The owners withdrew their suggestion for transition payments because, unlike the players union, they're not going to keep submitting the same proposal hoping that this time it passes. If the players didn't like the idea, then the owners withdraw it. Something tells me it's not going to be the last we hear of that idea though.
You seem to be confusing my point of view as support for salary rollbacks. I don't support that and I don't support either side more than the other. My point -- the one you initially responded to -- is that the players have done NOTHING to contribute to the progress of negotiations. The owners, on the other hand, have shown a willingness to compromise and have even made a big step toward the middle when they tentatively agreed to a revenue split. The fact that the owners offered contracts in full through a separate fund also shows they are willing to compromise from their original position. The players didn't like the idea so the players rejected it and the owners withdrew the offer so they don't keep submitting the same rejected ideas like the players are.
Both sides blow and I hope they lose three more seasons (not that I'll be watching when they return anyway). But to say the owners are causing all the disturbances is wrong.
Here in this graveyard it's still No Man's Land
The countless white crosses in mute witness stand
To man's blind indifference to his fellow man
And a whole generation who were butchered and damned.
Last edited by Phila26Flyers; 12-11-2012 at 01:07 PM.