Beyond your ability to comprehend? It's pretty simple. As I've said many times, I have no sympathy for either side. Just because I view a certain segment of players as coddled and spoiled doesn't mean I side with the owners.
You weren't segmenting it out. You said, "I see the players as what they are." That's a generalization, you can't backpedal from it.
Still waiting for an answer to this, also:
Tiny Timby wrote:
Okay, so, since you agree that the CBA was essentially fine, how is Fehr the issue when the union went to the league and said, "Let's fix the contract loopholes and otherwise keep the CBA the way it is?" I don't think you're fully grasping just how ideologically driven the lockout is on the owners' part. They're the ones who opened up with offering the players 47 percent of hockey-related revenue, down from 57 percent. They're the ones who have demanded (another) salary rollback. They're the ones demanding that you have to play for ten years before hitting unrestricted free agency. They're the ones demanding that entry-level contracts run for five years.
The owners were signing players to contracts all summer with full intention of not honoring them. It's reprehensible.