Labor Dispute Master Thread (3 Viewers)

[Multiple Scores]

Unfortunately it seems people in this thread have more interest in being quick than D Smith and his minions. I will do like them and enjoy my weekend, HPDHP2 among other relaxing things.

 

[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.

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.

If you could somehow get people to boycott concessions in the stadium, that'd be a start. Charging 15 bucks for a dog and a beer (that costs the team about 40 cents) because they can is something I'm over. Tired of being gouged and then on top of that listening to these people whine publicly about their plight.

 

[renesauz]

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.

Oh...but they did. That agreement was contigent upon certain things the players had to do...which the players didn't.Not only WAS the decertification a sham, but the owners agreement was nullified when the players decertified while still under a CBA, instead of 6 months after it ended, which was the agreement.

 

[greenroom]

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.

Oh...but they did. That agreement was contigent upon certain things the players had to do...which the players didn't.Not only WAS the decertification a sham, but the owners agreement was nullified when the players decertified while still under a CBA, instead of 6 months after it ended, which was the agreement.

Actually that is not true.. IF the OWNERS had locked out the before the players decertification, then yes they would of had to wait the 6 months. So by them doing it before the lockout it was within the agreement.

 

[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.

Oh...but they did. That agreement was contigent upon certain things the players had to do...which the players didn't.Not only WAS the decertification a sham, but the owners agreement was nullified when the players decertified while still under a CBA, instead of 6 months after it ended, which was the agreement.

Ok, I forgot that was the argument. Is the actual language buried in this thread somewhere? Either way... probably reinforces my point (that the players would be smart to get this exactly right).

 

[renesauz]

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.

Oh...but they did. That agreement was contigent upon certain things the players had to do...which the players didn't.Not only WAS the decertification a sham, but the owners agreement was nullified when the players decertified while still under a CBA, instead of 6 months after it ended, which was the agreement.

Actually that is not true.. IF the OWNERS had locked out the before the players decertification, then yes they would of had to wait the 6 months. So by them doing it before the lockout it was within the agreement.

There is a lot of confusion on these issues. If the old CBA expired while the union was still a union, they would have had to wait six months to disband and sue, but in that case (per the old agreement), the NFL could not charge the "sham decertification". By disbanding while still under the CBA, the NFLPA was able to immediately sue, but the agreement of the owners not to use the argument was nullified. Someone long ago in this thread posting the exact wording of it. The agreement you're referancing really was nullified.There was a lot of yelling early on by the players that the owners couldn't use the sham claim, but it was mostly just PR. If you look at the legal briefs, you'll find the players didn't spend much time and effort trying to bring up the old agreement...for a good reason.

 

[Novice2]

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.

Maybe that has a little something to do with the powers that be not wanting to be ''rushed'' into reforming.

 

[cobalt_27]

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.

Oh...but they did. That agreement was contigent upon certain things the players had to do...which the players didn't.Not only WAS the decertification a sham, but the owners agreement was nullified when the players decertified while still under a CBA, instead of 6 months after it ended, which was the agreement.

Actually that is not true.. IF the OWNERS had locked out the before the players decertification, then yes they would of had to wait the 6 months. So by them doing it before the lockout it was within the agreement.

There is a lot of confusion on these issues. If the old CBA expired while the union was still a union, they would have had to wait six months to disband and sue, but in that case (per the old agreement), the NFL could not charge the "sham decertification". By disbanding while still under the CBA, the NFLPA was able to immediately sue, but the agreement of the owners not to use the argument was nullified. Someone long ago in this thread posting the exact wording of it. The agreement you're referancing really was nullified.There was a lot of yelling early on by the players that the owners couldn't use the sham claim, but it was mostly just PR. If you look at the legal briefs, you'll find the players didn't spend much time and effort trying to bring up the old agreement...for a good reason.

This is 100% correct.

 

[Novice2]

Last offer they will get. Pens are down.

"We've put our pens down," Murphy said in a Thursday night conference call with local media. "We've negotiated in good faith with the union. We've reached an agreement on all the key points. They know what we ratified and they're voting to ratify the same thing."

 

[Manster]

I find it hard to have sympathy for either side. I just cant relate.

These guys play a game for a living. Many squander their money on bling and cars, etc.....

The owners gouge fans to pay for guys like jamarcus russell.

Heres my solution.

Pay all rookies $100,000. At 5 yrs pay guys $200,000. At 10 yrs pay them $400,000. This is still a good living for playing a game and it kinda reels in the idiots like Dez Bryant who spend un-godly amounts on jewelery with stupid rookie money.

Give all players great healthcare. Take care of healthcare for guys who built the NFL.

Then the owners can lower tix prices and concessions. Oh wait, this all could never happen cause all these a-holes are greedy.

 

[steelcitysledgehammers]

You do realize the players talking about the NFL imposing deadlines is just a PR move by the players, right?

I was referring to the PR stunt the owners pulled by claiming they would lift the lockout as early as Saturday if the players voted to approve this agreement immediately. The owners have been stalling these negotiations for over three years and now they're trying to turn the tables and make it appear as if the players are holding up the football season.Screw the owners!J

 

[cobalt_27]

You do realize the players talking about the NFL imposing deadlines is just a PR move by the players, right?

I was referring to the PR stunt the owners pulled by claiming they would lift the lockout as early as Saturday if the players voted to approve this agreement immediately. The owners have been stalling these negotiations for over three years and now they're trying to turn the tables and make it appear as if the players are holding up the football season.Screw the owners!J

You're insane. Even people who are more or less on your side don't want to associate/acknowledge you.

 

[David Dodds]

Here is what the NFLPA still wants (and likely resolution IMO):

1. Offseason workout bonuses need to be paid (I think this has to happen)

2. Rookie escalator pay in the 4th year (not going to happen and the NFLPA will drop this)

3. Catastrophic injury numbers higher (I think the owners will move a little here, but way less than the players want)

4. Workman's Comp loophole to stay in California (I don't think this will continue)

5. an opt-out after 7 years (probably will happen just so the NFLPA can save face here)

6. Payment of $320M for lost benefits in 2010 (Not going to happen)

7. Settlement of Brady lawsuit outside of this agreement (No way in hell the owners are going to allow a treble damage lawsuit to continue. I could see a small settlement for items 6 and 7 here. Enough to pay Jackson and Mankins, etc )

8. A player can only be franchised once (not going to happen. Impacts so few players that the NFLPA will drop this)

9. Short term injury reserve (This actually makes sense and should exist. I think it gets added)

10. Reforming the union (This has to happen, but I think the owners will open up camp if the NFLPA and the player reps sign off on the deal. The players can then vote via hard card at the facility)

11. Drug/HGH testing (This is the big elephant in the room that no one is talking about. I could see HGH testing not added to 2012. It could also be a reason players are stalling now)

Combined I don't really see these issues worth hundreds of millions of dollars. I think the owners were right to just pen and sign the deal. It's pretty close to right. The sides hopefully will now concentrate on these last issues and get this thing behind us.

 

[fatness]

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.

There's more information on what was added.summary of Howard Balzer's information

A day before, the NFLPA* Executive Committee and board of player representatives saw a summary of the proposed deal, which included the open items, as of Wednesday. Howard Balzer of the Sports Xchange and 101espn.com has obtained a copy of the summary.

The open items are set forth below.

First, the minimum team expenditure would be only 89 percent of the salary cap. The term would be coupled with a guaranteed league-wide cash spend of 95 percent of the salary cap. If half of the teams spend 100 percent of the cap, half could spend 90 percent of the cap, preserving as a practical matter a 10-percent spread between the highest-spending and lowest-spending teams. If, alternatively, all teams have a minimum cash spend of 95 percent, the total cash spend would be 97.5 percent or more, assuming at least half of the teams spend 100 percent of their allotment, with the other half spending 95 percent.

Second, those offseason workout bonuses (such as the $750,000 due to Jets tackle D’Brickashaw Ferguson) would be paid if the player reports to training camp and performs the services required of him. Thus, under this term, players who report for work (and then work) would earn all offseason workout bonuses, despite the absence of an offseason workout program.

Third, for rookie pay, an escalator would be available to push the fourth-year salary to the lowest level restricted free agency tender, which is $1.2 million in 2011, but which will increase with the salary cap.

Fourth, players would be guaranteed up to $3 million for the second and third year after a catastrophic injury. Balzer reports that, in the deal approved by the league on Thursday, the number had been cut to $1 million in the second year and $500,000 in the third year.

Fifth, the California loophole for workers’ compensation benefits would continue.

Sixth, the possibility of an opt out was included as an open item. Balzer reports that the final version included no opt out, making it a firm 10-year deal. (It has been reported that the players want a potential opt out after seven years.)

Seventh, payment of $320 million in lost benefits would be made for the 2010 season. In the summary document, the lump sum expressly is linked to the “lockout insurance” case. Basically, the players are proposing the restoration of those lost benefits as the payment of damages for the league’s failure to max out TV money when persuading the networks to pay rights fees during a lockout.

Eighth, a settlement of the Brady antitrust case would need to be made, separate and apart from the labor deal.

Ninth, a player would be subject to the franchise tag only once in his career.

Tenth, short-term injured reserve would be available, along with a possible game-day roster of 47. The deal approved by the owners reportedly limits the game-day roster to 46.

 

[JaxBill]

Latest tweet from Schefter

AdamSchefter Adam SchefterNamed plaintiff Vincent Jackson now is willing to release his claim without compensation - meaning no money or lifting of the franchise tag.

 

[JaxBill]

Here is what the NFLPA still wants (and likely resolution IMO):11. Drug/HGH testing (This is the big elephant in the room that no one is talking about. I could see HGH testing not added to 2012. It could also be a reason players are stalling now)

This is what confuses me - the owners say that testing (and personal conduct policy) can only be collectively bargained. The players say they won't recertify until these issues are worked out. From a legal standpoint, who's right?

 

[fatness]

Interesting article from Howard Balzer

To say that Thursday was a bizarre day in the NFL would be a massive understatement.

When the day began and as it progressed, it was learned that the major issue separating each side was the recertification of the NFLPA as a union. Players insisted that could take some time, and that it would be necessary for each player to sign a card electing to be in the union. They wanted the owners to lift the lockout while the recertification was accomplished. After all, the players just want to play football, right? Owners countered that it could be done electronically and said there would be no end to the lockout until the players were a union again and the settlement of the lawsuit became a collective bargaining agreement. NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith seemed to be clearly tweaking the owners when he briefly addressed the media early in the afternoon.

You see, the league has had this love-hate relationship with the union for a long time. In 1993, they demanded the players recertify after the antitrust suit case was won in court by the players, then denied this offseason they had made such demands.

That, of course, came after the league refused to recognize the union's decertification in March, calling it a "sham." Yet, now they accept it, and want almost instant recertification.

With a seeming twinkle in his eye Thursday, Smith noted how the NFL questioned whether "we were a real union," and even poked fun at the "experts on recertification" at the NFL Network. Smith said, "The decision to decertify (in March) was important because we were a real union. ... Every time an employee makes that decision about whether he wants to be part of a union, it's something that is serious, significant and should be done in a very sober way." Arizona kicker Jay Feely, tweeting on the recertification issue, said, "In March, NFL said NFLPA shld not be able to instantaneously disband, now they are arguing shd be able to reform in a blink."

It was obvious Smith was sending a message that he and the players wanted recertification done at the players' pace, not by some forced deadline set by the league. It's also a sure thing that Smith communicated exactly that in an hour-long conversation with NFL commissioner Roger Goodell that took place no more than an hour before the owners voted on the new agreement and miraculously produced an eight-page release that spelled out the key terms of the agreement and included a specific timeline for the start of league business.

As everyone breathlessly reacted to the show put on by the NFL, it was as if everyone forgot what had preceded it only minutes before. Goodell and the NFL knew there was no way the players would accept the provision in the press release that said the league year would begin next Wednesday (July 27) as long as the union had been recertified.

It sure sounded good, though.

 

[fatness]

Combined I don't really see these issues worth hundreds of millions of dollars. I think the owners were right to just pen and sign the deal. It's pretty close to right. The sides hopefully will now concentrate on these last issues and get this thing behind us.

I think these things will get worked out soon, also. The only problem I see is if the league continues to demand that the union recertify before camps open. I don't think there's any way the players will be forced into accepting that.

 

[fatness]

The owners have been stalling these negotiations for over three years and now they're trying to turn the tables and make it appear as if the players are holding up the football season.

You're right about the owners not being serious about negotiating until they realized, duh, that they'd be losing preseason income. But the "we've approved a deal and the players won't" PR stunt has failed. What they approved was a settlement proposal from the owners, and it's being recognized as such now.

 

[fatness]

Last offer they will get. Pens are down.

"We've put our pens down," Murphy said in a Thursday night conference call with local media. "We've negotiated in good faith with the union. We've reached an agreement on all the key points. They know what we ratified and they're voting to ratify the same thing."

That's a quote from Thursday, during the PR blitz from the NFL. What the NFL "approved" was not their final offer.

 

[fatness]

Negotiations are still going on.

Adam Schefter of ESPN reports the Chargers wide receiver has finally decided to give up on his claim to money or franchise tag considerations in exchange for being a plaintiff in the Brady antitrust case.

This is positive news for a few reasons this Saturday morning. It clears the way for the Brady plaintiffs to quickly sign off on a labor deal once the rest of the open items are worked out.

It’s also a sign that discussions and progress continue to be made over the weekend.

 

[renesauz]

Interesting article from Howard Balzer

To say that Thursday was a bizarre day in the NFL would be a massive understatement.

When the day began and as it progressed, it was learned that the major issue separating each side was the recertification of the NFLPA as a union. Players insisted that could take some time, and that it would be necessary for each player to sign a card electing to be in the union. They wanted the owners to lift the lockout while the recertification was accomplished. After all, the players just want to play football, right? Owners countered that it could be done electronically and said there would be no end to the lockout until the players were a union again and the settlement of the lawsuit became a collective bargaining agreement. NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith seemed to be clearly tweaking the owners when he briefly addressed the media early in the afternoon.

You see, the league has had this love-hate relationship with the union for a long time. In 1993, they demanded the players recertify after the antitrust suit case was won in court by the players, then denied this offseason they had made such demands.

That, of course, came after the league refused to recognize the union's decertification in March, calling it a "sham." Yet, now they accept it, and want almost instant recertification.

With a seeming twinkle in his eye Thursday, Smith noted how the NFL questioned whether "we were a real union," and even poked fun at the "experts on recertification" at the NFL Network. Smith said, "The decision to decertify (in March) was important because we were a real union. ... Every time an employee makes that decision about whether he wants to be part of a union, it's something that is serious, significant and should be done in a very sober way." Arizona kicker Jay Feely, tweeting on the recertification issue, said, "In March, NFL said NFLPA shld not be able to instantaneously disband, now they are arguing shd be able to reform in a blink."

It was obvious Smith was sending a message that he and the players wanted recertification done at the players' pace, not by some forced deadline set by the league. It's also a sure thing that Smith communicated exactly that in an hour-long conversation with NFL commissioner Roger Goodell that took place no more than an hour before the owners voted on the new agreement and miraculously produced an eight-page release that spelled out the key terms of the agreement and included a specific timeline for the start of league business.

As everyone breathlessly reacted to the show put on by the NFL, it was as if everyone forgot what had preceded it only minutes before. Goodell and the NFL knew there was no way the players would accept the provision in the press release that said the league year would begin next Wednesday (July 27) as long as the union had been recertified.

It sure sounded good, though.

This is a silly non-issue statement. Lawsuits are getting dropped all over the place. The NFLPA will NOT agree that their prior decert was a sham, and everyone knows it. The NFL is "dropping" their claim much as the NFLPA is dropping their lawsuits. IF both drop their claims/suits, then the NFLPA sits as a trade association and needs to recertify. NOt to mention, from the NFLs perspective, the reason the NFLPA can reform so quickly is because they they never truly disbanded.Stupid article.

 

[Idiot Boxer]

This whole re-certification issue is a whole lot of nothing, in my opinion. No matter how quickly the players re-certify, it seems the direction the 8th circuit court of appeals was heading had nothing to do whether or not the decertification was a 'sham' but whether it arose out of a labor dispute. The players can recertify today or take a month and I don't think it really changes the argument if they once again decertify as a negotiating tactic...the NLRB will still likely have primary jurisdiction. I'm sure I'm missing something, but I don't see the player's advantage in pressing this issue.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Im offically done caring about the business side of the sport right now. Wake me up when there is training camp

 

[Bird]

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.

This is similar to what Upshaw and the players did in 2006. They signed their best offer and sent it to the owners who felt the PR pressure and signed quickly. Remember some owners coming out after ratifying the Agreement saying they didn't even know what they signed. The big difference is there is no quick opt-out clause in this Agreement like in 2006 so the players should read it over.(although I doubt they or any layperson could understand what they're reading). Despite the PR ploy, I am glad the owners did this. Time for talking was over and action is required regardless of who is to blame for the lack of time. The owners succeeded with the PR ploy as you hear some players express "there is no deadline or timeline for us to decide" and how that acts as a smack in the face to fans as the players don't share our sense of urgency. That's the same smack that was felt when the owners had two years since the opt-out to negotiate a new Agreement but dragged their feet. The players can still come out of this fine with the fans as long as they sign something this weekend. If we go into another work week and the last party to act is the owners then the players are going to probably get torched by fans.What I am confused with is this quote that was seen: "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 only have three days to bargain changes in terms. The agreement, it 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."

It takes over 120+ days for the NFL and the Trade Association to come to an agreement that allows a CBA to be signed but only gives 3 days for the NFLPA and the NFL to hammer out issues that have to be collectively bargained through the CBA. That time frame does not make sense.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

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.

Oh...but they did. That agreement was contigent upon certain things the players had to do...which the players didn't.Not only WAS the decertification a sham, but the owners agreement was nullified when the players decertified while still under a CBA, instead of 6 months after it ended, which was the agreement.

Actually that is not true.. IF the OWNERS had locked out the before the players decertification, then yes they would of had to wait the 6 months. So by them doing it before the lockout it was within the agreement.

There is a lot of confusion on these issues. If the old CBA expired while the union was still a union, they would have had to wait six months to disband and sue, but in that case (per the old agreement), the NFL could not charge the "sham decertification". By disbanding while still under the CBA, the NFLPA was able to immediately sue, but the agreement of the owners not to use the argument was nullified. Someone long ago in this thread posting the exact wording of it. The agreement you're referancing really was nullified.There was a lot of yelling early on by the players that the owners couldn't use the sham claim, but it was mostly just PR. If you look at the legal briefs, you'll find the players didn't spend much time and effort trying to bring up the old agreement...for a good reason.

That's the owners' position. The players maintain a contrary position.I think the owners have the better argument on that issue, but the point is in dispute.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

This whole re-certification issue is a whole lot of nothing, in my opinion. No matter how quickly the players re-certify, it seems the direction the 8th circuit court of appeals was heading had nothing to do whether or not the decertification was a 'sham' but whether it arose out of a labor dispute. The players can recertify today or take a month and I don't think it really changes the argument if they once again decertify as a negotiating tactic...the NLRB will still likely have primary jurisdiction. I'm sure I'm missing something, but I don't see the player's advantage in pressing this issue.

That's true regarding the issue of the preliminary injunction against the lockout. The sham issue may still be quite relevant, however, for purposes of the nonstatutory labor exemption (and therefore damages stemming from a lockout or other anticompetitive behavior). Also, we don't know whether a federal district or appellate court would approach even the issue of a preliminary injunection in 2021 the same way that the 8th Circuit did in 2011.I think it makes sense for the players to keep an eye toward how a potential 2021 disclaimer may be perceived based on their current actions.

 

[David Dodds]

Here is what the NFLPA still wants (and likely resolution IMO):11. Drug/HGH testing (This is the big elephant in the room that no one is talking about. I could see HGH testing not added to 2012. It could also be a reason players are stalling now)

This is what confuses me - the owners say that testing (and personal conduct policy) can only be collectively bargained. The players say they won't recertify until these issues are worked out. From a legal standpoint, who's right?

The owners are technically correct that this has to happen with a union, but the acting NFLPA now wants to know they have a deal in principal before signing off on the CBA

 

[David Dodds]

NFLPA statement for Saturday: There will not be any further NFLPA statements today while they mourn the loss of Amy Winehouse.

 

[RJS113]

NFLPA statement for Saturday: There will not be any further NFLPA statements today while they mourn the loss of Amy Winehouse.

 

[RJS113]

Peter King: If the owners give anything back to players in this deal, no new owner vote necessary. Goodell/labor committee have mandate to tinker.

 

[lovethegame11]

NFLPA statement for Saturday: There will not be any further NFLPA statements today while they mourn the loss of Amy Winehouse.

seriously? I'm sad to hear about her death but it shouldn't stop talks that are critical to the economic situation of the US (of course not more critical than the talks currently in Washington)

 

[GregR_2]

NFLPA statement for Saturday: There will not be any further NFLPA statements today while they mourn the loss of Amy Winehouse.

seriously? I'm sad to hear about her death but it shouldn't stop talks that are critical to the economic situation of the US (of course not more critical than the talks currently in Washington)

No, not seriously.

 

[offdee]

NFLPA statement for Saturday: There will not be any further NFLPA statements today while they mourn the loss of Amy Winehouse.

seriously? I'm sad to hear about her death but it shouldn't stop talks that are critical to the economic situation of the US (of course not more critical than the talks currently in Washington)

 

[lovethegame11]

NFLPA statement for Saturday: There will not be any further NFLPA statements today while they mourn the loss of Amy Winehouse.

seriously? I'm sad to hear about her death but it shouldn't stop talks that are critical to the economic situation of the US (of course not more critical than the talks currently in Washington)

No, not seriously.

It wouldn't surprise me though! Nothing much surprises me now a days.

 

[greenroom]

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.

Oh...but they did. That agreement was contigent upon certain things the players had to do...which the players didn't.Not only WAS the decertification a sham, but the owners agreement was nullified when the players decertified while still under a CBA, instead of 6 months after it ended, which was the agreement.

Actually that is not true.. IF the OWNERS had locked out the before the players decertification, then yes they would of had to wait the 6 months. So by them doing it before the lockout it was within the agreement.

There is a lot of confusion on these issues. If the old CBA expired while the union was still a union, they would have had to wait six months to disband and sue, but in that case (per the old agreement), the NFL could not charge the "sham decertification". By disbanding while still under the CBA, the NFLPA was able to immediately sue, but the agreement of the owners not to use the argument was nullified. Someone long ago in this thread posting the exact wording of it. The agreement you're referancing really was nullified.There was a lot of yelling early on by the players that the owners couldn't use the sham claim, but it was mostly just PR. If you look at the legal briefs, you'll find the players didn't spend much time and effort trying to bring up the old agreement...for a good reason.

thanks for clearing this up. I know I had read about what I had posted on websites when the lock out started and remember Mike and Mike and (i think Munson) among other sports talk radio/websites talking on why it was so important for the player to do it before the lock out started. I stand corrected

 

[RJS113]

NFLPA statement for Saturday: There will not be any further NFLPA statements today while they mourn the loss of Amy Winehouse.

seriously? I'm sad to hear about her death but it shouldn't stop talks that are critical to the economic situation of the US (of course not more critical than the talks currently in Washington)

Wow...

 

[NE_REVIVAL]

Mortensen - http://twitter.com/#!/mortreport

John Clayton and I reporting major progress in talks today. Players committee meet Mobday in DC to hopefully recommend approval.

More

mortreport Chris Mortensen

De Smith and Roger Goodell have worked directly to assure that nothing goes off path. Exec committee called this a.m. Expect presser Monday

15 minutes ago

Sounds good

 

[The Dynasty]

Schefter just tweeted "Welcome back football" Not sure what exactly this means but I bet it's good.

 

[CA_7]

Adam Schefter just tweeted this:

Welcome back, football

http://twitter.com/#!/AdamSchefter

 

[finito]

Thank God.

 

[cobalt_27]

Awesome news. Sad day for a few folks here who were hoping the labor fight would continue and that the players would hold ground in the courts. But, I am very pleased to know that this thread will soon get knocked down to page 2 and beyond until at least 2018 or 2021.

 

[mrip541]

Adam Schefter just tweeted this:

Welcome back, football

http://twitter.com/#!/AdamSchefter

Must be some kind of crime to send out a tweet like that with no explanation.

 

[The Dynasty]

I'm was kind of hoping that the first week of preseason would get nixed. Our draft is that Saturday and seeing how I do much more research than other owners, I don't really want the playing field evened even a little. Oh well, should be terrible terrible games anyways. Probably not much knowledge to gain there.

 

[cobalt_27]

Adam Schefter just tweeted this:

Welcome back, football

http://twitter.com/#!/AdamSchefter

Must be some kind of crime to send out a tweet like that with no explanation.

A. No explanation should be needed. You should be able to infer right now what's going on.B. There is google and 1000 other tweeters out there who can provide the background, if you didn't connect the dots.The whole point of twitter is minimalist whilst still getting your point across. Schefter summed it up quite nicely and in just 3 words.

 

[mrip541]

Adam Schefter just tweeted this:

Welcome back, football

http://twitter.com/#!/AdamSchefter

Must be some kind of crime to send out a tweet like that with no explanation.

A. No explanation should be needed. You should be able to infer right now what's going on.B. There is google and 1000 other tweeters out there who can provide the background, if you didn't connect the dots.The whole point of twitter is minimalist whilst still getting your point across. Schefter summed it up quite nicely and in just 3 words.

I know what he wants people to infer but we've already had a false alarm so I need something more than a 3 word tweet.

 

[cobalt_27]

Adam Schefter just tweeted this:

Welcome back, football

http://twitter.com/#!/AdamSchefter

Must be some kind of crime to send out a tweet like that with no explanation.

A. No explanation should be needed. You should be able to infer right now what's going on.B. There is google and 1000 other tweeters out there who can provide the background, if you didn't connect the dots.

The whole point of twitter is minimalist whilst still getting your point across. Schefter summed it up quite nicely and in just 3 words.

I know what he wants people to infer but we've already had a false alarm so I need something more than a 3 word tweet.

@MarkMaske: Plans are being made for the players' ex. committee to meet Mon, presumably to recommend approval of the CBA."ProFootballTalk ProFootballTalk

Report: NFLPA* expected to meet Monday, recommend ratification of deal wp.me/p14QSB-AH2

dkaplanSBJ daniel kaplan

Espn story that says lockout all but over. Link

mortreport Chris Mortensen

RT @BigBadRice: @mortreport Bottom Line...when is this lockout over? Monday? > Yes.

PFT Link

Google

 

[fatness]

Lots and lots of negotiating is going on and this is getting closer to a deal.

Per a source with knowledge of the details of the arrangement, the new supplemental revenue sharing plan includes a 10-percent tax on the “local revenue” of the highest-revenue teams. The money will be distributed to the lowest-revenue teams.

We haven’t yet gotten our eyeballs on the formula that determines the teams who’ll pay the tax — or the teams who’ll get the second half of the Robin Hood treatment.

We also haven’t seen the definition of “local revenue,” but it likely includes luxury suites, parking, and pretty much anything and everything other than ticket sales, TV money, all national sponsorships and media deals, and any sources of shared revenue.

The previous supplemental revenue sharing plan was funded by taking 40 percent of each team’s club seat sales and putting the money into a fund that serviced league-incurred stadium debt. The excess was distributed to low-revenue teams based on need.

link

The parties have agreed that, during the 17-week regular season, teams will conduct only 14 practices in pads.

Let’s repeat that. During the 17-week regular season, teams will have a maximum of only 14 padded practices.

More specifically, teams can have 11 padded practices during the first 11 weeks of the season, with two padded practices permitted in a given week only once. Then, for the final six weeks of the season, a total of three padded practices may be conducted.

Also, teams will be permitted to have one practice in pads per week during the postseason.

link

One of the big questions regarding the deal on which the NFLPA* Executive Committee reportedly will vote on Monday is whether the contract will cover 10 years, or whether it will have an early opt-out provision.

Per the source who explained to us earlier today the problems with an opt-out clause, the early indication is that it will be a firm, 10-year deal.

link

After “significant progress” was made Saturday, Mort reports the NFLPA* executive committee is expected to meet in Washington D.C. Monday to recommend the ratification of the next collective bargaining agreement.

“De Smith and Roger Goodell have worked directly to assure that nothing goes off path,” Mortensen writes. “Expect a presser Monday.”

It’s uncertain how the hanging details were settled and whether there will be a seven-year opt out for the ten-year deal. After the union reconstitutes, the two sides will still have to collectively bargain issues like player discipline.

DeMaurice Smith has reportedly assured Goodell that those issues would be handled in time for the first full week of the preseason to go on schedule. The NFL’s labor committee had a conference call Saturday that helped push the ball forward.

linkThe player bashers in this topic better hurry up. Not much time left to say how worthless, ungrateful, and ignorant they are before you go back to watching and cheering them on Sundays.

 

[GregR_2]

Mort: Lot of progress made today. NFL tentatively agrees players can report Wednesday and start re-certifying. Union thinks it is important to do it by the books. And then finish up the details like benefits, personal conduct issues. Then on Saturday, free agency gets started.

 

[fatness]

Mort: Lot of progress made today. NFL tentatively agrees players can report Wednesday and start re-certifying. Union thinks it is important to do it by the books. And then finish up the details like benefits, personal conduct issues. Then on Saturday, free agency gets started.

That same proposed schedule is all over the NFL Network right now. To be fair, the NFL Network was also broadcasting a different schedule of events Thursday night when they were trumpeting the owners calling their latest proposal an "agreement". But this time sources on both sides, players and owners, seem to be involved in trying to hit this schedule. Here's hoping they do.