What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Labor Dispute Master Thread (1 Viewer)

KFFL) Carolina Panthers QB Cam Newton is likely to receive a contract in the range of five years and $35 million with the new rookie payscale in the new collective bargaining agreement. In the old CBA, St. Louis Rams QB Sam Bradford, the No. 1 pick of the 2010 draft, received six years and $78 million.

It's also being reported that teams will have to decide by the end of a rookie's third year on whether or not to use the 5th year option.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
'D.J. said:
Though, who does cinncy extend, they aren't exactly oozing talent...
Click to expand...
These are the top free agents:Cedric benson - their best rbTO - their best wr until green gets a year or two of experienceDhani jones - their best LBJohnathen Joseph - arguably their best dbThey've said that resigning benson and joseph are their top priorities.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
'FTRWRTR said:
'D.J. said:
Though, who does cinncy extend, they aren't exactly oozing talent...
Click to expand...
These are the top free agents:Cedric benson - their best rbTO - their best wr until green gets a year or two of experienceDhani jones - their best LBJohnathen Joseph - arguably their best dbThey've said that resigning benson and joseph are their top priorities.
Click to expand...
sorry, i was just being sarcastic. For what its worth, I was talking about who they would extend that is currently under contract, not free agents.
 
Don't know how much stock you can put into this but a member of my league has a brother-in-law plays in the NFL and he says the good news is being way overhyped by the owners to try to pressure the players into getting a deal done quickly.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hopefully the new rookie salary structure means more players signed before TC. Not sure I would mind a salary based on where players were picked for the first year, but don't know how that would be worked out.

 
So can we get to the basics of this Dispute? Does it look like this thing ends this week or not? What hurdles are we hearing they need to still work out? This is the kind of stuff I'd like to know if anyone knows. Thanks guys. :bye:

 
'jacobo_moses said:
So can we get to the basics of this Dispute? Does it look like this thing ends this week or not? What hurdles are we hearing they need to still work out? This is the kind of stuff I'd like to know if anyone knows. Thanks guys. :bye:
Click to expand...
From the ESPN article:
The outstanding unresolved issues, according to sources:• Players want restoration of $320 million in lost benefits from the 2010 uncapped season.• Players want to limit use of the franchise tag on unrestricted free agents to a one-time application. Previously, teams could use the franchise tag on a player on three separate occasions with significant increases on one-year guaranteed salaries for every additional year that the player was tagged.• Settlement of the Brady antitrust lawsuit involving 10 named plaintiffs. The limit of franchise tags on all players could be the anchor to the settlement. That would result in named plaintiffs such as Drew Brees, Logan Mankins, Peyton Manning and Vincent Jackson not being subject to any free agent restrictions in 2012 if their respective teams do not sign them to long-term contracts.Sources familiar with the process told ESPN NFL Insider Adam Schefter on Sunday that the NFLPA has begun to contact some of the 10 plaintiffs regarding settling the antitrust suit.• Workman's compensation. It has been an underpublicized and complex issue for the owners that has resulted in numerous lawsuits. Owners want players to file for workman's comp benefits in the state in which they played, if they suffered an injury. Currently, players have used California as a filing base if they can prove they suffered any injury during their career while playing in that state.• Settlement of the television damages case stemming from U.S. District Judge David Doty's ruling that owners did not act in the best interests of players as directed by the previous CBA in creating "lockout insurance." The players have asked Doty to place $4 billion in escrow until the lockout is resolved but Doty has not ruled. It is possible the players will use this leverage to gain the $320 million in restoration of lost benefits from 2010.
Click to expand...
 
The players association will be meeting Wednesday with representatives from all 32 teams to explain the agreement to them, so that they can present the information to their teammates and vote on the agreement.

Goodell has offered to meet today with the players association executive committee to explain the proposed deal.

link

 
'GregR said:
From the ESPN article:

The outstanding unresolved issues, according to sources:• Players want restoration of $320 million in lost benefits from the 2010 uncapped season.• Players want to limit use of the franchise tag on unrestricted free agents to a one-time application. Previously, teams could use the franchise tag on a player on three separate occasions with significant increases on one-year guaranteed salaries for every additional year that the player was tagged.• Settlement of the Brady antitrust lawsuit involving 10 named plaintiffs. The limit of franchise tags on all players could be the anchor to the settlement. That would result in named plaintiffs such as Drew Brees, Logan Mankins, Peyton Manning and Vincent Jackson not being subject to any free agent restrictions in 2012 if their respective teams do not sign them to long-term contracts.Sources familiar with the process told ESPN NFL Insider Adam Schefter on Sunday that the NFLPA has begun to contact some of the 10 plaintiffs regarding settling the antitrust suit.• Workman's compensation. It has been an underpublicized and complex issue for the owners that has resulted in numerous lawsuits. Owners want players to file for workman's comp benefits in the state in which they played, if they suffered an injury. Currently, players have used California as a filing base if they can prove they suffered any injury during their career while playing in that state.• Settlement of the television damages case stemming from U.S. District Judge David Doty's ruling that owners did not act in the best interests of players as directed by the previous CBA in creating "lockout insurance." The players have asked Doty to place $4 billion in escrow until the lockout is resolved but Doty has not ruled. It is possible the players will use this leverage to gain the $320 million in restoration of lost benefits from 2010.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Although these issues sound like they could be sticking points, I doubt they will. The owners will likely pay the full $320 Million (They always knew they had to pay this) in lost benefits to settle the TV case. The antitrust cases are easily solved by not allowing any of those people to be tagged in 2012. I think the players could likely get a lot more from the litigation efforts, but will settle for cheap as part of a ten year new deal. Workman's comp is not an issue that should derail any of these talks - It's just a change in procedure. I think the only real issue left is limiting the franchise tag to one-time. I see the owners giving in here as this has been abused pretty badly in this last CBA. I still have not heard of an increase given to retired players, but I suspect that is in the new deal as well. Optimism rues the day here. Excited to see the actual details of the new deal. From what I have heard reported, I think this is a deal where both sides can claim victory (players get a 10 year deal, limits on free agency, easier practices, no 18 game schedule, team salary minimums, 4 year rookie deals). Owners get lower player costs, better rookie scale, keep salary cap, keep from opening books). Both sides likely benefit big from increased TV deals, internet revenue.Giddy for free agency to start.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Was reading an article today that stated under the new CBA the salary cap is not expected to increase as quickly as it did under the previous CBA and that this would hamper teams in signing big ticket free agents unless the team is already way under the cap. Anyone know why this would be the case? It suggests that there may be inflation increases already built into the salary cap in the new CBA, but I hadn't heard recently that was the case.

 
More from Deadspin, which was posted in another thread:

http://deadspin.com/5821386/audited-financials-operating-profit-for-nfl-ventures-lp-rose-from-999-million-to-13-billion-last-year

Last week, we posted audited financials for the NFL league office, which administers the G-3 stadium fund, offering low-interest loans to teams that are building stadiums. The money ran dry in 2007 after a decade-long stadium-building boom, and the case could be made that the real dispute at the heart of the lockout lay between the owners who'd exploited the G-3 program to build bright new revenue-generating stadiums and those who hadn't and now couldn't because their peers had burned through the fund. In this light, the lockout looks like something else entirely — less a battle between management and labor and more a proxy war in which the owners, unwilling to fight each other for money, decided to extract it from the players instead.

------------

More confirmation that what SteelCity has been saying isn't as crazy as everyone wants to believe?

 
'roarlions said:
More from Deadspin, which was posted in another thread:

http://deadspin.com/...llion-last-year

Last week, we posted audited financials for the NFL league office, which administers the G-3 stadium fund, offering low-interest loans to teams that are building stadiums. The money ran dry in 2007 after a decade-long stadium-building boom, and the case could be made that the real dispute at the heart of the lockout lay between the owners who'd exploited the G-3 program to build bright new revenue-generating stadiums and those who hadn't and now couldn't because their peers had burned through the fund. In this light, the lockout looks like something else entirely — less a battle between management and labor and more a proxy war in which the owners, unwilling to fight each other for money, decided to extract it from the players instead.

------------

More confirmation that what SteelCity has been saying isn't as crazy as everyone wants to believe?
Click to expand...
No one has suggested that there isn't some difference of opinion on the owner's side. To go from here to "confirmation" that SteelCity "isn't as crazy as everyone wants to believe" is ludicrous.

He is bat#### crazy.

 
'roarlions said:
More from Deadspin, which was posted in another thread:http://deadspin.com/5821386/audited-financials-operating-profit-for-nfl-ventures-lp-rose-from-999-million-to-13-billion-last-yearLast week, we posted audited financials for the NFL league office, which administers the G-3 stadium fund, offering low-interest loans to teams that are building stadiums. The money ran dry in 2007 after a decade-long stadium-building boom, and the case could be made that the real dispute at the heart of the lockout lay between the owners who'd exploited the G-3 program to build bright new revenue-generating stadiums and those who hadn't and now couldn't because their peers had burned through the fund. In this light, the lockout looks like something else entirely — less a battle between management and labor and more a proxy war in which the owners, unwilling to fight each other for money, decided to extract it from the players instead.------------More confirmation that what SteelCity has been saying isn't as crazy as everyone wants to believe?
Click to expand...
The goal for business owners is to maximize profits. Even without the internal dispute over the stadium fund, I believe the owners would have collectively took the same actions to squeeze additional profits out of the players through a new CBA. The G-3 fund may have been a factor in the big picture but the current situation is not directly the result of the G-3 fund.
 
'roarlions said:
More from Deadspin, which was posted in another thread:http://deadspin.com/5821386/audited-financials-operating-profit-for-nfl-ventures-lp-rose-from-999-million-to-13-billion-last-yearLast week, we posted audited financials for the NFL league office, which administers the G-3 stadium fund, offering low-interest loans to teams that are building stadiums. The money ran dry in 2007 after a decade-long stadium-building boom, and the case could be made that the real dispute at the heart of the lockout lay between the owners who'd exploited the G-3 program to build bright new revenue-generating stadiums and those who hadn't and now couldn't because their peers had burned through the fund. In this light, the lockout looks like something else entirely — less a battle between management and labor and more a proxy war in which the owners, unwilling to fight each other for money, decided to extract it from the players instead.------------More confirmation that what SteelCity has been saying isn't as crazy as everyone wants to believe?
Click to expand...
This is something I consider to be a dubious leap of logic unless they know things beyond what they actually shared.What do we know factually? That the G-3 funds were used up in 2007. That's it. The implication is made that some owners exploited the program, but where is there any evidence that the fund was "exploited" instead of say, used for what it was intended and in the fashion intended.From the information they've provided, there's no evidence that supports their conclusion. It's just as possible that the NFL and NFLPA underestimated how many stadiums would go and so did not fund the program sufficiently, but nothing was exploited.Even if you support their leap that the G-3 was exploited, there is still then a second leap that there is contention over the G-3 funding that would fuel owners trying to extra money from players that they aren't willing to fight each other for.I remember the last CBA extension, when there definitely was contention between owners about revenue sharing... and there were numerous reports at the time that because of that, the players were able to pick up a lot of big gains that the owners were not happy with but conceded to at the time because of the deadline of the extension. I still haven't seen anything in what has transpired that suggests that isn't at the root of the disparity between what the owners and players wanted in the monetary split.
 
'roarlions said:
More from Deadspin, which was posted in another thread:http://deadspin.com/5821386/audited-financials-operating-profit-for-nfl-ventures-lp-rose-from-999-million-to-13-billion-last-yearLast week, we posted audited financials for the NFL league office, which administers the G-3 stadium fund, offering low-interest loans to teams that are building stadiums. The money ran dry in 2007 after a decade-long stadium-building boom, and the case could be made that the real dispute at the heart of the lockout lay between the owners who'd exploited the G-3 program to build bright new revenue-generating stadiums and those who hadn't and now couldn't because their peers had burned through the fund. In this light, the lockout looks like something else entirely — less a battle between management and labor and more a proxy war in which the owners, unwilling to fight each other for money, decided to extract it from the players instead.------------More confirmation that what SteelCity has been saying isn't as crazy as everyone wants to believe?
Click to expand...
I don't see what the big revelation is here. The main issue from day one was the owners' wanting an extra $1B "off the top" to cover increased expenses like stadium building.
 
For whatever it's worth Jeremy Shockey has said it will all be over thursday and he'll report to carolina this weekend.

That's the same timeline ESPN is reporting: they will finalize it tuesday, the players will approve it wednesday, the owners will ratify it thursday and friday start the three days teams get to try to resign their own players. Monday, the 25th, "real" free agency begins.

Also the salary cap floor is a 89 - 99 plan for this year and next year. That means teams have to spend at least 89% of their money on the cap but the league overall has to average spending 99% on the cap. So if a few teams just spend 89% the rest of the league has to take up the slack to bring the league average up to 99%. BTW the salary cap for this year is $120 million. In 2013 the salary cap floor for teams rises to 95%.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
'FTRWRTR said:
For whatever it's worth Jeremy Shockey has said it will all be over thursday and he'll report to carolina this weekend.That's the same timeline ESPN is reporting: they will finalize it tuesday, the players will approve it wednesday, the owners will ratify it thursday and friday start the three days teams get to try to resign their own players. Monday, the 25th, "real" free agency begins.Also the salary cap floor is a 89 - 99 plan for this year and next year. That means teams have to spend at least 89% of their money on the cap but the league overall has to average spending 99% on the cap. So if a few teams just spend 89% the rest of the league has to take up the slack to bring the league average up to 99%. BTW the salary cap for this year is $120 million. In 2013 the salary cap floor for teams rises to 95%.
Click to expand...
Requiring a 99% average pretty much means every team has to spend 98-100% of the cap. Just one team spending down to 89% requires 10 other teams spending at 100% for the average to get back to 99. What am I missing here? I've reread this about 10 times and I don't see how that's possible unless I'm completely misunderstanding some aspect of it?
 
'GregR said:
Requiring a 99% average pretty much means every team has to spend 98-100% of the cap. Just one team spending down to 89% requires 10 other teams spending at 100% for the average to get back to 99. What am I missing here? I've reread this about 10 times and I don't see how that's possible unless I'm completely misunderstanding some aspect of it?
Click to expand...
Had the same thought. Three teams at 89% means the other 29 have to max out. And how do they decide who's allowed to underspend?
 
'wdcrob said:
'GregR said:
Requiring a 99% average pretty much means every team has to spend 98-100% of the cap. Just one team spending down to 89% requires 10 other teams spending at 100% for the average to get back to 99. What am I missing here? I've reread this about 10 times and I don't see how that's possible unless I'm completely misunderstanding some aspect of it?
Click to expand...
Had the same thought. Three teams at 89% means the other 29 have to max out. And how do they decide who's allowed to underspend?
Click to expand...
Only thing I can think of is that they are not talking about 89% and 99% of the same quantity/number. The articles specifically mention 99% of the guaranteed cash that year. So maybe the 89% is not actual cash paid that year, but is instead the "cap figure" that we've had in the past that includes prorating of signing bonuses and the like? Thought I thought that accounting cap figure was going away to be replaced by actual cash spent.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
'roarlions said:
More from Deadspin, which was posted in another thread:

http://deadspin.com/5821386/audited-financials-operating-profit-for-nfl-ventures-lp-rose-from-999-million-to-13-billion-last-year
Click to expand...
From that article:
In this light, the lockout looks like something else entirely — less a battle between management and labor and more a proxy war in which the owners, unwilling to fight each other for money, decided to extract it from the players instead.
Click to expand...
From this post:
'steelcitysledgehammers said:
Again, this entire situation was brought about because the owners cannot agree on how to run their business.

It has always been about revenue sharing between owners. Don't you find it odd that information has "leaked" from the negotiations concerning the players/owners split, rookie wages, contract length, etc, but there hasn't been a word breathed about revenue sharing?

The media (Andrew Brandt) finally broached the subject yesterday in his blog.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
From the Andrew Brandt article:
Thus, while the two sides work on revenue sharing among the Owners and Players, revenue sharing among the Owners – a problem lying beneath the surface of this two-year dispute – lies dormant.
Click to expand...
 
Forgive me as I haven't read this entire thread and I'm sure it's addressed somewhere in here but ... one of the things not mentioned on the checklist of issues remaining to be resolved is the 18 game season. I'm guessing that this died an early death some time ago but I can't ever recall hearing about it. Is it pretty safe to assume that the shrinking of preseason games and the expansion of the regular season is not going to happen?

If this has been obvious to everyone but me I'll go back to burying my head in the sand.

 
'Mr Rodgers neighborhood said:
Jason Wilde and PFT have tweeted that Packers officials have told players to show up on Saturday.

jasonjwilde Jason Wilde

100 percent true. Just confirmed with two club sources. RT @ProFootballTalk: Packers telling players to show up Sat. http://wp.me/p14QSB-AqZ
Click to expand...
Well, looks like the Packers are going to get a huge punishment from Goodell since no team has been given permission to contact players in any way.
 
'houndirish said:
Forgive me as I haven't read this entire thread and I'm sure it's addressed somewhere in here but ... one of the things not mentioned on the checklist of issues remaining to be resolved is the 18 game season. I'm guessing that this died an early death some time ago but I can't ever recall hearing about it. Is it pretty safe to assume that the shrinking of preseason games and the expansion of the regular season is not going to happen?If this has been obvious to everyone but me I'll go back to burying my head in the sand.
Click to expand...
Yes, the owners gave up the 18 game season as a concession long ago.
 
DeMaurice Smith, head of the former union, some time ago began calling ex-players and making them a promise: we will take care of you. We will correct the wrongs of the past. I promise. Repeatedly, Smith made these calls. To debilitated players. To desperate ones. To healthy ones. To the skeptical ones. The calls and visits persisted even when the response was angry.
Click to expand...
To say some former players didn't think Smith would back his words with action was an understatement. But this week, a funny thing happened. Smith's promises came to fruition. He proved truthful in a way that is vital, historic and groundbreaking.

This week, owners and players reached agreement on adding an additional $1 billion in benefits for retired players over the 10-year life of the collective bargaining agreement including pension increases of $620 million. The group of older retired players, the pre-1993 retired players, will benefit greatly from these increased monies.

When talking to current and former players over the past year, Smith spoke of doing the right thing by older retired players. He used phrases, I'm told, like moral obligation to generations of players past. While owners and Roger Goodell also deserve credit, this was an issue pushed by Smith and retired players. This was their fight and they finally won.
Click to expand...
link
 
Last edited by a moderator:
'fatness said:
DeMaurice Smith, head of the former union, some time ago began calling ex-players and making them a promise: we will take care of you. We will correct the wrongs of the past. I promise. Repeatedly, Smith made these calls. To debilitated players. To desperate ones. To healthy ones. To the skeptical ones. The calls and visits persisted even when the response was angry.
Click to expand...
To say some former players didn't think Smith would back his words with action was an understatement. But this week, a funny thing happened. Smith's promises came to fruition. He proved truthful in a way that is vital, historic and groundbreaking.

This week, owners and players reached agreement on adding an additional $1 billion in benefits for retired players over the 10-year life of the collective bargaining agreement including pension increases of $620 million. The group of older retired players, the pre-1993 retired players, will benefit greatly from these increased monies.

When talking to current and former players over the past year, Smith spoke of doing the right thing by older retired players. He used phrases, I'm told, like moral obligation to generations of players past. While owners and Roger Goodell also deserve credit, this was an issue pushed by Smith and retired players. This was their fight and they finally won.
Click to expand...
link
Click to expand...
While I think it's great that these players are getting some help, this is probably the issue that has bugged me the most. These players had a chance to divert more money into retirement benefits when they were negotiating former CBAs. To act now like they are somehow being "wronged" is just plain wrong. The owners, many of whom weren't owners when these players were playing, were under no obligation to increase the benefits. Instead of acting like they deserved this increase, the former players should be down on their knees thanking the current owners. There are no other companies that would do this.
 
'fatness said:
DeMaurice Smith, head of the former union, some time ago began calling ex-players and making them a promise: we will take care of you. We will correct the wrongs of the past. I promise. Repeatedly, Smith made these calls. To debilitated players. To desperate ones. To healthy ones. To the skeptical ones. The calls and visits persisted even when the response was angry.
Click to expand...
To say some former players didn't think Smith would back his words with action was an understatement. But this week, a funny thing happened. Smith's promises came to fruition. He proved truthful in a way that is vital, historic and groundbreaking.

This week, owners and players reached agreement on adding an additional $1 billion in benefits for retired players over the 10-year life of the collective bargaining agreement including pension increases of $620 million. The group of older retired players, the pre-1993 retired players, will benefit greatly from these increased monies.

When talking to current and former players over the past year, Smith spoke of doing the right thing by older retired players. He used phrases, I'm told, like moral obligation to generations of players past. While owners and Roger Goodell also deserve credit, this was an issue pushed by Smith and retired players. This was their fight and they finally won.
Click to expand...
link
Click to expand...
Well, since the owners are the ones footing a huge majority of the bill, I think they deserve the lion's share of the credit. In fact, I think the owners initially proposed about a 50/50 split of $1B in payments to retired players quite some time ago but the NFLPA balked at the players paying that much. So the owners ultimately stepped up and took on a much larger chunk of that money.
 
OK------

Everyone knows a deal is all set, the big issue now, are the plaintiffs are wanting to be selfish.

If this is not telling of who the big problem in all this was, I dont know what is.

The NFLPA and its lawyers are a joke, they really feel entitled don't they?

Bedard is now reporting Brees and Manning want to be exempt now too!

So Brees, Manning, Vjax, and Mankins think they are more important than the next ten years of labor peace and 1,896 other guys? I'm a huge Brees fan, but I lose more respect for this guy as the days go on.

This whole thing is pathetic.

 
According to shefter breed, manning, brady are ready to let this go. Vincent Jackson and Logan mankins are the two selfish tools you speak of.

'JuSt CuZ said:
OK------Everyone knows a deal is all set, the big issue now, are the plaintiffs are wanting to be selfish.If this is not telling of who the big problem in all this was, I dont know what is.The NFLPA and its lawyers are a joke, they really feel entitled don't they?Bedard is now reporting Brees and Manning want to be exempt now too!So Brees, Manning, Vjax, and Mankins think they are more important than the next ten years of labor peace and 1,896 other guys? I'm a huge Brees fan, but I lose more respect for this guy as the days go on.This whole thing is pathetic.
Click to expand...
 
'GroveDiesel said:
'fatness said:
DeMaurice Smith, head of the former union, some time ago began calling ex-players and making them a promise: we will take care of you. We will correct the wrongs of the past. I promise. Repeatedly, Smith made these calls. To debilitated players. To desperate ones. To healthy ones. To the skeptical ones. The calls and visits persisted even when the response was angry.
Click to expand...
To say some former players didn't think Smith would back his words with action was an understatement. But this week, a funny thing happened. Smith's promises came to fruition. He proved truthful in a way that is vital, historic and groundbreaking.

This week, owners and players reached agreement on adding an additional $1 billion in benefits for retired players over the 10-year life of the collective bargaining agreement including pension increases of $620 million. The group of older retired players, the pre-1993 retired players, will benefit greatly from these increased monies.

When talking to current and former players over the past year, Smith spoke of doing the right thing by older retired players. He used phrases, I'm told, like moral obligation to generations of players past. While owners and Roger Goodell also deserve credit, this was an issue pushed by Smith and retired players. This was their fight and they finally won.
Click to expand...
link
Click to expand...
Well, since the owners are the ones footing a huge majority of the bill, I think they deserve the lion's share of the credit. In fact, I think the owners initially proposed about a 50/50 split of $1B in payments to retired players quite some time ago but the NFLPA balked at the players paying that much. So the owners ultimately stepped up and took on a much larger chunk of that money.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I wouldn't break any shoulders patting myself on the back, if I were the players here. This is and has always been their issue, and it's one they have neglected forever, including the last CBA. It's a good thing. Both sides should be credited for finally making it happen. But, to portray these guys as saints now that it's happened is pretty pathetic. I'm just glad they are no longer neglecting the pre-93ers like they have all along.
 
'JHuber77 said:
Manning and Brees asking for franchise exemption for the rest of their careers. Vincent Jackson asking for 10 mil for last season. Greedy fools.

:thumbdown:

http://profootballta...ttlement-terms/
Click to expand...
I heard an attorney (didn't catch his name) on Sirius last night talking about this issue. Basically, he said since it's a class action suit, it's up to the lawyers representing the players to decide what is best for the entire class. If individuals weren't happy with that decision, they could drop out of the class and file individually. So he was essentially saying the guys whose names are in the title of the suit don't really have much say in the matter.Can any lawyers here confirm this?

 
'Hoosier16 said:
'JHuber77 said:
Manning and Brees asking for franchise exemption for the rest of their careers. Vincent Jackson asking for 10 mil for last season. Greedy fools.

:thumbdown:

http://profootballta...ttlement-terms/
Click to expand...
I heard an attorney (didn't catch his name) on Sirius last night talking about this issue. Basically, he said since it's a class action suit, it's up to the lawyers representing the players to decide what is best for the entire class. If individuals weren't happy with that decision, they could drop out of the class and file individually. So he was essentially saying the guys whose names are in the title of the suit don't really have much say in the matter.Can any lawyers here confirm this?
Click to expand...
Named people in this type of suit usually get some form of compensation.
 
'GroveDiesel said:
'JHuber77 said:
Manning and Brees asking for franchise exemption for the rest of their careers. Vincent Jackson asking for 10 mil for last season. Greedy fools. :thumbdown: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/19/peyton-manning-and-drew-brees-request-settlement-terms/
Click to expand...
Hmmm, that would immediately make Manning a free agent.And the Bills are going to have to spend a LOT of money to make it up to the new cap floor... :excited:
Click to expand...
They could screw it up by just resigning their whole team to bigger contracts... ;)
 
Vikings punter, Chris Kluwe, posted this to his Twitter page:

“Sigh, and once again greed is the operative byword. Congrats Brees, Manning, Mankins, and Jackson for being ‘that guy’. #douchebags.“

I am now a fan of punters!

 
I'm not sure I see the big issue here. The last time this happened, each player named in the suit were given lifetime exemptions from the franchise tag.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

TheWinz
  • Sticky
2025 FBG Subscriber Contest
46 47 48
Replies
2K
Views
53K
TheWinz
TheWinz
GregR
NFL rules changes for 2025: touchback to 35, overtime change, replay and more
Replies
1
Views
642
rockaction
rockaction
B
Bryce Oliver Titans WR
Replies
30
Views
1K
Bri
B

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top