Labor Dispute Master Thread (1 Viewer)

[fatness]

Has anyone seen anything since late last night that suggests what's going to happen today?

The player reps are going to meet and go over the proposal from the league. It includes a lot of things previously-agreed-upon during negotiations, and some things that were not. My guess, which I suppose is just as good or bad as anyone's guess at this point, is that De Smith will get the players to agree with as much as possible of the owners proposal, and start a conversation with Goodell about the things the players won't agree to. The idea would be to get those details resolved as quickly as possible.If I had to guess, I'd guess there's a final deal by maybe Sunday night.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

they had a handshake agreement with D and the executive negotiating committee. The only revision was with the owners of revenue sharing. That's none of the players business. The players are either confused or they are the ones pulling the bait and switch here.

I'd say the revenue sharing has to do with the revenue sharing WITH the players. Otherwise there would be no reason for it to be in the CBA.

Yes and no. It is a supplement to the CBA, not actually part of it. It is an agreement among the 32 owners and ultimately it benefits the players. It is required mostly because of the hard cash salary floor.

 

[D.J.]

The four-months plus impasse that has engulfed the NFL isn’t over. The question now is how fast the players will react to what is essentially a 10-year, take-it-or-leave-it offer.

The league even added an enticement, promising to lift the lockout on Saturday and open the doors to training facilities to all players under contract if the NFLPA’s executive committee gave an initial approval advising the rest of the players to approve the deal when the NFLPA re-certifies as a union.

To put this in terms that most folks can understand: the NFL is like someone who is selling a home. The catch is the buyer doesn’t get to have the place inspected before he signs on the bottom line.

Jason Cole

why do they keep saying that the players cant "inspect" the document before voting? No one, expect the media, said the players had to vote last night. They can review the document last night and tkday and vote anytime today. The document has been negotiated for a month, they know almost everything in.it. It wont take long to see if there is something bew in it and then decide if it is acceptable. No one is truely rushing the players

 

[D.J.]

Has anyone seen anything since late last night that suggests what's going to happen today?

The player reps are going to meet and go over the proposal from the league. It includes a lot of things previously-agreed-upon during negotiations, and some things that were not. My guess, which I suppose is just as good or bad as anyone's guess at this point, is that De Smith will get the players to agree with as much as possible of the owners proposal, and start a conversation with Goodell about the things the players won't agree to. The idea would be to get those details resolved as quickly as possible.If I had to guess, I'd guess there's a final deal by maybe Sunday night.

Since the players have actually had the document to review, they have been much more calm and the mood is more optimistic. My bet is that the owners didnt actually add anything that the players will object to. If they did change.anything in a major way, the players would be screaming.about specifics this morning. They arent, so I take that as a pretty good sign.

 

[Hoosier16]

Peter King wrote the NFL's boring-as-televised-poker exhibition season is worth $800 million.

This seems like way too much. That would be 9% of total revenue. That would mean each regular season and playoff week is only worth twice as much as a preseason week.

 

[Moniker]

Flaming bias is amusing.

 

[cheese]

they had a handshake agreement with D and the executive negotiating committee. The only revision was with the owners of revenue sharing.

Baloney, as usual.

Then tell us what was changed. Otherwise, I don't believe you or the players.If the idea by the owners was to get me upset with the players, it has worked. It sounds to me like a bunch of the players who weren't as involved as they wanted to be finally got all of the particulars about the agreement and didn't like them. If thats the case, just tell D to go back to negotiating because we want more. I would respect that more than pretending that the owners changed things all around at the last second.The good news is, if the agreement is what D agreed to, he should be able to clue in his players that they should just sign this today.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

A lot of people misunderstanding negotiating here. The owners want to get this done and instead of bickering back and forth they put their best official offer out there. This forces the players to get the ball rolling whether they like it or not instead of sitting around talking and twittering. The players will accept this and it will be soon. The owners took the bull by the horns here.

 

[Cripster]

they had a handshake agreement with D and the executive negotiating committee. The only revision was with the owners of revenue sharing. That's none of the players business. The players are either confused or they are the ones pulling the bait and switch here.

I'd say the revenue sharing has to do with the revenue sharing WITH the players. Otherwise there would be no reason for it to be in the CBA.

On Mike and Mike , they discussed this. It does not involve the players. It is a provision whereby small market teams may receive help from big market teams in order to comply with the minimum salary cap. The players wanted the minimum salary cap. Mike and Mike say players are over reacting to this and this may be nothing more than an ego issue.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

[*]Idiot Boxer,

[*]steelcitysledgehammers ,

[*]coolnerd,

[*]Hoosier16

 

[roarlions]

This is the 1st article I've seen that has details of the plan approved by the owners. Interesting that the players will receive different % of different revenue streams:

http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/eagles/20110722_NFL_owners_approve_pact__await_players__vote.html?page=4&c=y

 

[zadok]

This is the 1st article I've seen that has details of the plan approved by the owners. Interesting that the players will receive different % of different revenue streams:

http://www.philly.co...html?page=4&c=y

It's been here since last night: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d820e6311/article/nfl-clubs-approve-comprehensive-agreement-?module=HP11_cp

 

[Hoosier16]

[*]Idiot Boxer,

[*]steelcitysledgehammers ,

[*]coolnerd,

[*]Hoosier16

What am I missing here?

 

[Hoosier16]

This is the 1st article I've seen that has details of the plan approved by the owners. Interesting that the players will receive different % of different revenue streams:

http://www.philly.co...html?page=4&c=y

It makes sense. The differing percentages just reflects the higher expenses from some revenue streams. Media revenue (I assume this is the TV rights) has relatively little expense associated with it.

 

[TheDirtyWord]

Interesting that Twitter seems to be working against the players now because you get a lot of conflicting messages now that make it seem like the players are all over the place and not unified.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

[*]Idiot Boxer,

[*]steelcitysledgehammers ,

[*]coolnerd,

[*]Hoosier16

What am I missing here?

Steelcity is the crazy "#### the owners" guy...thought we were going to get some random nonsense spewage.

 

[stubby]

[*]Idiot Boxer,

[*]steelcitysledgehammers ,

[*]coolnerd,

[*]Hoosier16

What am I missing here?

I haven't been keeping track of who has been posting what, but he could be just highlighting his member # vs the rest of you...just a guess.

 

[Jason Wood]

they had a handshake agreement with D and the executive negotiating committee. The only revision was with the owners of revenue sharing. That's none of the players business. The players are either confused or they are the ones pulling the bait and switch here.

I'd say the revenue sharing has to do with the revenue sharing WITH the players. Otherwise there would be no reason for it to be in the CBA.

No, it's an agreement between the owners with what to do with THEIR share of the pie. It's wholly separate. The owners did this too, in order to get unanimous agreement on the CBA that was negotiated. Without getting the lower revenue/cash strapped owners a way to increase their cash flow, there was a much greater chance this CBA would've become problematic for some owners over time.

 

[Sidewinder16]

Kevin Mawae says:

“Player leadership is discussing the most recent written proposal with the NFL, which includes a settlement agreement, deal terms and the right process for addressing recertification,” Mawae said. “There will not be any further NFLPA statements today out of respect for the Kraft family while they mourn the loss of Myra Kraft.”

 

[Incogneto]

Kevin Mawae says:

“Player leadership is discussing the most recent written proposal with the NFL, which includes a settlement agreement, deal terms and the right process for addressing recertification,” Mawae said. “There will not be any further NFLPA statements today out of respect for the Kraft family while they mourn the loss of Myra Kraft.”

Read: umm...we have no idea what we are doing! We can use the death of Myra Kraft as a reason not to say anything today.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

Kevin Mawae says:

"Player leadership is discussing the most recent written proposal with the NFL, which includes a settlement agreement, deal terms and the right process for addressing recertification," Mawae said. "There will not be any further NFLPA statements today out of respect for the Kraft family while they mourn the loss of Myra Kraft."

Read: umm...we have no idea what we are doing! We can use the death of Myra Kraft as a reason not to say anything today.

Kevin Mawae is a ########.

 

[Invictus~Bronte]

Interesting that Twitter seems to be working against the players now because you get a lot of conflicting messages now that make it seem like the players are all over the place and not unified.

Not surprising as I don't believe most of them can read very well.

 

[roadkill1292]

Isn't it more accurate to say that the owners unanimously (well, except for the catatonic Al) signed an offer to the players? Apparently there were a couple of items in there that they thought (I'm being generous here) they had an agreement about but turns out they didn't.

And what exactly is Al's problem anyway? Does he think they're being too generous?

 

[Bigboy10182000]

Kevin Mawae says:

“Player leadership is discussing the most recent written proposal with the NFL, which includes a settlement agreement, deal terms and the right process for addressing recertification,” Mawae said. “There will not be any further NFLPA statements today out of respect for the Kraft family while they mourn the loss of Myra Kraft.”

Except on Twitter, we will be out in full force there saying a lot of different things.

Read: umm...we have no idea what we are doing! We can use the death of Myra Kraft as a reason not to say anything today.

 

[daveR]

Isn't it more accurate to say that the owners unanimously (well, except for the catatonic Al) signed an offer to the players? Apparently there were a couple of items in there that they thought (I'm being generous here) they had an agreement about but turns out they didn't.

And what exactly is Al's problem anyway? Does he think they're being too generous?

Al's "problem" is that he believes the Raiders are an independent entity. He does not act in concert with the league. This might be his choice, or it might be by design to counter any "NFL is a monopoly" legal battles.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

Isn't it more accurate to say that the owners unanimously (well, except for the catatonic Al) signed an offer to the players? Apparently there were a couple of items in there that they thought (I'm being generous here) they had an agreement about but turns out they didn't.

And what exactly is Al's problem anyway? Does he think they're being too generous?

Al probably took issue with the supplemental revenue sharing proposal. He’s not breaking new ground here by abstaining his vote. The Bengals and Bills abstained in 2006. Possible reasons: He’s always been player friendly, and probably thinks the owners are screwing the players. Or maybe he wants territorial domain over LA. Who knows Al’s reasons? One thing for sure, he doesn’t trust the greedy lawyers that are making this deal more complicated than it needs to be.

 

[gethugefast1]

Isn't it more accurate to say that the owners unanimously (well, except for the catatonic Al) signed an offer to the players? Apparently there were a couple of items in there that they thought (I'm being generous here) they had an agreement about but turns out they didn't.

And what exactly is Al's problem anyway? Does he think they're being too generous?

Lingering IssuesCertain issues which remain – workers’ compensation, disability, benefits, personal conduct policy, drug testing – must be collectively bargained. This means that final resolution of these issues cannot occur until the NFLPA recertifies.

Additionally, the Players had specifically requested an opt-out clause at the 7-year mark. The Owners' proposed agreement contained no such provision.

 

[Billy Bats]

Haven't read the whole thread, but read some football writer's tweets saying it's being held up becuase Vincent Jackson threatened a major lawsuit against the NFLPA if they agree to this deal. Anyone know what that's about, if anything?

 

[Andrew Garda]

they had a handshake agreement with D and the executive negotiating committee. The only revision was with the owners of revenue sharing. That's none of the players business. The players are either confused or they are the ones pulling the bait and switch here.

I'd say the revenue sharing has to do with the revenue sharing WITH the players. Otherwise there would be no reason for it to be in the CBA.

No, it's an agreement between the owners with what to do with THEIR share of the pie. It's wholly separate. The owners did this too, in order to get unanimous agreement on the CBA that was negotiated. Without getting the lower revenue/cash strapped owners a way to increase their cash flow, there was a much greater chance this CBA would've become problematic for some owners over time.

That's a great idea but why put it in a contract with the players? It's bound to cause confusion, and did. Have it written up separately, sign that then sign your offer to the players....

 

[Andrew Garda]

they had a handshake agreement with D and the executive negotiating committee. The only revision was with the owners of revenue sharing. That's none of the players business. The players are either confused or they are the ones pulling the bait and switch here.

I'd say the revenue sharing has to do with the revenue sharing WITH the players. Otherwise there would be no reason for it to be in the CBA.

Yes and no. It is a supplement to the CBA, not actually part of it. It is an agreement among the 32 owners and ultimately it benefits the players. It is required mostly because of the hard cash salary floor.

Got it - so a rider but not really part of the CBA.Up to date now. BTW my mom is NOT your sig.

 

[David Dodds]

Despite players bickering that they want more things settled, I am pretty sure this deal would pass by the 50% + 1 if a vote was taken. That's because the deal increases the minimum salaries by a whopping $55,000 this year and about half of the players in the league make the minimum.

 

[Andrew Garda]

Great writeup over at National Football Post on the agreement/offer/whatever.

I'm done hippling for now....

 

[drater]

Just heard from a recent Mr. Irrelevant (not gonna name him to eliminate any chance of backlash) that a deal will get done today. Players are on board to get this done and get back to playing football.

 

[Raiderfan32904]

Despite players bickering that they want more things settled, I am pretty sure this deal would pass by the 50% + 1 if a vote was taken. That's because the deal increases the minimum salaries by a whopping $55,000 this year and about half of the players in the league make the minimum.

While that sounds like a good deal, these players also know that their careers only average 3 1/2 years. Still, it may be enough of a carrot to obscure other players issues on the table.

 

[D.J.]

Despite players bickering that they want more things settled, I am pretty sure this deal would pass by the 50% + 1 if a vote was taken. That's because the deal increases the minimum salaries by a whopping $55,000 this year and about half of the players in the league make the minimum.

While that sounds like a good deal, these players also know that their careers only average 3 1/2 years. Still, it may be enough of a carrot to obscure other players issues on the table.

the deal would almost certainly pass the players. Its just a matter of getting the deal to them.I really think that things will go smoothly once the players finish reviewing the deal the owners approved. Last night was nothing more than a few of the members of the exexutive committee freaking out. All of their complaints about being tricked and the owners being shady came before they saw what the owners approved. It was speculation on their.parts. The owners should not have referred to their vote as a completed deal, but outside of that I think they did the right thing to vote.

Now that the players have calmed down and reviewed the deal, they seem to be in much higher spirits.

Lets hope it holds up

 

[Pigskin Fanatic]

Heard some of this on Sportscenter this morning and here is a excerpt of an email sent to the player reps that point out the problem of reorganizing and re-certifying the players union. The owners suggest they can re-certify by having the players sign their union cards electronically, while the NFLPA wants to have each player sign in person. So on top of considering the owners' proposal, the union situation will add to delays it looks like.From NFL.com:

ATLANTA -- In the hours following NFL owners' 31-0 vote to ratify a settlement proposal that would end the four-month-old lockout, NFL Players Association general counsel Richard Berthelsen sent an email to player representatives Thursday night detailing the issues with the potential deal.NFL Network obtained a copy of the email, which took issue with the league setting a rough timetable for the NFLPA to reform as a union."In addition to depriving the players of the time needed to consider forming a union and making needed changes to the old agreement, this proposed procedure would, in my view, also violate federal labor laws," Berthelsen said in the email. "Those laws prohibit employers from coercing their employees into forming a union and could result in any agreement reached through the procedure being declared null and void."Berthelsen's email said the league "demands that the players reform as a union and provide evidence by Tuesday, July 26, that a majority of players have signed union authorization cards."It also said that the new CBA includes "virtually all provisions of the old CBA" and that, after voting on it, by July 26, the players would have just three days to bargain changes in terms. The agreement, the email goes on, "would become final on Saturday, July 30. If the NFL does not agree to the players' proposed changes, the old CBA terms on benefits, discipline, safety, etc., will remain unchanged for another 10 years."

 

[Sidewinder16]

Schefter tweet:

Player reps emailed a letter to players saying, "We will meet again Monday to discuss our options and the direction we want to go."

 

[Multiple Scores]

Schefter tweet:

Player reps emailed a letter to players saying, "We will meet again Monday to discuss our options and the direction we want to go."

lol. These guys gonna take the weekend off. Typical.

 

[steelcitysledgehammers]

The only real news here is that the owners have finally agreed amongst themselves on a new revenue sharing plan. I've contended all along this entire lockout was contrived to get out of the revenue sharing plan they agreed to in '06.

I think it's disingenuous of the owners to claim they've agreed to a proposal with the players AND agreed to a new revenue sharing plan. The truth is they finally agreed on a revenue sharing plan so they can now agree on the proposal with the players.

I'm still dying to get a look at the agreement, once finalized. I want to see if and how well it addresses any of the reasons the owners gave for opting out of the old CBA.

As far as the past day and a half, it's the just the owners trying to put the screws to the players the way they felt they got screwed in the 2006 CBA. The stupid owners agreed to the players proposal without fully understanding it and now the owners are trying to return the favor by setting deadlines for the players to agree to this new proposal. They're hoping the public pressure to get on with the season will force them to sign something they don't fully understand. Kudos to the players for taking their time to read it and understand it before just blindly signing it.

This isn't over yet, but with the owners finally addressing their own internal revenue sharing issues, there is now an opportunity for this to come to an end.

Screw the owners!

J

 

[Hoart Petterson]

I hate everybody. It'd be great if fans could band together and really hurt these greedy bastards in their wallets. Greed gonna kill every sport eventually.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

Schefter tweet:

Player reps emailed a letter to players saying, "We will meet again Monday to discuss our options and the direction we want to go."

lol. These guys gonna take the weekend off. Typical.

They'll need the weekend to deal with Vincent Jackson.

 

[Cripster]

Heard some of this on Sportscenter this morning and here is a excerpt of an email sent to the player reps that point out the problem of reorganizing and re-certifying the players union. The owners suggest they can re-certify by having the players sign their union cards electronically, while the NFLPA wants to have each player sign in person. So on top of considering the owners' proposal, the union situation will add to delays it looks like.From NFL.com:

ATLANTA -- In the hours following NFL owners' 31-0 vote to ratify a settlement proposal that would end the four-month-old lockout, NFL Players Association general counsel Richard Berthelsen sent an email to player representatives Thursday night detailing the issues with the potential deal.NFL Network obtained a copy of the email, which took issue with the league setting a rough timetable for the NFLPA to reform as a union."In addition to depriving the players of the time needed to consider forming a union and making needed changes to the old agreement, this proposed procedure would, in my view, also violate federal labor laws," Berthelsen said in the email. "Those laws prohibit employers from coercing their employees into forming a union and could result in any agreement reached through the procedure being declared null and void."Berthelsen's email said the league "demands that the players reform as a union and provide evidence by Tuesday, July 26, that a majority of players have signed union authorization cards."It also said that the new CBA includes "virtually all provisions of the old CBA" and that, after voting on it, by July 26, the players would have just three days to bargain changes in terms. The agreement, the email goes on, "would become final on Saturday, July 30. If the NFL does not agree to the players' proposed changes, the old CBA terms on benefits, discipline, safety, etc., will remain unchanged for another 10 years."

If they are not a union, there isnt a CBA. How is this coercing?

 

[Cripster]

The only real news here is that the owners have finally agreed amongst themselves on a new revenue sharing plan. I've contended all along this entire lockout was contrived to get out of the revenue sharing plan they agreed to in '06.I think it's disingenuous of the owners to claim they've agreed to a proposal with the players AND agreed to a new revenue sharing plan. The truth is they finally agreed on a revenue sharing plan so they can now agree on the proposal with the players.I'm still dying to get a look at the agreement, once finalized. I want to see if and how well it addresses any of the reasons the owners gave for opting out of the old CBA.As far as the past day and a half, it's the just the owners trying to put the screws to the players the way they felt they got screwed in the 2006 CBA. The stupid owners agreed to the players proposal without fully understanding it and now the owners are trying to return the favor by setting deadlines for the players to agree to this new proposal. They're hoping the public pressure to get on with the season will force them to sign something they don't fully understand. Kudos to the players for taking their time to read it and understand it before just blindly signing it.This isn't over yet, but with the owners finally addressing their own internal revenue sharing issues, there is now an opportunity for this to come to an end.Screw the owners!J

The supplemental revenue sharing plan was put in the CBA to insure the small market teams could make the 99% minimum cap number. The minimum cap number is the most player friendly part of the deal and the players wanted that. It does not effect the players share. The players only concern is to make sure the money the rich teams give the poor teams is for salary towards the minimum cap. Thats what it looks like to me. I doubt the players have an issue if this is cleaned up.

 

[Cripster]

Schefter tweet:

Player reps emailed a letter to players saying, "We will meet again Monday to discuss our options and the direction we want to go."

lol. These guys gonna take the weekend off. Typical.

They'll need the weekend to deal with Vincent Jackson.

And possibly Mankins.

 

[drater]

Just heard from a recent Mr. Irrelevant (not gonna name him to eliminate any chance of backlash) that a deal will get done today. Players are on board to get this done and get back to playing football.

LOL, show's how well clued in the player base is to what's going on in negotiations.

 

[Saint]

NFL Network (Jason Laconfora) is saying the email about voting take place on Monday was only between players not representative of the NFLPA. Negotiations are currently ongoing and a decision can be made earlier than Monday.

 

[Invictus~Bronte]

I hate everybody. It'd be great if fans could band together and really hurt these greedy bastards in their wallets. Greed gonna kill every sport eventually.

It would be wonderful if I was into another fantasy sport or cared less for this mockery or someone put together a successful league to compete with the NFL . Then I could tell the greedy, illiterate players to go &*% themselves for good.

 

[cobalt_27]

I hate everybody. It'd be great if fans could band together and really hurt these greedy bastards in their wallets. Greed gonna kill every sport eventually.

It would be wonderful if I was into another fantasy sport or cared less for this mockery or someone put together a successful league to compete with the NFL . Then I could tell the greedy, illiterate players to go &*% themselves for good.

Yup, the players are basically shoving a middle finger in the faces of the fans at this point.

 

[GregR_2]

The only real news here is that the owners have finally agreed amongst themselves on a new revenue sharing plan. I've contended all along this entire lockout was contrived to get out of the revenue sharing plan they agreed to in '06.

I think it's disingenuous of the owners to claim they've agreed to a proposal with the players AND agreed to a new revenue sharing plan. The truth is they finally agreed on a revenue sharing plan so they can now agree on the proposal with the players.

I'm still dying to get a look at the agreement, once finalized. I want to see if and how well it addresses any of the reasons the owners gave for opting out of the old CBA.

As far as the past day and a half, it's the just the owners trying to put the screws to the players the way they felt they got screwed in the 2006 CBA. The stupid owners agreed to the players proposal without fully understanding it and now the owners are trying to return the favor by setting deadlines for the players to agree to this new proposal. They're hoping the public pressure to get on with the season will force them to sign something they don't fully understand. Kudos to the players for taking their time to read it and understand it before just blindly signing it.

This isn't over yet, but with the owners finally addressing their own internal revenue sharing issues, there is now an opportunity for this to come to an end.

Screw the owners!

J

You do realize the players talking about the NFL imposing deadlines is just a PR move by the players, right?The players and owners both agreed there needs to be 15 days between the opening of camps and the first games that are played.

The schedule that Goodell laid out in his press conference is what would have to be followed to have a full preseason. Wednesday when camps would open is 15 days before the first preseason game. That's what the players are whining is a deadline.

Which is obviously stupid. If you tell me that in order to have my gifts ready to go Christmas morning I have to buy them on or before Dec 24th, is that really you giving me a deadline? Of course not.

If Goodell had said nothing at all about the schedule, the players would still have that same drop dead date to have a regular preseason.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Obviously just watching from outside the process like everyone else here, but it seems to me the main issue has to do with the owners' 'sham' argument re: decertification. The players made a lot of preparations before they decertified earlier this year and I expect they'll take a lot of precautions before they recertify.

Given that the owners signed off on a pledge in 1993 saying they wouldn't challenge future decertifications as illegitimate - a pledge which they did not honor - I think the caution is warranted.