Labor Dispute Master Thread (1 Viewer)

[JuSt CuZ]

A buddy of mine, who I trust enough to come here and use his info, said the 49ers are telling their medical team to get ready to begin examining players on Sunday.

I like the sound of that!

ETA: Link of other good signs going on! http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/19/tuesday-in-optimistic-labor-signs/

 

[GregR_2]

John McClain (Texans beat writer) tweet:

McClain_on_NFL John McClain

Teams have started calling agents to verify numbers for when they get the go-ahead.

 

[fruity pebbles]

Mankins and Jackson got royally screwed last year by the NFL and their respective teams. I dont blame them.

 

[Hoosier16]

Mankins and Jackson got royally screwed last year by the NFL and their respective teams. I dont blame them.

I don't know about Mankins but Jackson didn't get any more screwed than any of the other hundred 5-year FAs. Had he not kept drinking and driving, he likely would have had a long term deal.

 

[GroveDiesel]

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.

Sure, and last time the players gained a TON because of those guys. This time, the players didn't really gain a whole lot. Why should those guys get special stuff just because they put their names on the lawsuit that represented EVERYONE?

 

[BigJim®]

Mankins and Jackson got royally screwed last year by the NFL and their respective teams. I dont blame them.

How so? They received the tags negotiated under that CBA, refused to play ball, and the teams utilized the recourse they had negotiated with the player union. I don't see how that is being royally screwed. Just play under the rules; and don't protest unless you are willing to incur the consequences. This league would be utter chaos if every player could simply reject the CBA rules and hold out. What do you suggest be repercussions for that?

 

[GregR_2]

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.

Sure, and last time the players gained a TON because of those guys. This time, the players didn't really gain a whole lot. Why should those guys get special stuff just because they put their names on the lawsuit that represented EVERYONE?

Not to mention that last time, I don't believe the NFL season was held up by a settlement. In this case, these players are potentially taking money away from all the other players if preseason games are missed and the revenue from them doesn't go into the salary cap.

 

[fatness]

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.

Since De Smith is the one who kept pushing this issue during these negotiations, I think he gets the lion's share of the credit.

 

[fatness]

The Redskins are putting up the practice tents at Redskin Park.

Lawyers are working tonight to have a completed draft of the new agreement to present to the players tomorrow.

It's starting to smell like football.

 

[Ksquared]

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.

Since De Smith is the one who kept pushing this issue during these negotiations, I think he gets the lion's share of the credit.

That is completely rewriting history. I have listened to atleast six different veterans that are the leaders of the many retired football player groups. Only one had anything positive to say about Smith in this (as of mid June) and several others commented how the NFLPA and Smith would completely blow them off. Smith is a politician and is doing a great job of "look at me, am I not a great guy" looking after the retired players, to keep you from looking at his history in this area until the last 3-4 weeks. I know you hate Goodell, but he has pushed this area in the negotiations for over a year.

 

[GregR_2]

ESPN article from a month ago

George Martin spent the weekend catching up with his former New York Giants teammates from the 1986 Super Bowl team.

But he also had his current job on his mind as well, as he checked on how many of his old teammates are feeling these days. Martin is the president of the NFL Alumni and he is frustrated that he has not been able to sit down with DeMaurice Smith, executive director of the decertified NFL Players Association, to talk about issues and concerns relating to retired players.

"There's strength in unity," Martin told reporters at the 25th anniversary celebration of the 1986 Giants Super Bowl team at the Meadowlands Expo Center on Sunday. "Apparently Mr. DeMaurice Smith feels that there isn't. I think it's an absolute shame when you have a person with my accomplishments and my commitment to not only active players but retired players, the fact that we can't sit down and at least discuss not only our similarities but our differences if there are any. I think that's a travesty."

Martin says he has reached out to Smith "on countless occasions to sit down."

"It's been either no response or no," Martin said. "That's really unacceptable. He has a very difficult challenge, I understand. But there should not be any prohibitions why we shouldn't sit down and talk about some of the things we have in common."

Martin was asked what degree of confidence he has concerning Smith having the best interests of NFL retired players in mind.

"I would have to say it is questionable at this point," Martin said. "When you do not have a conversation at this point with the recognized leader of NFL Alumni, how can you say you have the best interest of retired players at heart when you won't even sit down and talk to their leadership. That to me flies in the face of rationale."

 

[GregR_2]

New York Times article 2 weeks ago, about the lawsuit filed by the retired players:

The league has offered $320 million outside the salary cap — from the total revenue pool the league would contribute that would not come out of current players’ designated annual revenue share — and $320 million inside the salary cap. That would be a total of $640 million for the 10-year deal, or about $64 million a year toward future retiree benefits.

Retired players are angry with current players and the league. The figures the league proposed are less than what advisers to retired players say is necessary to pay for appropriate benefits and pension adjustments; they say it would take closer to $200 million to $300 million a year just to bring the myriad benefits programs up to where they should be. (The complaint notes that as of last December, only 3,154 former players received pension benefits, for an annual outlay of $63.7 million.)

And the retirees are furious that current players want to keep for themselves the money the league is offering under the cap.

Not saying it's all one side or another that took care of the retired players, but what we've heard throughout this doesn't really fit with De Smith being the hero that article was making him out to be.

 

[fruity pebbles]

Mankins and Jackson got royally screwed last year by the NFL and their respective teams. I dont blame them.

How so? They received the tags negotiated under that CBA, refused to play ball, and the teams utilized the recourse they had negotiated with the player union. I don't see how that is being royally screwed. Just play under the rules; and don't protest unless you are willing to incur the consequences. This league would be utter chaos if every player could simply reject the CBA rules and hold out. What do you suggest be repercussions for that?

They received tags because of a lack of a CBA. Under any other normal year, they both would have been free agents or franchise tagged. Just because their respective teams decided to play hardball by the rules, so can they. I don't hold anything against either.

 

[TheDirtyWord]

I can't wait until this thread is on page 2.

 

[daveR]

Mankins and Jackson got royally screwed last year by the NFL and their respective teams. I dont blame them.

How so? They received the tags negotiated under that CBA, refused to play ball, and the teams utilized the recourse they had negotiated with the player union. I don't see how that is being royally screwed. Just play under the rules; and don't protest unless you are willing to incur the consequences. This league would be utter chaos if every player could simply reject the CBA rules and hold out. What do you suggest be repercussions for that?

They received tags because of a lack of a CBA. Under any other normal year, they both would have been free agents or franchise tagged. Just because their respective teams decided to play hardball by the rules, so can they. I don't hold anything against either.

NOT a lack of CBA. These rules were provided for in the previous agreement which was in place in 2010.

 

[daveR]

I can't wait until this thread is on page 2.

Me too!

 

[JuSt CuZ]

The CBA Document is done according to Breer, it is ready to go to the NFLPA executive committee and the NFL's labor committee tomorrow for a vote, then owners on Thursday as reported.

I'm so excited, my pants are getting tighter, get this ratified already. lol

 

[fatness]

That is completely rewriting history. I have listened to atleast six different veterans that are the leaders of the many retired football player groups. Only one had anything positive to say about Smith in this (as of mid June) and several others commented how the NFLPA and Smith would completely blow them off.

That is completely misunderstanding history. "Mid-June" was before the agreement was reached regarding the retired players and the $$$ set aside for them.

 

[fatness]

ESPN article from a month ago

New York Times article 2 weeks ago, about the lawsuit filed by the retired players:

So what? What is it about the chronology of events that you don't understand? Those articles were before the current agreement was reached.

 

[GroveDiesel]

ESPN article from a month ago

New York Times article 2 weeks ago, about the lawsuit filed by the retired players:

So what? What is it about the chronology of events that you don't understand? Those articles were before the current agreement was reached.

You're not even making any sense here. Just stop. Seriously. De Smith was NOT the guy pushing for the retired players the whole time. Any article or anyone saying otherwise is just making stuff up out of whole cloth as is evidenced by many many statements from the former players throughout the entire process.

 

[JuSt CuZ]

ESPN article from a month ago

New York Times article 2 weeks ago, about the lawsuit filed by the retired players:

So what? What is it about the chronology of events that you don't understand? Those articles were before the current agreement was reached.

You're not even making any sense here. Just stop. Seriously. De Smith was NOT the guy pushing for the retired players the whole time. Any article or anyone saying otherwise is just making stuff up out of whole cloth as is evidenced by many many statements from the former players throughout the entire process.

Don't believe everything the media tells you. I mean the CBA document is done, and Mike and Mike are still talking about Mankins holding up the deal, after they already said they would not seek special treatment. Its about the story, not the information.

 

[Ksquared]

Not to shift directions of this thread too much, but back in the early parts of this thread I commented one of the reasons the owners were concerned about future profits was their potential liability of past players concussion symptoms. Well the link below I believe to be just the first of potentially hundreds of these lawsuits. I could see the settlements in the billions in the end since pain and suffering as well as care of those that have dementia, alzheimers, and other brain related disabling maladies is very costly.

Concussion Lawsuit

 

[Mello]

Not to shift directions of this thread too much, but back in the early parts of this thread I commented one of the reasons the owners were concerned about future profits was their potential liability of past players concussion symptoms. Well the link below I believe to be just the first of potentially hundreds of these lawsuits. I could see the settlements in the billions in the end since pain and suffering as well as care of those that have dementia, alzheimers, and other brain related disabling maladies is very costly.

Concussion Lawsuit

Yeah, our legal system is a joke. It's common sense that a sport where you repeatedly hit each other may cause long term problems. The players in the past should have worried about this when they were negotiating their contracts.

 

[UnknownCoach]

Not to shift directions of this thread too much, but back in the early parts of this thread I commented one of the reasons the owners were concerned about future profits was their potential liability of past players concussion symptoms. Well the link below I believe to be just the first of potentially hundreds of these lawsuits. I could see the settlements in the billions in the end since pain and suffering as well as care of those that have dementia, alzheimers, and other brain related disabling maladies is very costly.

Concussion Lawsuit

Bad timeing on the lawsuit. Could have waited a few more days. Hope it doesnt ruin the agreement.

 

[BigJim®]

Mankins and Jackson got royally screwed last year by the NFL and their respective teams. I dont blame them.

How so? They received the tags negotiated under that CBA, refused to play ball, and the teams utilized the recourse they had negotiated with the player union. I don't see how that is being royally screwed. Just play under the rules; and don't protest unless you are willing to incur the consequences. This league would be utter chaos if every player could simply reject the CBA rules and hold out. What do you suggest be repercussions for that?

They received tags because of a lack of a CBA. Under any other normal year, they both would have been free agents or franchise tagged. Just because their respective teams decided to play hardball by the rules, so can they. I don't hold anything against either.

Still missing the royally screwed part. Teams followed 2010 rules which had been agreed upon with the player union under the prior CBA. Players played hardball (if you want to call not showing up at all hardball), teams played hardball right back. Regardless of the timing, the players could have signed franchise tags and received a boatload of cash as franchise players, but chose to follow bad advice. I don't see how anyone can feel bad for them, other than re: their stupidity in losing a top 5 salary pay period in the prime of their careers.

 

[zed2283]

Not to shift directions of this thread too much, but back in the early parts of this thread I commented one of the reasons the owners were concerned about future profits was their potential liability of past players concussion symptoms. Well the link below I believe to be just the first of potentially hundreds of these lawsuits. I could see the settlements in the billions in the end since pain and suffering as well as care of those that have dementia, alzheimers, and other brain related disabling maladies is very costly.

Concussion Lawsuit

"CTE is a degenerative brain condition that has been linked to the deaths of several former NFL players, including former Chicago Bear Dave Duerson and former Cincinnati Bengal Chris Henry."

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Still missing the royally screwed part. Teams followed 2010 rules which had been agreed upon with the player union under the prior CBA. Players played hardball (if you want to call not showing up at all hardball), teams played hardball right back. Regardless of the timing, the players could have signed franchise tags and received a boatload of cash as franchise players, but chose to follow bad advice. I don't see how anyone can feel bad for them, other than re: their stupidity in losing a top 5 salary pay period in the prime of their careers.

They were restricted free agents. They were not franchised. Vincent Jackson was offered about $3.3 million, not top five at his position.To say he was screwed is contentious (and subjective). But he was at least unlucky. His contract happened to expire right when restrictions on free agency were temporarily extended.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

Still missing the royally screwed part. Teams followed 2010 rules which had been agreed upon with the player union under the prior CBA. Players played hardball (if you want to call not showing up at all hardball), teams played hardball right back. Regardless of the timing, the players could have signed franchise tags and received a boatload of cash as franchise players, but chose to follow bad advice. I don't see how anyone can feel bad for them, other than re: their stupidity in losing a top 5 salary pay period in the prime of their careers.

They were restricted free agents. They were not franchised. Vincent Jackson was offered about $3.3 million, not top five at his position.To say he was screwed is contentious (and subjective). But he was at least unlucky. His contract happened to expire right when restrictions on free agency were temporarily extended.

He was unlucky. Not as unlucky as Cam Newton. And not as unlucky as the non-football playing college graduates last year who are entering into a piss poor labor market...but yes, his timing was unfortunate. None of which entitles him to special treatment or even sympathy (not suggesting MT was suggesting that it did)

 

[BigJim®]

Still missing the royally screwed part. Teams followed 2010 rules which had been agreed upon with the player union under the prior CBA. Players played hardball (if you want to call not showing up at all hardball), teams played hardball right back. Regardless of the timing, the players could have signed franchise tags and received a boatload of cash as franchise players, but chose to follow bad advice. I don't see how anyone can feel bad for them, other than re: their stupidity in losing a top 5 salary pay period in the prime of their careers.

They were restricted free agents. They were not franchised. Vincent Jackson was offered about $3.3 million, not top five at his position.To say he was screwed is contentious (and subjective). But he was at least unlucky. His contract happened to expire right when restrictions on free agency were temporarily extended.

Thanks for correcting. I agree the timing was not great for 2010 players, but I'm hard pressed to see a way to depict that situation as them being royally screwed. By fate? Ok, but not by teams operating under 2010 CBA.

 

[Sidewinder16]

Looks like players aren't voting today. Jason LaCanfora tweets:

Many player reps leaving DC; still some here. No vote done today, a lot of "temperature taking." Could eventually do a conference call ...

 

[mrip541]

Not to shift directions of this thread too much, but back in the early parts of this thread I commented one of the reasons the owners were concerned about future profits was their potential liability of past players concussion symptoms. Well the link below I believe to be just the first of potentially hundreds of these lawsuits. I could see the settlements in the billions in the end since pain and suffering as well as care of those that have dementia, alzheimers, and other brain related disabling maladies is very costly.

Concussion Lawsuit

"CTE is a degenerative brain condition that has been linked to the deaths of several former NFL players, including former Chicago Bear Dave Duerson and former Cincinnati Bengal Chris Henry."

Reports said his CTE may have made him unstable. As in it made him crazy enough to jump from a moving vehicle.

 

[Cripster]

Looks like players aren't voting today. Jason LaCanfora tweets:

Many player reps leaving DC; still some here. No vote done today, a lot of "temperature taking." Could eventually do a conference call ...

If the players dont vote, will the owners vote. My guess is no. Owners may not sign off on revenue sharing if a preseason week lost.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

He was unlucky. Not as unlucky as Cam Newton. And not as unlucky as the non-football playing college graduates last year who are entering into a piss poor labor market...but yes, his timing was unfortunate. None of which entitles him to special treatment or even sympathy (not suggesting MT was suggesting that it did)

Maurile did a good job awhile back explaining how what happened to VJax was a result of the CBA expiration. I don't think it's ever a good idea to put the screws to someone just because you can - but AJ Smith took advantage of the rules and you can't really complain about it. Fair enough.Having said... no one should complain about VJax getting his by playing hardball if he were able to do it. Two sides of the same coin.

 

[Fire the Fat Man]

This is getting ridiculous. My patience is running on fumes

 

[Novice2]

Players don't sign. If the Owners sign and players don't everyone should see who is to blame if there is no football or delayed football.

 

[The Kerminator]

PFW: Players conditionally vote on settlement but not CBA

By PFW staff

Player representatives voted to forward the Brady antitrust settlement to the plaintiffs, but did not vote to approve a new Collective Bargaining Agreement on Wednesday, according to multiple reports.

Sports Illustrated's Jim Trotter first reported that the players conditionally voted the settlement to the plaintiffs, "pending resolution of some outstanding issues." According to Trotter, one of the issues may be the $320 million that players reportedly claim to have lost in benefits in the 2010 league year, which was played without a salary cap.

A source told FoxSports.com's Alex Marvez that the player reps need to review the CBA material before they can vote on it.

Earlier Wednesday, PFW's Eric Edholm reported there was some tension between player reps and NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith on a conference call.

The league's labor committee met in Atlanta Wednesday to go over the details of a new labor agreement. All 32 owners are set to meet in Atlanta on Thursday. If the players ratify a new CBA early in the day, the owners conceivably could approve later on Thursday.

The way we see it

There was a lot of confusion as player reps exited the NFLPA offices in Washington D.C. Wednesday's events made it somewhat apparent that the players who have not been involved in negotiations did not have a good handle on what will be in a new CBA, and they need time to consume the large document.

The timeline is still viable in terms of ending the lockout late Thursday with a vote from the owners. The hope would be that the players can ratify a new CBA early in the day to pave the way for the owners.

 

[The Kerminator]

Communication breakdown hurt negotiations on Wednesday

Communication breakdown hurt NFLPA progress Wednesday

By Eric Edholm

Updated at 6:56 p.m. ET on Wednesday, July 20

The NFLPA held a conference call on Wednesday with all of its player reps who were not in Washington, D.C. to discuss a vote on a settlement of the antitrust lawsuit and the open TV money court case, and multiple sources told PFW that there was some tension on the call over the issues.

The NFLPA did not vote on the CBA on Wednesday, multiple media outlets reported, but it did conditionally vote to forward a settlement agreement to the plantiffs in the Brady antitrust case, according to multiple reports.

Some of the player reps — who have been fed precious little information from the former union through key parts of recent negotiations — were briefed on the settlement details, and their concerns over certain items led to some elevated voices between executive director DeMaurice Smith and a few of the reps.

"Tensions are high," one player rep told PFW, "but things quickly passed (on the call)."

One of the technical problems was that it was at times difficult for players to hear what was being said on the conference call because of so many people on it. Some reps were with NFLPA leaders in Washington D.C. but many were in their respective home cities.

But another impediment, player sources told PFW, is that the NFLPA's secrecy in negotiations and failure to disseminate information to the player reps caused for some confusion in the voluminous settlement terms that were being presented and debated on the call.

Some of the players who have been reported to have left D.C. because of previously made travel plans may already have cast their votes for their respective teams. Another conference call was scheduled at one point, but sources said it was canceled because information was leaked to the media immediately following the first one.

"To be clear, I am not sure what is happening," a player said Wednesday afternoon. "It's a crazy time for everyone."

 

[GroveDiesel]

Players don't sign. If the Owners sign and players don't everyone should see who is to blame if there is no football or delayed football.

From what I read, the owners won't sign until the players do because until the players sign and re-form the NFLPA as the players' union, the owners don't technically have anyone to agree with.

 

[fatness]

Players don't sign. If the Owners sign and players don't everyone should see who is to blame if there is no football or delayed football.

Right, it had nothing to do with the owners locking the players out, and not starting seriously negotiating until a few weeks ago when the players didn't "fold" like the NFL lawyers promised they would.

 

[fatness]

De Smith was NOT the guy pushing for the retired players the whole time. Any article or anyone saying otherwise is just making stuff up out of whole cloth as is evidenced by many many statements from the former players throughout the entire process.

Who pushed for the unexpectedly-large amount of money for retired players during the current negotiations? I'm all ears.

 

[GroveDiesel]

De Smith was NOT the guy pushing for the retired players the whole time. Any article or anyone saying otherwise is just making stuff up out of whole cloth as is evidenced by many many statements from the former players throughout the entire process.

Who pushed for the unexpectedly-large amount of money for retired players during the current negotiations? I'm all ears.

Was that before or after the former players sued them to get included in the discussions?

 

[Ksquared]

De Smith was NOT the guy pushing for the retired players the whole time. Any article or anyone saying otherwise is just making stuff up out of whole cloth as is evidenced by many many statements from the former players throughout the entire process.

Who pushed for the unexpectedly-large amount of money for retired players during the current negotiations? I'm all ears.

Goodell. The amount was originally 1 billion that was put out there several months ago. Your dislike for the commissioner and owner's in general are blinding you on just about any topic related to the labor talks. The players are equally guilty in this whole process, not just the owners.

 

[Ksquared]

De Smith was NOT the guy pushing for the retired players the whole time. Any article or anyone saying otherwise is just making stuff up out of whole cloth as is evidenced by many many statements from the former players throughout the entire process.

Who pushed for the unexpectedly-large amount of money for retired players during the current negotiations? I'm all ears.

Was that before or after the former players sued them to get included in the discussions?

 

[The Kerminator]

Players don't sign. If the Owners sign and players don't everyone should see who is to blame if there is no football or delayed football.

From what I read, the owners won't sign until the players do because until the players sign and re-form the NFLPA as the players' union, the owners don't technically have anyone to agree with.

Owners can vote before players

Pash: Owners can vote before players

Posted July 20, 2011 @ 7:40 p.m. ET

By PFW staff

League counsel Jeff Pash spoke to reporters in Atlanta on Wednesday and said that the owners could vote to approve a new Collective Bargaining Agreement even if the players have not.

The players conditionally voted to settle the Brady antitrust case, but have not voted to ratify a new CBA. But Pash verified the league can move forward with their vote regardless of where the players stand.

The league's labor committee met for more than five hours and will be joined by the rest of the league's owners on Thursday.

Pash was asked about the one game in jeopardy of being canceled, the Aug. 7 Hall of Fame game between the Bears and Rams. Pash said: "It's getting pretty tight. It would be pretty challenging."

Pash added that the antitrust issues are settled as far as the owners are concerned. He still expects a vote on the CBA on Thursday.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Communication breakdown hurt negotiations on Wednesday

Communication breakdown hurt NFLPA progress Wednesday

By Eric Edholm

Updated at 6:56 p.m. ET on Wednesday, July 20

The NFLPA held a conference call on Wednesday with all of its player reps who were not in Washington, D.C. to discuss a vote on a settlement of the antitrust lawsuit and the open TV money court case, and multiple sources told PFW that there was some tension on the call over the issues.

The NFLPA did not vote on the CBA on Wednesday, multiple media outlets reported, but it did conditionally vote to forward a settlement agreement to the plantiffs in the Brady antitrust case, according to multiple reports.

Some of the player reps — who have been fed precious little information from the former union through key parts of recent negotiations — were briefed on the settlement details, and their concerns over certain items led to some elevated voices between executive director DeMaurice Smith and a few of the reps.

"Tensions are high," one player rep told PFW, "but things quickly passed (on the call)."

One of the technical problems was that it was at times difficult for players to hear what was being said on the conference call because of so many people on it. Some reps were with NFLPA leaders in Washington D.C. but many were in their respective home cities.

But another impediment, player sources told PFW, is that the NFLPA's secrecy in negotiations and failure to disseminate information to the player reps caused for some confusion in the voluminous settlement terms that were being presented and debated on the call.

Some of the players who have been reported to have left D.C. because of previously made travel plans may already have cast their votes for their respective teams. Another conference call was scheduled at one point, but sources said it was canceled because information was leaked to the media immediately following the first one.

"To be clear, I am not sure what is happening," a player said Wednesday afternoon. "It's a crazy time for everyone."

Communication breakdown, drives me insaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnnneeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Hoosier16]

Communication breakdown hurt negotiations on Wednesday

Communication breakdown hurt NFLPA progress Wednesday

By Eric Edholm

Updated at 6:56 p.m. ET on Wednesday, July 20

The NFLPA held a conference call on Wednesday with all of its player reps who were not in Washington, D.C. to discuss a vote on a settlement of the antitrust lawsuit and the open TV money court case, and multiple sources told PFW that there was some tension on the call over the issues.

The NFLPA did not vote on the CBA on Wednesday, multiple media outlets reported, but it did conditionally vote to forward a settlement agreement to the plantiffs in the Brady antitrust case, according to multiple reports.

Some of the player reps — who have been fed precious little information from the former union through key parts of recent negotiations — were briefed on the settlement details, and their concerns over certain items led to some elevated voices between executive director DeMaurice Smith and a few of the reps.

"Tensions are high," one player rep told PFW, "but things quickly passed (on the call)."

One of the technical problems was that it was at times difficult for players to hear what was being said on the conference call because of so many people on it. Some reps were with NFLPA leaders in Washington D.C. but many were in their respective home cities.

But another impediment, player sources told PFW, is that the NFLPA's secrecy in negotiations and failure to disseminate information to the player reps caused for some confusion in the voluminous settlement terms that were being presented and debated on the call.

Some of the players who have been reported to have left D.C. because of previously made travel plans may already have cast their votes for their respective teams. Another conference call was scheduled at one point, but sources said it was canceled because information was leaked to the media immediately following the first one.

"To be clear, I am not sure what is happening," a player said Wednesday afternoon. "It's a crazy time for everyone."

Communication breakdown, drives me insaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnnneeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I can't believe they weren't all in Washington D.C. Every one of those reps could have taken an early morning flight (or a late flight last night) and been there in person today. Do they not think this is somewhat important?

 

[JuSt CuZ]

I want to all of the greedy sob's involved in this mess!

...that is all!

 

[cobalt_27]

I want to all of the greedy sob's involved in this mess!...that is all!

Being a little greedy, yourself, don't you think?

 

[Hoosier16]

I was listening to NFL radio on the way to work this morning and Joe DeLamielleure was on. It sounds like the retired group will be filing another lawsuit today. They are unhappy with what they are getting. Basically, he was saying that under the proposed new deal, each player would be receiving $1000 more per month, i.e., if they were making $275, they now would get $1275. Apparently, they think they deserve more. When asked by Ross Tucker what would make them happy, he said they would be asking for 2.5% of the gross, half from the NFLPA and half from the owners. His main beef was with the NFLPA. He seemed to think the owners would be willing.

 

[Jason Wood]

I was listening to NFL radio on the way to work this morning and Joe DeLamielleure was on. It sounds like the retired group will be filing another lawsuit today. They are unhappy with what they are getting. Basically, he was saying that under the proposed new deal, each player would be receiving $1000 more per month, i.e., if they were making $275, they now would get $1275. Apparently, they think they deserve more. When asked by Ross Tucker what would make them happy, he said they would be asking for 2.5% of the gross, half from the NFLPA and half from the owners. His main beef was with the NFLPA. He seemed to think the owners would be willing.

Fair or not, I think the retired players have no place at the table at this point. They may need to take their own legal recourse (which they appear to be doing) and try to get something agreed to after the 10-year CBA is put into place by ownership and the NFLPA.