvenient for them to do so at the moment!" is so absurd that I'm shocked that so many people are advocating for it.
|
Not intending to side with anyone, but, from many of the articles I've read, it sounds like the owners believe they are working completely within the parameters of the contract they freely signed. They believe the wording of the contract gives them the room to request more pay cuts from the players based on not having fans. Their interpretation may be wrong, but they are not trying to get out of a contract they signed. Just use it to their advantage.