0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Sorry guys, but I also feel the need to say something. The TC has a job to do, and they did it. The TC has a thankless job, and it becomes a helluva lot harder when other owners chime in on the merits or drawbacks of a trade. The TC recommended that the two owners re-work the deal, and we should all respect and support their decision whether we agree with it OR NOT.Peace.
There are a lot more lopsided deals that got approved. Let it go through.
I don't agree with that logic. The point here is that the TC made a ruling. They told the two owners that the trade had to be revised to be approved. We would be setting a bad precedent if we over-rule their decision.I think it's fine to comment on potential trades BEFORE the TC makes its ruling. However, AFTER they have made their decision we need to abide by it. Otherwise, the whole process loses its integrity. That's my two cents on the process.
It has also been long established that when there exists controversy surrounding a deal owners need to explain themselves further. We haven't heard a word from Boston, as only papps has been giving his input. As I told on an earlier message I was expecting further explanation from both sides before making a ruling, since after a long period off time there was no explanation I decided to recommend a renegotiation.
And yes, they may have been more lopsided deals approved, but that doesn't mean they should had been approved.