ideal wrote:The vote is a fig leaf, they issued a power threat to leave entirely w/ all the money if'n anyone thought to mess with them.
Doesn't add up. If we are dead as a result of this, why vote for our own death? Makes no sense legally or tactically, and i don't think Aresco would do it. Call their bluff and let them leave then. Would make for a better legal case than going along and voting for the measure. The AAC's analysis must be that this measure is more form than substance, and that we are actually fairly aligned with the P5 on the player benefits issue. Like I said, the P5 presidents don't WANT to play players, or pay them any more than they have to prevent hardship. Which i think SMU probably agrees with.
Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2014 12:49 pm