Clipping:No sign of compromise
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
 |
| Add a Clipping |
| Date | Saturday, August 2, 1890 |
|---|---|
| Text | The World to-day [7/26] sends the following message to the president of every National and Players' League Club, and would be pleased to receive an immediate answer, at its expense, giving fully your answers and views on the following questions: First—Would you agree to a compromise, which had for its basis the surrender of the names of cities by the Players' League clubs in return for a change of playing dates by the National League clubs, with an agreement to respect contract rights and exchange games at the end of the season? Second—If not, is there any basis upon which you would agree to a compromise and what is it? The World asks these questions in the interest of base ball. The result was rather astonishing, as the answers indicated that the end of the war was as far off as ever. Of the five answers received from National League sources four are flatfooted against any compromise, and the only sign of wavering, if it can be called wavering, is given by Pittsburg, and the diplomatic reply of Col. Rogers which left it to be inferred that a compromise on a different basis than that suggested by the World might be considered. … In marked contrast to the National League magnates the Players' League people are not only willing, but desirous to make some sort of compromise. Five of the six answers breathe the air of peace, but eh Boston Players will not hear of a compromise. [individual replies are included, as well as an interview of McAlpin where he is open to compromise] |
| Source | Sporting Life |
| Tags | |
| Warning | |
| Comment | Edit with form to add a comment |
| Query | Edit with form to add a query |
| Submitted by | Richard Hershberger |
| Origin | Initial Hershberger Clippings |
Comments
<comments voting="Plus" />