to or is an owner? Phillips comment suggests that Recchi has something to gain for taking the owner's side. But what does he gain? Are the owners going to give him a big fat cheque because he disagreed with the PA strategy? And Recchi didn't actually side with the owners. It's not like he said one side is right or wrong. I guess the PA has a problem because a) he doesn't agree with their strategy and b) former player doesn't trash the owners like the guys who still depend on those owners to sign their paycheques. Yes, he must be the enemy guys. Here's the thinking: If you review the history of labour agreements in sports you'll generally find the best organized and unified side will come out on top. If someone had broken the unity of the players in earlier disputes in both baseball or hockey, we'd be looking at players in much worse positions. That history should be respected, and to do what Recchi is doing is both hypocritical and disrespectful to those who went before him that allowed him to earn 50 million during his career. So, unless you can be 100% certain (which I would argue you can't) that you've entirely maximized your position you must remain unified. Fehr is actually quite reasonable, even during the strikes he went through, most legal decisions sided with the players. He's painted in a negative light without due cause if you ask me, and has definitely shown deference