-
Originally Posted by
The Benjamin 
Posted an article in the Gen. Football section that sounds like the players are rejecting the deal
OK I will but why don't you bring that all over here so that we can keep it in one place while this is actively going on. It's easier than having to search multiple places.
I'm getting to that age where a lifetime warranty just doesn't mean as much to me anymore as an afternoon nap. 
Honey Badger Don't Care. Honey Badger Don't Give a Shit.
-
-
Originally Posted by
soulman OK I will but why don't you bring that all over here so that we can keep it in one place while this is actively going on. It's easier than having to search multiple places.
Sure, I can merge them all together. Just figured it was more NFL related than Bears.... but they shall all be merged. give me a min
-
High Fives / Like - 1 BEAR DOWN!, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by
The Benjamin Posted that in the thread as well soul.... you are falling behind ;-)
Slow wireless link and I lose it every so often which results in having to repost. If you're on it I'll pass it on to you to report. I think we should do it in this forum though for now. Will you shift it over?
I'm getting to that age where a lifetime warranty just doesn't mean as much to me anymore as an afternoon nap. Honey Badger Don't Care. Honey Badger Don't Give a Shit.
-
-
High Fives / Like - 1 BEAR DOWN!, 0 Dislikes
-
Email to NFLPA* reps questions NFL procedure to end lockout
Posted by Gregg Rosenthal on July 21, 2011, 7:54 PM EDT
AP
The NFL may be telling fans about their plans for the coming week, but we do not have a labor agreement yet.
ESPN’s Adam Schefter got hold of an email sent to player reps Thursday night that makes it clear the players have issues with how the NFL ratified their settlement.
The email details how players received the NFL’s procedure for finalizing a settlement. The email says the NFL is requiring the players to re-form as a union and ratify the new CBA by Tuesday, July 26. (Fair enough.)
Here are the key two sections as we see it that should raise eyebrows around the league:
“[The settlement] gives the players only three days–Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday of next week–to try to bargain any changes to the old CBA. Any such changes would have to be agreed to by the owners in order to be incorporated into the Agreement, which would then 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 ten years,” the email reads.
It gets worse.
“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. 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,” the email finishes.
Yikes.
I’m not the legal expert around here, but that sure sounds like a bucket of cold water from the NFLPA* lawyers that appears to be discouraging a possible deal.
NFL outside counsel Jeff Pash indicated that he expects the players to ratify the deal because DeMaurice Smith negotiated it. Roger Goodell said he believed Smith will “take care of business.”
That email makes it clear that ratification from the players is hardly a given.
-
De Smith shouldn’t be surprised about new revenue sharing arrangement
Posted by Mike Florio on July 21, 2011, 9:02 PM EDT
APOne of the surprising aspects of the NFL’s Thursday night press conference arose when the league mentioned that the owners approved a new supplemental revenue sharing plan. It was surprising because no one knew the NFL was considering a new supplemental revenue sharing plan.
Even more surprising was the concern expressed by NFLPA* executive director DeMaurice Smith in his e-mail to the player representatives regarding the owners’ supplemental revenue sharing plan.
“As you may have heard,” Smith wrote, “they apparently approved a supplemental revenue sharing proposal. Obviously, we have not been a part of those discussions.”
The NFLPA* hasn’t been part of those discussions regarding that issue because the NFLPA* showed no interest in that issue. All along, the elephant in the room was the league’s effort to fix revenue disparities by taking money back from the players. For reasons still unknown, the NFLPA* never pushed that issue.
So while there may be plenty of reasons to balk about the misguided power play that the owners have tried to pull, complaining about an issue about which the players previously didn’t care badly misses the mark.
-
High Fives / Like - 1 BEAR DOWN!, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by
The Benjamin De Smith shouldn’t be surprised about new revenue sharing arrangement
Posted by Mike Florio on July 21, 2011, 9:02 PM EDT
APOne of the surprising aspects of the NFL’s Thursday night press conference arose when the league mentioned that the owners approved a new supplemental revenue sharing plan. It was surprising because no one knew the NFL was considering a new supplemental revenue sharing plan.
Even more surprising was the concern expressed by NFLPA* executive director DeMaurice Smith in his
e-mail to the player representatives regarding the owners’ supplemental revenue sharing plan.
“As you may have heard,” Smith wrote, “they apparently approved a supplemental revenue sharing proposal. Obviously, we have not been a part of those discussions.”
The NFLPA* hasn’t been part of those discussions regarding that issue because the NFLPA* showed no interest in that issue. All along, the elephant in the room was the league’s effort to fix revenue disparities by taking money back from the players. For reasons still unknown, the NFLPA* never pushed that issue.
So while there may be plenty of reasons to balk about the misguided power play that the owners have tried to pull, complaining about an issue about which the players previously didn’t care badly misses the mark.
I'm not quite understanding this statement at all. It's always been about the sharing of the dollars and the owners attempts to undo what was agreed upon in 2006. The owners started out by asking for $2 billion of the top of the revenue pile and last I heard it ended up with zero off the top but that players have offered to reduce their percentage from 52% to 48% with some consideration given to credits for new stadium construction.
All this sounds like to me is that he owners have approved something different than this or at least that seems to be the understanding of the players based on Smith's email. As far as I know there were still some issues to be negotitated but they were minor according to the owners. Maybe they aren't so minor after all.
What disturbs me is that it's always the NFL owners and their mouthpiece Jeff Pash who keep saying that it's close of that it's nearly a done deal while the players keep saying just the opposite. On top of that where in the hell did the rumors come from that Mankins and Jackson were holding up the settlement come from when both deny any knowledge of it. Something smells fishy here.
Last edited by soulman; 07-21-2011 at 08:32 PM.
I'm getting to that age where a lifetime warranty just doesn't mean as much to me anymore as an afternoon nap. Honey Badger Don't Care. Honey Badger Don't Give a Shit.
-
Angry NFL Players Venting Over Owners' CBA Vote
by Jason Kirk • Jul 21, 2011 8:41 PM EDT
Yes, NFL owners voted Thursday night on a plan that would end the lockout if the players agreed. But so far it looks like players don't agree -- except, apparently, Ravens rep Domonique Foxworth, who may be leading fellow Baltimore players to the Dark Side.
Chris Mortensen collected strong words from a few players, as did several other media members as players took to Twitter to express their views first-hand. Some have been steamed and others have been flippant, but it's clear we're in for more NFL lockout talk. Wheee!
The NFL is not Suge Knight...they not gonna hang us out a window and make us sign something lol
less than a minute ago via Echofon Favorite Retweet Reply
Gerald Alexander
GAlexander21
A reaction from one Cardinals player: "They agreed on their proposal."
less than a minute ago via TweetDeck Favorite Retweet Reply
Kent Somers
kentsomers
And here are many more:
PPL CALM DOWN!!!! YOU DONT SIGN A CONTRACT THAT WAS HANDED TO YOU A HOUR AGO, THATS CALLED STUPIDITY! FOOTBALL IS COMING DONT WORRY!
less than a minute ago via web Favorite Retweet Reply
Uche Nwaneri
Chukwu77
Here is what the "Real" fans need 2 know: The owners tried 2 slip many things n2 the CBA "they" voted on that were NEVER agreed 2! #PRPlay
less than a minute ago via Twitter for iPhone Favorite Retweet Reply
Heath Evans
HeathEvans
It's not over yet...
less than a minute ago via Twitterrific Favorite Retweet Reply
Michael Robinson
RealMikeRob
Owners blah blah blah...players blah blah blah....lockout blah blah blah
less than a minute ago via Twittelator Favorite Retweet Reply
Arian Foster
ArianFoster
Here we go: another #Patriots player hit me with a text. It reads: "I'm not voting for it." Aspirin anyone??? #NFL #NFLPA
less than a minute ago via TweetDeck Favorite Retweet Reply
Michael Giardi
MikeGiardi
Text from player to me: "this deal isn't great for us." uh oh.
less than a minute ago via TweetDeck Favorite Retweet Reply
mike freeman
realfreemancbs
Hold on everyone, no deal yet.
less than a minute ago via Twitter for BlackBerry® Favorite Retweet Reply
Kyle McCarthy
KMcCarthy34
we definitely owe you guys a season but we need to make sure we all get this right... thanks for yalls patience.
less than a minute ago via web Favorite Retweet Reply
Chris Long
CL9ONE
49ers players were told today that there are issues that still hanging in the balance. The players are not working on the owners' timetable.
less than a minute ago via Twitter for BlackBerry® Favorite Retweet Reply
Matt Maiocco
MaioccoCSN
It's not over people, don't believe the hype, but we close
less than a minute ago via Echofon Favorite Retweet Reply
Terrell Thomas
TerrellThomas24
Haha RT @ericweems: They trying to game us no deal
less than a minute ago via Echofon Favorite Retweet Reply
Chevis Jackson
SneakerChev
Personally I think deal will be approved by players. But dont forget owners approved OWN proposal. Haha.
less than a minute ago via Echofon Favorite Retweet Reply
Greg Olsen
gregolsen82
"@rcobb18: This is a soap opera... #changingthechannel I will believe it when I get the call" Exactly lol
less than a minute ago via Twitter for Android Favorite Retweet Reply
Akeem Dent
Akeem_Dent51
Please don't get excited about that press conference. The owners have agreed on a deal we the players have not seen! This is not consistent
less than a minute ago via Twitter for iPhone Favorite Retweet Reply
Vonnie Holliday
therealholliday
So @RealRClark25 did we get tricked...the people want to know
less than a minute ago via Echofon Favorite Retweet Reply
william gay
williamgay22
The owners want u to believe that they have been extremely fair everywhere and this is their "olive branch" to finalize it. Media mind games
less than a minute ago via Twitter for iPhone Favorite Retweet Reply
ryan clark
RealRClark25
If the Players agree to this deal,it will be a sad day in football,Fans don't want that,players don't want that,Owners shouldn't want that!
less than a minute ago via Mobile Web Favorite Retweet Reply
Anthony Dixon
Boobie24Dixon
easier to read if you follow the link
http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2011/7/2...pa-news-update
-
NFLPA* fears lawsuit from Vincent Jackson
Posted by Mike Florio on July 21, 2011, 9:16 PM EDT
Getty ImagesChargers receiver Vincent Jackson is represented by a couple of the hardest charging agents in the business. Neil Schwartz and Jonathan Feinsod have engineered, for example, the recent holdouts of Darrelle Revis and Roddy White. Also, they threatened litigation on Jackson’s behalf last year against the San Diego Union-Tribune based on the suggestion by Kevin Acee that Jackson was broke.
There’s talk in league circles that the NFLPA* fears they’ll be the next target of the Schwartz and Feinsod hardball tactics. Specifically, we’re told the NFLPA* is concerned it will be sued if Jackson’s role in the Brady antitrust lawsuit is settled without Jackson receiving $10 million.
That’s why the NFLPA* keeps pushing the issue — and that’s why it continues to be a roadblock in a process that now has plenty of them.
Only one man can put this issue to rest. And that’s Vincent Jackson. If he truly wants nothing (as he supposedly said on an unverified Twitter page earlier this week), he needs to call a press conference and say so. Otherwise, we’ll assume he wants $10 million.
Hopefully, I won’t be sued for expressing that opinion.
-
Originally Posted by
The Benjamin NFLPA* fears lawsuit from Vincent Jackson
Posted by Mike Florio on July 21, 2011, 9:16 PM EDT
Getty ImagesChargers receiver
Vincent Jackson is represented by a couple of the hardest charging agents in the business. Neil Schwartz and Jonathan Feinsod have engineered, for example, the recent holdouts of
Darrelle Revis and
Roddy White. Also, they threatened litigation on Jackson’s behalf last year against the
San Diego Union-Tribune based on the suggestion by Kevin Acee that Jackson was broke.
There’s talk in league circles that the NFLPA* fears they’ll be the next target of the Schwartz and Feinsod hardball tactics. Specifically, we’re told the NFLPA* is concerned it will be sued if Jackson’s role in the
Brady antitrust lawsuit is settled without Jackson receiving $10 million.
That’s why the NFLPA* keeps pushing the issue — and that’s why it continues to be a roadblock in a process that now has plenty of them.
Only one man can put this issue to rest. And that’s Vincent Jackson. If he truly wants nothing (as he supposedly said on an unverified Twitter page earlier this week), he needs to call a press conference and say so. Otherwise, we’ll assume he wants $10 million.
Hopefully, I won’t be sued for expressing that opinion.
Apparently Mankins has already done this so if Jackson denies that he or his agent has demanded this he needs to step forward.
The other issue is becoming quite clear and once again it's the owners trying to swing things over to then with an end run. All I had to hear were the word "they approved their own proposal" to know exactly what this was all about. I'm sorry but the owners pull shit just like the rat bastards they are. This is no different at all from the scheme they attempted back in March when they presented a last minute offer that was worse than the point at which negotiations had previously left off and expected it to be digested, approved and agreed upon before the deadline for decertification of the union.
This is no different. It's another take it or leave it deal and apparently not what had been expected based on previous days talks. The owners drew this up as their OFFER to settle the lawsuits and then voted to approve it. Of course they did. It was their deal and not one that was jointly bargained. This bullshit will keep going on forever if the owners don't start acting in good faith. This is not an example of good faith bargaining as I see it.
I'm getting to that age where a lifetime warranty just doesn't mean as much to me anymore as an afternoon nap. Honey Badger Don't Care. Honey Badger Don't Give a Shit.
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
soulman say BEAR DOWN!
Reply With Quote