Clearly the players would have to be allowed to bring a lawyer or consultant. As long as they have a conversation and aren't actively negotiating, I don't think it would be a huge deal. I think it'll just be the owners, again, trying to convince the players that the deal they put on the table is really super awesome, despite what Fehr tells them. (In other words, I think it'll backfire.) Maybe the players will have a chance to demonstrate that they actually know what's going on and aren't puppets. Hahahaha, JK, the owners will still assume it's tha brain washin'.
I wonder if this is primarily a stall tactic. (With some PR spin thrown in for good measure.) The board of governors meeting is so close, and the owners' negotiating committee needs to know what kind of support they have before taking any drastic steps. (And before the players start to seriously talk decertification.)
Now THAT is a room I'd love to be in. Friedman said that during the last lockout, at a board of governors meeting, Bettman kicked everyone but the chief decision maker for each team out of the room. Obviously I have no idea what went on there, but I'd imagine he wanted to make sure he had the support necessary to cancel the whole season. Will he get that support this time around? I'd imagine he can get the support to cancel the first two months with a little politicking. But Jan-June? The playoffs? Will the owners decide that contracting rights are worth the same sacrifice they made for the salary cap?