LEAGUE CBA THREAD
#91
Posted 11 March 2010 - 05:58 PM
As it stands the only front office that has done their jobs are Seattle's and Toronto's.
I'm just going by season tickets sold.
It took me every once in me not to throw up as I was typing this up.
UNA VIDA...UNA MUERTE...UN CLUB
#92
Posted 11 March 2010 - 08:35 PM
if the season doesn't start on time i think we'll all be pissed.
Red Stars He we come !
#93
Posted 11 March 2010 - 10:27 PM
no its not irrational.
Not irrational at all. The league needs to cave and allow free agency. That alone would tide them over until salaries increase catch up to attendance. Players need a choice.
#94
Posted 11 March 2010 - 11:30 PM
Not irrational at all. The league needs to cave and allow free agency. That alone would tide them over until salaries increase catch up to attendance. Players need a choice.
That could lead to the dissolution of the single entity structure and ultimately the demise of the league.
#95
Posted 12 March 2010 - 12:21 AM
Anyhow, not certain how I will react to this, if it goes down... but I will react.
#96
Posted 12 March 2010 - 09:51 AM
I'm not saying this has any connection to how I feel about the current issues right now, but I do know that starting as an 11 year old kid I didn't go to a baseball game for 3 years after the strike, previously going to Cubs, Sox, and Brewers games on a regular basis (coincidentally, this is the same time frame as the WC in 94, right??? and that's when I first caught the obsession with the beautiful game)
this is true. MLS is the love child of a threesome between the MLB strike, the world cup being hosted here, and a columbian own goal.
"If you are first you are first. If you are second you are nothing."
"I don't approve of your methods."
"Yeah, well... you're not from Chicago."
http://peterlowry.ytmnd.com/
#97
Posted 12 March 2010 - 10:45 AM
People that know about these things tell me that any union strikes takes two steps. First, a union has to vote to engage the ability to strike and second they then hold a vote to actually strike. This 350-2 vote is the former one. The MLS Player Union had a vote to allow themselves the ability to hold a strike if the members so chose. To make an analogy, they voted to flip the cover back on the doomsday strike button. The union gave themselves the power to hold a strike if the union membership chooses to strike.
So in order for there to be a strike, the players will have to hold another vote to actually go on a strike. This almost unanimous vote you are reading about was simply a procedural one that gives the union a tool. It’s a bureaucratic move and this kind of vote is almost always unanimous to show solidarity. Actual strike votes, which the MLAP has not yet held, are of much different margins.
I had a hard time believing that there were only two "no" votes. I figured that they would have trouble convincing some of the newer foreign players that it was in their best interest to strike. The article states that when the Dallas players voted to ratify the initial MLS proposal, the vote was 2-1 to reject, or about 1/3 looking to approve it. I think that is what the final vote to strike will look like - about 1/3 of the players voting against a strike.
http://www.3rddegree...vote-to-strike/
#98
Posted 12 March 2010 - 11:44 AM
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users