PDA

View Full Version : All Encompassing Lockout Thread


Pages : 1 2 3 [4] 5

thunderkyss
07-15-2011, 02:00 AM
She got inside your head, she left you, and you say you're over her...but then she calls one day and asks you to hang out at her place and have a few drinks and watch a movie.

Tell me what you're going to do. Are you going to answer her with "Yeah, no thanks. I'm going to my mom's house for meatloaf tonight." LOL.


I'll tell her I'm married now with three beautiful daughters & I wouldn't trade that for one night with her trifling ass.

gary
07-15-2011, 08:52 AM
That was my fault. It's a $120 million cap(reported by ESPN) and $21 in benefits. NFL Network is reporting that the cap is $123 though. Maybe they are factoring in the $3 mil exception.

If a team spends over $120 million on player salaries, they technically MIGHT get slapped by the NFL with a penalty for going over that "cap." This is to try and make sure that the rich teams (Cowboys, for example) could not spend big, big money and essentially buy all the better players in the NFL.

What I think Allstar was saying is this:

The salary cap can "feel" like it's really at $130 million because of how teams will be allowed to stick in some extra benefits to their players, which then pushes them OVER the $120 million mark...but yet is not considered by the NFL to have violated the $120 million salary cap.

Hope that helps.Do you guys like this new cap?

pirbroke
07-15-2011, 10:33 AM
Players' secret lockout insurance could have sparked talks

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/jim_trotter/07/15/secret-lockout-fund/index.html#ixzz1SBkIrIdV



From the moment he was elected executive director of the NFL Players Association in March 2009, DeMaurice Smith always took the long view when it came to negotiations with the owners on a new collective bargaining agreement. Hope for the best, plan for the worst.

It's one of the reasons that slightly more than a year ago he received approval from the executive committee to secure insurance that would pay each player roughly $200,000 if there were no football in 2011.

Smith disclosed the fund to only a handful of people outside of the executive committee. However with negotiations seemingly at a standstill late Wednesday night, the decision was made to play one of their aces in the hole. So in the relative quiet of the sides' New York City bargaining room the next morning, Baltimore Ravens cornerback Domonique Foxworth informed the owners of the previously secret lockout fund.

Was that the shove in the back that moved the sides closer to a potential agreement? Only the owners know for sure, but a source close to one of them said the disclosure definitely got that side's attention. Perhaps for good reason.

The common perception has been that the players' solidarity would crumble once they started missing paychecks. However the foundation beneath that line of thinking would be as solid as Jell-O if the players could couple the insurance with a large financial award from U.S. District Judge David Doty, who previously ruled the owners had illegally created a $4.3 billion lockout fund for themselves by renegotiating their TV deals at the expense of the players.

"Players Association leadership looked into this as a last possible resort to keep players together in case games would be missed," one players-side source said of the insurance war chest. "It was never intended to be used as a bargaining chip or negotiating point until things became critical."

Thursday was a critical point. If the sides could not advance negotiations then the possibility of hundreds of millions of dollars being lost to canceled preseason games was real. And if the owners allowed the impasse to get that far, what was to stop them testing the players' pain threshold by extending the lockout into the regular season?

The Players Association began informing its membership about the insurance fund over the past week and brought it up in the negotiating room for the first time Thursday. There's no way to know at this time whether it was the final oomph that pushed negotiations onto positive ground, but it's hard to believe it didn't have some impact considering the talks were "not in a good place" the previous night when the sides broke for the day.

Rey
07-15-2011, 11:03 AM
Marijuana dealers everywhere cringe at the thought of the lockout ending.

I know that a lot of players have been smoking their asses off.

GP
07-15-2011, 11:08 AM
Players' secret lockout insurance could have sparked talks

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/jim_trotter/07/15/secret-lockout-fund/index.html#ixzz1SBkIrIdV



From the moment he was elected executive director of the NFL Players Association in March 2009, DeMaurice Smith always took the long view when it came to negotiations with the owners on a new collective bargaining agreement. Hope for the best, plan for the worst.

It's one of the reasons that slightly more than a year ago he received approval from the executive committee to secure insurance that would pay each player roughly $200,000 if there were no football in 2011.

Smith disclosed the fund to only a handful of people outside of the executive committee. However with negotiations seemingly at a standstill late Wednesday night, the decision was made to play one of their aces in the hole. So in the relative quiet of the sides' New York City bargaining room the next morning, Baltimore Ravens cornerback Domonique Foxworth informed the owners of the previously secret lockout fund.

Was that the shove in the back that moved the sides closer to a potential agreement? Only the owners know for sure, but a source close to one of them said the disclosure definitely got that side's attention. Perhaps for good reason.

The common perception has been that the players' solidarity would crumble once they started missing paychecks. However the foundation beneath that line of thinking would be as solid as Jell-O if the players could couple the insurance with a large financial award from U.S. District Judge David Doty, who previously ruled the owners had illegally created a $4.3 billion lockout fund for themselves by renegotiating their TV deals at the expense of the players.

"Players Association leadership looked into this as a last possible resort to keep players together in case games would be missed," one players-side source said of the insurance war chest. "It was never intended to be used as a bargaining chip or negotiating point until things became critical."

Thursday was a critical point. If the sides could not advance negotiations then the possibility of hundreds of millions of dollars being lost to canceled preseason games was real. And if the owners allowed the impasse to get that far, what was to stop them testing the players' pain threshold by extending the lockout into the regular season?

The Players Association began informing its membership about the insurance fund over the past week and brought it up in the negotiating room for the first time Thursday. There's no way to know at this time whether it was the final oomph that pushed negotiations onto positive ground, but it's hard to believe it didn't have some impact considering the talks were "not in a good place" the previous night when the sides broke for the day.

Wow. The players went Don Corleone on the owners.

I have to think this was a big motivator for the owners to concede some things to the players, which probably brought the deal to the point it is today.

Knowing that the players would have $200k to wait out the 2011 season has got to have been a wake-up call--Owners have the possibility of losing their TV money stash, AND they had zero revenue coming in due to canceling the season. Advantage: NFLPA. Game, set, match.

Here we had Panthers owner Jerry Richardson, IIRC, screaming about how they signed a bad deal back then and now the players have to pony up and sign a bad deal themselves...and it looks like the owners, once again, got seriously owned. I know there's no "true winner" here, but if there was one to be decided upon, it seems the players could be called the victor in this saga. LOL.

Double Barrel
07-15-2011, 11:30 AM
Playing that 'lock-out insurance' card is brilliant! The players have nothing to lose if pre-season is canceled, but the owners have almost a $ billion on the line. And couple the lock-out insurance with a good chance that the players could win the $4.3 billion tv deal, I think it's obvious that the owners got caught with their pants down.

Well played, DeMaurice Smith, well played. :clap:

SheTexan
07-15-2011, 12:14 PM
Playing that 'lock-out insurance' card is brilliant! The players have nothing to lose if pre-season is canceled, but the owners have almost a $ billion on the line. And couple the lock-out insurance with a good chance that the players could win the $4.3 billion tv deal, I think it's obvious that the owners got caught with their pants down.

Well played, DeMaurice Smith, well played. :clap:

BUT! What about the rookies? Are they covered with this insurance? Since a huge hunk of the BS going on had to do with how much to pay them in the first place, would they still be left out in the cold, with NO big bucks? Just wondering.

Double Barrel
07-15-2011, 12:28 PM
BUT! What about the rookies? Are they covered with this insurance? Since a huge hunk of the BS going on had to do with how much to pay them in the first place, would they still be left out in the cold, with NO big bucks? Just wondering.

Good question! Hopefully the answer does not matter in the long run because they get a deal done.

SheTexan
07-15-2011, 12:37 PM
Good question! Hopefully the answer does not matter in the long run because they get a deal done.

I hope so DB! So tired of this nonsense! Takes the joy out of my fav professional sport. Sure making me think twice about the entire business of pro football! It really SUCKS, on all levels!!

CloakNNNdagger
07-15-2011, 12:42 PM
BUT! What about the rookies? Are they covered with this insurance? Since a huge hunk of the BS going on had to do with how much to pay them in the first place, would they still be left out in the cold, with NO big bucks? Just wondering.

Don't see how that would be if the policy was signed for 1 year ago.....and it would certainly not cover UDFAs.

GP
07-15-2011, 12:43 PM
I hope so DB! So tired of this nonsense! Takes the joy out of my fav professional sport. Sure making me think twice about the entire business of pro football! It really SUCKS, on all levels!!

The upside, though, is that this ought to give us a solid 10 years of consistency.

NBA fans are about to understand what NFL fans were going through all through the late winter, spring, and midway through the summer. Sucks to be them.

I live for NFL. Period.

b0ng
07-15-2011, 03:15 PM
I'm waiting for the post somebody will inevitably make stating how unfair it is that the players keep their "insurance policy" while the owners "insurance policy" is tied up in escrow.

Allstar
07-15-2011, 06:26 PM
mortreport Chris Mortensen
In fact, owners have now abandoned the right of first refusal issue on this year's free agents. They'll have 72-hour period to re-sign

It's looks like smooth sailing now, fellas. Owner's meeting next Thursday is most likely the end of the lockout, if not sooner.

Lucky
07-15-2011, 06:28 PM
The upside, though, is that this ought to give us a solid 10 years of consistency.
Unless another opt out is included. That was the stupidest aspect of the last CBA.

Lucky
07-15-2011, 06:32 PM
mortreport Chris Mortensen
In fact, owners have now abandoned the right of first refusal issue on this year's free agents. They'll have 72-hour period to re-sign
I think a lot of players and teams will take advantage of this and get deals done during this exclusive period. It's going to get real crazy when the flood gates open.

False Start
07-15-2011, 06:37 PM
Finally!

Allstar
07-15-2011, 06:38 PM
I believe teams are allowed to sign undrafted rookies during that 72-hour period as well. If not, then they have their own designated time as well. undrafted rookies and re-signed players will be taken care of before the UFA period begins.

Allstar
07-15-2011, 06:40 PM
JasonLaCanfora Jason La Canfora
If "handshake" deal comes by Tues as expected, I hear estimates of 10 days for all procedural matters resolved so that free agency can begin

AlbertBreer Albert Breer
As we reported on Total Access, after two furious days of talk, agreement in principle expected early next week. Nearly nothing in the way.

These reports are from the NFLN guys, who seemed more pessimistic than the ESPN reporters. Breer wouldn't even use the word "close"(as in a deal is close) yesterday.

gary
07-15-2011, 06:42 PM
I wish this was going to be a life long CBA without any opt outs that would be the best part fan wise.

ChampionTexan
07-15-2011, 06:42 PM
I think a lot of players and teams will take advantage of this and get deals done during this exclusive period. It's going to get real crazy when the flood gates open.

Agreed - and hopefully Leach will be one of those re-signed before FA even begins.

OTOH, there will also be a number of vets who are waived in order to free up cap space. Reggie Bush seems to be a prime candidate for this.

I can't remember who was saying it (might have been Schefter), but he calculated that if the average NFL team has 40 players under contract (just an estimate on his part I believe), and the TC roster limit is 90, that means there will be 1600 players signed in a matter of 2-3 weeks.

Allstar
07-15-2011, 06:45 PM
I wish this was going to be a life long CBA without any opt outs that would be the best part fan wise.

That would be nice, but could never happen. Things change too frequently. New issues will arise. People will always be greedy.

gary
07-15-2011, 06:55 PM
That would be nice, but could never happen. Things change too frequently. New issues will arise. People will always be greedy.I just hope that is good enough for both parties to opt in again once it is up.

thunderkyss
07-15-2011, 07:02 PM
Playing that 'lock-out insurance' card is brilliant! The players have nothing to lose if pre-season is canceled, but the owners have almost a $ billion on the line. And couple the lock-out insurance with a good chance that the players could win the $4.3 billion tv deal, I think it's obvious that the owners got caught with their pants down.

Well played, DeMaurice Smith, well played. :clap:

Setting it up was brilliant.


Playing the card..... that was gangsta

Thorn
07-15-2011, 09:26 PM
I don't care anymore. I hope they never sign a ****ing agreement. I am so sick of this horseshit. Every goddamn one of those MFs from owners and players and lawyers and newsman can all kiss my damn ass.

I'm sleeping in on Sundays this fall. I just don't give a shit anymore.

GP
07-15-2011, 09:28 PM
I don't care anymore. I hope they never sign a ****ing agreement. I am so sick of this horseshit. Every goddamn one of those MFs from owners and players and lawyers and newsman can all kiss my damn ass.

I'm sleeping in on Sundays this fall. I just don't give a shit anymore.

You'll be watching. Old habits are hard to break.

I'm reminded of The Godfather, when Clemenza says that every few years there's gotta' be a war among the families...too much bad blood that's gotta' be settled. Then things calm down. Rinse and repeat.

Thorn
07-15-2011, 09:29 PM
You'll be watching. Old habits are hard to break.

Yeah, I know. Doesn't mean I still don't hate everyone though.

GP
07-15-2011, 09:32 PM
Yeah, I know. Doesn't mean I still don't hate everyone though.

LOL.

You're the man. If I didn't have an old man already, I'd adopt you as my dad.

Thorn
07-15-2011, 09:34 PM
LOL.

You're the man. If I didn't have an old man already, I'd adopt you as my dad.

I'll adopt you. It'll cost you dollars though. I'm not into this old man hates everyone thing for nothing you know. I have to have something to do when I retire.

GP
07-15-2011, 10:33 PM
I'll adopt you. It'll cost you dollars though. I'm not into this old man hates everyone thing for nothing you know. I have to have something to do when I retire.

You bastard.

I hate you!

LOL.

CloakNNNdagger
07-16-2011, 09:47 AM
Somehow, I don't see how a 7 to 10 year span difference for the length of the CBA will not potentially be a "sticking" point for the parties. That's a pretty significant difference.

CloakNNNdagger
07-16-2011, 10:29 AM
Speaking on ESPN Saturday, Chris Mortensen also indicated that players “won’t give in” on the remaining player health and safety issues still on the table.

We know about the reduction of OTAs and offseason practices. Mort also reports players want less contact during camp and to “basically eliminate” two-a-days. We’ll have to wait for an agreement before we see the fine print, but it’s fair to expect the players to get what they want here.

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell has focused on player safety, and these sort of changes don’t need to be approved by coaches who would be more likely to blanch at reduced camp contact.link (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/16/players-seek-reduction-in-training-camp-contact/)

I bet the coaches are schizing out. This may not effect veterans (that remain on the same team with the same scheme). But I believe this reduction will adversely affect the early development of a rookie, UDFA, FA and vet being introduced to a new team or new system.

XI CMURDER IX
07-16-2011, 11:12 AM
I just read that the new CBA will not have franchise tags. Does that mean unless Peyton is resigned he becomes a free agent? :D

gary
07-16-2011, 11:42 AM
I just read that the new CBA will not have franchise tags. Does that mean unless Peyton is resigned he becomes a free agent? :DReally?

GP
07-16-2011, 12:08 PM
I just read that the new CBA will not have franchise tags. Does that mean unless Peyton is resigned he becomes a free agent? :D

Link or excerpt from article?

CloakNNNdagger
07-16-2011, 12:17 PM
I just read that the new CBA will not have franchise tags. Does that mean unless Peyton is resigned he becomes a free agent? :D

I doubt that you will come up with a legitimate link for this happening. The owners would never concede to no franchise tags after conceding to FA term/conditions.


As to your question, the last mention on this question is pretty much answered.....even though it is a 3 week old source........it remains the most reliable.
More NFL CBA Updates: Franchise Tags Will Carry Over, Tenders Meaningless (http://www.stampedeblue.com/2011/6/21/2235742/more-nfl-cba-updates-franchise-tags-will-carry-over-tenders)

drs23
07-16-2011, 12:49 PM
Playing that 'lock-out insurance' card is brilliant! The players have nothing to lose if pre-season is canceled, but the owners have almost a $ billion on the line. And couple the lock-out insurance with a good chance that the players could win the $4.3 billion tv deal, I think it's obvious that the owners got caught with their pants down.

Well played, DeMaurice Smith, well played. :clap:

DB saved me some keystrokes. I was fomulating that post practically verbatim.

Good show DB.

Ryan
07-16-2011, 01:02 PM
It looks like we'll finally see football after all! :spin::hurrah:

drs23
07-16-2011, 01:07 PM
It looks like we'll finally see football after all! :spin::hurrah:

+1

I think I'm getting a little giddy.:hurrah::spin::specnatz::whip:

Allstar
07-16-2011, 01:24 PM
I don't care anymore. I hope they never sign a ****ing agreement. I am so sick of this horseshit. Every goddamn one of those MFs from owners and players and lawyers and newsman can all kiss my damn ass.

I'm sleeping in on Sundays this fall. I just don't give a shit anymore.

What harm has really been done? No OTAs? We will have a full pre season and season. Why are you so upset?

XI CMURDER IX
07-16-2011, 01:50 PM
I doubt that you will come up with a legitimate link for this happening. The owners would never concede to no franchise tags after conceding to FA term/conditions.


As to your question, the last mention on this question is pretty much answered.....even though it is a 3 week old source........it remains the most reliable.
More NFL CBA Updates: Franchise Tags Will Carry Over, Tenders Meaningless (http://www.stampedeblue.com/2011/6/21/2235742/more-nfl-cba-updates-franchise-tags-will-carry-over-tenders)

I was getting first right of refusal tags mixed up with franchise tags. My bad :kubepalm:

Allstar
07-16-2011, 02:12 PM
Albert Breer
Sides have no plans for owners & players to meet again unless necessary. Details expected to be worked out via email, phone, thru lawyers...

Albert Breer
... This, of course, is another good sign of the direction of things. Like I said yesterday, virtually nothing standing in the way now.

gary
07-16-2011, 02:21 PM
So there will be less workouts?

EllisUnit
07-16-2011, 02:25 PM
Just want free agency to start. this will be the craziest FA period i have ever seen. Looking forward to it ;)

CloakNNNdagger
07-16-2011, 03:38 PM
Glaringly absent from any reporting is if there will be any increase in roster numbers and active roster numbers........especially for THIS year where there will have been lessened/foreshortened REAL preparation.

How are contract signings going to be handled by player agents, since there has been no mention of setting up these rules for the new CBA? This really has a potential for chaos.

Yvette
07-16-2011, 04:37 PM
Glaringly absent from any reporting is if there will be any increase in roster numbers and active roster numbers........
So far it looks like training camp rosters only.

We're gonna suck so bad this year.

EllisUnit
07-16-2011, 06:11 PM
So far it looks like training camp rosters only.

We're gonna suck so bad this year.

:panic:

Dutchrudder
07-16-2011, 06:26 PM
Are you ready for some FOOTBALL?????!!

TEXANRED
07-16-2011, 06:35 PM
Are you ready for some FOOTBALL?????!!

Yes.

Allstar
07-16-2011, 06:57 PM
mortreport Chris Mortensen
It ain't over til it's over. Filed to ESPN that NFL & NFLPA negotiations necessary Mon and Tues in Wash DC w Judge Boylan.

Main point : NFL/NFLPA need more hard negotiations on unresolved issues when hoping tough stuff was over. Talk location DC or NY conflicted

Regardless of the work left, there is still optimism. And if it gets done, as expected, it will be a 10-year agreement.

CloakNNNdagger
07-16-2011, 07:01 PM
No sign of the fat lady yet.

@mortreport Chris Mortensen

It ain't over til it's over. Filed to ESPN that NFL & NFLPA negotiations necessary Mon and Tues in Wash DC w Judge Boylan. On SC in 7 min

1 hour ago via TweetDeck

The owners and players will meet again after all.

Short after a report surfaced that the two sides were unlikely to need face-to-face sessions again, ESPN’s Chris Mortensen reports the two sides will indeed meet again on Monday and Tuesday.

It appears the meetings will be to go over some issues we haven’t heard a lot about before. (We recommend reading Florio’s post on this possibility from Friday night.)

Mort reports players want $320 million in lost benefits from the 2010 season restored. They also want the franchise tag to only be allowed once per player, instead of being able to use it in successive years. (That could be a nod to Brady antitrust plaintiff Logan Mankins, among others.) Workman’s compensation is also reportedly an issue, as are the two hanging lawsuits. (The antitrust suit and the television revenue.)

This news seems to come as a small surprise to some. NFL outside counsel Jeff Pash told Albert Breer of NFL Network that the “principles” did their job, and that the CBA was in the hands of the lawyers now. The league’s network reported no further face-to-face talks were expected to be necessary.

Something clearly changed in the meantime. We don’t think there is any reason for fans need to panic, but it’s a reminder that it’s not a deal until it’s a deal.

Consider this report lukewarm water.link (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/16/report-owners-players-will-meet-monday-after-all/)

It's ONLY $320 million (plus all the other "unimportant" stuff)..........NO PROBLEM!!!!!!!:wadepalm::shots::shots::shots:

EllisUnit
07-16-2011, 07:13 PM
No sign of the fat lady yet.



link (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/16/report-owners-players-will-meet-monday-after-all/)

It's ONLY $320 million (plus all the other "unimportant" stuff)..........NO PROBLEM!!!!!!!:wadepalm::shots::shots::shots:

:specnatz: i feel like we're running in circles. I say close the doors on the NFL, let these players go get normal jobs and in 5 years our so, we can open the doors again to a new fresh group of players who would love to make half of what these guys make ;)

GP
07-16-2011, 08:22 PM
I don't think there's anything major going on.

Final details. Doing the due diligence, to make sure it's constructed well.

That's my hunch. No worries.

EDIT:

For example, there's no real "problem" in terms of the issue of the undecided meeting location, Mortensen tweeted. He says there's no disagreement/problem, just confusion on where it'll be.

@mortreport RT @lfcfanatic87: @mortreport So NFL/NFLPA can't even agree where to argue? > No, there's just some confusion on locale. Clarity to come.

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

Here's another interesting tweet:

@mortreport If the deal gets dones, there is specific credit players allow for 3 new stadium constructions, including Los Angeles. http://es.pn/rlZHvY

Looks like LA will be getting new stadium.

CloakNNNdagger
07-16-2011, 09:05 PM
Evidently Mortensen has reported that the owners have agreed to do away with all two-a-day practices from training camp. Instead of the second workout will be a practice with no helmets and with no contact.

keyser
07-16-2011, 09:10 PM
Evidently Mortensen has reported that the owners have agreed to do away with all two-a-day practices from training camp. Instead of the second workout will be a practice with no helmets and with no contact.

Am I missing something - I understand the players might not like 2-a-days, but is there any reason to oppose them other than they don't feel like it?

gary
07-16-2011, 09:16 PM
Am I missing something - I understand the players might not like 2-a-days, but is there any reason to oppose them other than they don't feel like it?Save their bodies for one thing.

Lucky
07-16-2011, 10:20 PM
Evidently Mortensen has reported that the owners have agreed to do away with all two-a-day practices from training camp. Instead of the second workout will be a practice with no helmets and with no contact.
Hasn't Kamp Kubiak been like that for the past couple of years?

Lucky
07-16-2011, 10:22 PM
I say close the doors on the NFL, let these players go get normal jobs and in 5 years our so, we can open the doors again to a new fresh group of players who would love to make half of what these guys make ;)
We? Who's "we"? Is that you, Bob?

CloakNNNdagger
07-16-2011, 10:23 PM
Am I missing something - I understand the players might not like 2-a-days, but is there any reason to oppose them other than they don't feel like it?

Save their bodies for one thing.

Non contact practices don't allow for some semblance of real time game
experience, not the least of which is proper tackling technique. With all the emphasis on head safety, teaching this aspect of the game with as many reps as possible becomes that much more important.

Practice makes perfect. If you practice "phantom" tackling..........you will be more efficient in "phantom" tackling.............then when the regular season begins, you can play just like the "classic" Texans defense of old.:wadepalm::kubepalm:

beerlover
07-16-2011, 11:49 PM
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/17/players-apparently-are-making-a-last-minute-power-play/

Players apparently are making a last-minute power play
Posted by Mike Florio on July 17, 2011, 12:17 AM EDT
When I left Hilton Head Saturday morning, it had been suggested that almost nothing could derail a new labor deal.

That attitude possibly has jinked the entire process.

Now that I’m back at PFT headquarters and catching up on the stuff I missed while driving 600 miles and stopping for a couple of meals (Florio Jr. strongly objected to waiting 35 minutes for a table at Cracker Barrel), it looks like the players opted — through their lawyers — to make a power play on Saturday, something that the owners had feared.

As ESPN’s Chris Mortensen reported earlier today, the players want $320 million in benefits that weren’t paid during the uncapped year, as well as a one-year limit on the use of the franchise tag. Also, if the “lockout insurance” case must be settled separately and apart from the financial package negotiated by the league and the players, it’s possible that another nine-figure sum could be demanded. And to the extent that the Brady antitrust lawsuit needs to be resolved via something more than the contents of a new CBA, the players still could demand even more money and/or special treatment for the named plaintiffs, such as an agreement never to use the franchise tag on any of them.

With a deal now regarded by the media and fans and players and pretty much everyone else as a foregone conclusion, the NFLPA* has by all appearances opted to go for one last home run, possibly buoyed by the league’s decision to cave on the “right of first refusal” concept and the league’s significant concession on the rookie wage scale.

In theory, if the league calls the players’ bluff — and if it ends up not being a bluff — the whole thing could still blow up.

Given the dramatic progress that has been made on far thornier and challenging issues, we can’t imagine the talks crumbling now. Instead, the players likely decided to roll the dice in the hopes of making the deal a little (or, as the case may be, a lot) sweeter, and if the parties can’t work out these remaining issues on their own, then U.S. Magistrate Judge Arthur Boylan will go Alton Benes on anyone and everyone in the room.

Sure, there’s a chance that the NFLPA* lawyers are hoping that cooler heads won’t prevail, but the failure to wrap this thing up now would create a significant backlash for everyone involved. Roger Goodell and DeMaurice Smith are in the home stretch of the ultimate three-legged race, and they’re smart enough to figure out what it takes to get to the finish line.



thoughts?

brakos82
07-17-2011, 12:03 AM
thoughts?

(Florio Jr. strongly objected to waiting 35 minutes for a table at Cracker Barrel)

It's worth it. :kitten:

thunderkyss
07-17-2011, 12:13 AM
Non contact practices don't allow for some semblance of real time game
experience, not the least of which is proper tackling technique. With all the emphasis on head safety, teaching this aspect of the game with as many reps as possible becomes that much more important.

Practice makes perfect. If you practice "phantom" tackling..........you will be more efficient in "phantom" tackling.............then when the regular season begins, you can play just like the "classic" Texans defense of old.:wadepalm::kubepalm:

A 16 game season is way too short. If we were talking about 30 some-odd games, then I can see getting away from 2-a-days. But with 16-19 games, the more reps the better.

Showtime100
07-17-2011, 12:18 AM
A 16 game season is way too short. If we were talking about 30 some-odd games, then I can see getting away from 2-a-days. But with 16-19 games, the more reps the better.

No kidding. Has the money really affected them that much? Man, oh man.

CloakNNNdagger
07-17-2011, 07:31 AM
Couldn't happen........could it? Anyone claiming that there are good guys and bad guys in this whole mess may want to reassess.

Posted in the wee early hours of the morning:

Players apparently are making a last-minute power play
Posted by Mike Florio on July 17, 2011, 12:17 AM EDT
threeleggedrace

When I left Hilton Head Saturday morning, it had been suggested that almost nothing could derail a new labor deal.

That attitude possibly has jinked the entire process.

Now that I’m back at PFT headquarters and catching up on the stuff I missed while driving 600 miles and stopping for a couple of meals (Florio Jr. strongly objected to waiting 35 minutes for a table at Cracker Barrel), it looks like the players opted — through their lawyers — to make a power play on Saturday, something that the owners had feared.

As ESPN’s Chris Mortensen reported earlier today, the players want $320 million in benefits that weren’t paid during the uncapped year, as well as a one-year limit on the use of the franchise tag. Also, if the “lockout insurance” case must be settled separately and apart from the financial package negotiated by the league and the players, it’s possible that another nine-figure sum could be demanded. And to the extent that the Brady antitrust lawsuit needs to be resolved via something more than the contents of a new CBA, the players still could demand even more money and/or special treatment for the named plaintiffs, such as an agreement never to use the franchise tag on any of them.

With a deal now regarded by the media and fans and players and pretty much everyone else as a foregone conclusion, the NFLPA* has by all appearances opted to go for one last home run, possibly buoyed by the league’s decision to cave on the “right of first refusal” concept and the league’s significant concession on the rookie wage scale.

In theory, if the league calls the players’ bluff — and if it ends up not being a bluff — the whole thing could still blow up.

Given the dramatic progress that has been made on far thornier and challenging issues, we can’t imagine the talks crumbling now. Instead, the players likely decided to roll the dice in the hopes of making the deal a little (or, as the case may be, a lot) sweeter, and if the parties can’t work out these remaining issues on their own, then U.S. Magistrate Judge Arthur Boylan will go Alton Benes on anyone and everyone in the room.

Sure, there’s a chance that the NFLPA* lawyers are hoping that cooler heads won’t prevail, but the failure to wrap this thing up now would create a significant backlash for everyone involved. Roger Goodell and DeMaurice Smith are in the home stretch of the ultimate three-legged race, and they’re smart enough to figure out what it takes to get to the finish line.

pirbroke
07-17-2011, 07:42 AM
Couldn't happen........could it? Anyone claiming that there are good guys and bad guys in this whole mess may want to reassess.

Posted in the wee early hours of the morning:

I didn't want to wake up to this, I wanted to wake up to football Sunday and reading about what you guys saw at training camp practice. I'm going to go eat my weaties ans sulk for a while.

gary
07-17-2011, 09:20 AM
Couldn't happen........could it? Anyone claiming that there are good guys and bad guys in this whole mess may want to reassess.

Posted in the wee early hours of the morning:

What harm has really been done? No OTAs? We will have a full pre season and season. Why are you so upset?I have an issue with last minute crap like this.

Dutchrudder
07-17-2011, 09:40 AM
I absolutely hate the franchise tag, so I hope they at least limit it to 1 year. The 320 mm in benefits sounds unreasonable though. If it wasn't negotiated into the uncapped year agreement then this is just greedy.

EllisUnit
07-17-2011, 10:01 AM
I absolutely hate the franchise tag, so I hope they at least limit it to 1 year. The 320 mm in benefits sounds unreasonable though. If it wasn't negotiated into the uncapped year agreement then this is just greedy.

close to a deal and the greedy players do this. i hope the owners dont cave, and we lose the season. Then the players have to start selling their luxury condos and the they have to start looking for side jobs making 20 times less. That would be awesome to see how all these greedy players bite themselves in the ass.

CloakNNNdagger
07-17-2011, 10:26 AM
Mods, you might want to merge this thread.

http://www.texanstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1725246&postcount=811

steelbtexan
07-17-2011, 10:27 AM
I absolutely hate the franchise tag, so I hope they at least limit it to 1 year. The 320 mm in benefits sounds unreasonable though. If it wasn't negotiated into the uncapped year agreement then this is just greedy.

Why do you hate the franchise tag? It allows teams to keep their bst players even though they have to pay though the nose to keep them. (See Dunta)

You also usually get the best out of franchised players. (See Haynesworth) Therefore it should raise the overall level of play.

Agreed on the 320 mil thing for the same reasons.

GP
07-17-2011, 10:46 AM
Well, this is certainly a kick to the nuts.

I think the owners should cave on the franchise tag issue, but say "No" to the $320 mill issue. Win-win situation, IMO.

Doppelganger
07-17-2011, 10:53 AM
The owners should say no and force the players to accept it or walk. If the players walk they lose ALL of the positives they gained in this lockout. Since the owners locked the players out, the public has been on the side of the players.

But, if owners are smart, they will say no and force the player's hand.

Lucky
07-17-2011, 11:51 AM
The owners should say no and force the players to accept it or walk. If the players walk they lose ALL of the positives they gained in this lockout.
What positives? The players were better off under the previous CBA. They still would have a good shot of winning the anti-trust suit. And by terminating the CBA, the owners did save the $320 million, plus whatever was saved in workout bonuses this offseason. Why shouldn't the players want to recoup that?

gary
07-17-2011, 11:55 AM
good job with the thread Lucky.

disaacks3
07-17-2011, 12:07 PM
What positives? The players were better off under the previous CBA. They still would have a good shot of winning the anti-trust suit. And by terminating the CBA, the owners did save the $320 million, plus whatever was saved in workout bonuses this offseason. Why shouldn't the players want to recoup that? That's what I see here as well. The players need to play a "Little" catch-up for $$ lost this off-season..it's not as if the new CBA (with their lower %) is going to do it for them.

The CBA and the Brady suit are still separate entities as of this moment...as is Doty's impending ruling on the TV deal. The owners might be looking at far MORE than 320 mil, if those proceed as expected.

This is a game of negotiation chicken folks. I think the players hold the better hand at the moment.

Dutchrudder
07-17-2011, 12:20 PM
Why do you hate the franchise tag? It allows teams to keep their bst players even though they have to pay though the nose to keep them. (See Dunta)

You also usually get the best out of franchised players. (See Haynesworth) Therefore it should raise the overall level of play.

Agreed on the 320 mil thing for the same reasons.

The franchise tag is just a lazy way of forcing a contract onto a player. Why should a player in any sport be forced to play for a team that he is not under contract for? If a team wants to lockup a player then they should sign them to a contract for it. It's a terrible idea that allows The owners to keep a guy from getting a better deal on the market. I don't know how the F tag got started, but I don't think it helps the league at all. Free agency is a perfectly acceptable process to sign players, no need to lock the player up past the expiration of his contract.

thunderkyss
07-17-2011, 04:18 PM
close to a deal and the greedy players do this. i hope the owners dont cave, and we lose the season. Then the players have to start selling their luxury condos and the they have to start looking for side jobs making 20 times less. That would be awesome to see how all these greedy players bite themselves in the ass.

Wow....

There are good guys & bad guys & all that crap.

I want football as much as the next guy... I'm sure the owners & players do too.

The players are asking for money the owners screwed them out of during the 2010 season by opting out of the CBA.

& then the franchise thing, I think is just wishful thinking

IMO, the owners owe them the unpaid benefits, but I'd call their bluff on the Franchise tag. That was in the original CBA.

thunderkyss
07-17-2011, 04:31 PM
I absolutely hate the franchise tag, so I hope they at least limit it to 1 year. The 320 mm in benefits sounds unreasonable though. If it wasn't negotiated into the uncapped year agreement then this is just greedy.

This doesn't make sense. The $320 was negotiated in the previous CBA. The owners opted out of that agreement.

Let's say you are in a union. Part of your labor agreement is for the employer to pay a percentage of your health-care cost & contribute to your 401K.

Management decides they didn't like the deal, so they opt out.

You work for a year, paying your full health-care cost, & your employer does not contribute to your 401K as previously agreed.

Is it greedy to ask for that back?

I agree it's frustrating for them to ask this late in the game. But this is dirty management 101, you get them to negotiate for something that should already be theirs, so they forget about what's really important. DeMaurice Smith didn't fall for it, he stayed on track. I don't think he accomplished as much for the players as he should have (we still haven't seen the books have we?).

Now he's got the owners over a barrel. It's an either or thing. If they drop the franchise tag, the players will like it..... at least those that may have the tag applied to them in multiple years, which is low...... or they pay the $320 Million.

If I were a player, I'd want my benefits paid...... the $320 million.

If I were an owner, I'd drop the ability to franchise the same player for multiple years.... really costs them nothing to do this.

thunderkyss
07-17-2011, 04:40 PM
The franchise tag is just a lazy way of forcing a contract onto a player. Why should a player in any sport be forced to play for a team that he is not under contract for? If a team wants to lockup a player then they should sign them to a contract for it. It's a terrible idea that allows The owners to keep a guy from getting a better deal on the market. I don't know how the F tag got started, but I don't think it helps the league at all.

If a player is franchised two years in a row, he'll earn in two years at least as much as he would have been guaranteed in FA.

Think of our situation with Dunta. He played well for the organization for many years, then he got injured in a contract year. The team wanted to keep him, but also wanted insurance in the event he couldn't play at the level he played before.

They franchised him & it was a win-win for both..... even though Dunta didn't see it that way. He got payed $10 M to prove he wasn't the same guy, then he suckered Atlanta into giving him close to $20 M guaranteed. Had he been allowed to leave in 2009, he wouldn't be sitting pretty with close to $30M right now.

Franchising a player twice doesn't make sense. We would have paid him more in guaranteed money had we done that. I imagine his performance in 2009 told the Texans where his value was, Dunta & the Falcons obviously disagreed with our assessment, which is fine. If Dunta was holding back (which I think he was) maybe he'll earn his money in Atlanta.

But to not play 100% when you're getting paid $10M & you're supposed to be one of the leaders on the team...... we don't need that prima donna crap. I'll take another 2011 like season before I start taking dick like that from Dunta Robinson.

Lucky
07-17-2011, 04:45 PM
If I were an owner, I'd drop the ability to franchise the same player for multiple years.... really costs them nothing to do this.
Let me go on record as saying I abhor the franchise tag, as it's currently instituted. Different prices for different positions? You're either a franchise player, or you're not. A franchise player should earn the average of the top 10 NFL salaries (or 25% more than his previous year's salary, whatever is higher), regardless of position. A franchise kicker? You've got to be kidding me. If the guy is a franchise player, pay him like it.

Allstar
07-17-2011, 05:15 PM
AdamSchefter Adam Schefter
NFLPA has begun contacting some, if not all, of 10 plaintiffs in Brady vs. NFL case about a settlement - a necessary step to end lockout.

mortreport Chris Mortensen
The line of NFL negotiations came Friday when Jerry Jones - as only he can - told negotiators, "We're down to circumsizing mosquitoes."

Dutchrudder
07-18-2011, 10:01 AM
This doesn't make sense. The $320 was negotiated in the previous CBA. The owners opted out of that agreement.

Let's say you are in a union. Part of your labor agreement is for the employer to pay a percentage of your health-care cost & contribute to your 401K.

Management decides they didn't like the deal, so they opt out.

You work for a year, paying your full health-care cost, & your employer does not contribute to your 401K as previously agreed.

Is it greedy to ask for that back?

I agree it's frustrating for them to ask this late in the game. But this is dirty management 101, you get them to negotiate for something that should already be theirs, so they forget about what's really important. DeMaurice Smith didn't fall for it, he stayed on track. I don't think he accomplished as much for the players as he should have (we still haven't seen the books have we?).

Now he's got the owners over a barrel. It's an either or thing. If they drop the franchise tag, the players will like it..... at least those that may have the tag applied to them in multiple years, which is low...... or they pay the $320 Million.

If I were a player, I'd want my benefits paid...... the $320 million.

If I were an owner, I'd drop the ability to franchise the same player for multiple years.... really costs them nothing to do this.

It's pretty simple to negotiate a contract that doesn't allow the owners to opt-out in the future. IMO, a lockout is preferable to letting the owners opt out of the deal for a year. Sounds like sour grapes for poor negotiating. The owners weren't liable to pay those benefits last year under the CBA, so why should they be liable to pay for them after the fact?

Dutchrudder
07-18-2011, 10:13 AM
If a player is franchised two years in a row, he'll earn in two years at least as much as he would have been guaranteed in FA.

Think of our situation with Dunta. He played well for the organization for many years, then he got injured in a contract year. The team wanted to keep him, but also wanted insurance in the event he couldn't play at the level he played before.

They franchised him & it was a win-win for both..... even though Dunta didn't see it that way. He got payed $10 M to prove he wasn't the same guy, then he suckered Atlanta into giving him close to $20 M guaranteed. Had he been allowed to leave in 2009, he wouldn't be sitting pretty with close to $30M right now.

Franchising a player twice doesn't make sense. We would have paid him more in guaranteed money had we done that. I imagine his performance in 2009 told the Texans where his value was, Dunta & the Falcons obviously disagreed with our assessment, which is fine. If Dunta was holding back (which I think he was) maybe he'll earn his money in Atlanta.

But to not play 100% when you're getting paid $10M & you're supposed to be one of the leaders on the team...... we don't need that prima donna crap. I'll take another 2011 like season before I start taking dick like that from Dunta Robinson.

Dunta didn't want to be here under the franchise tag or during free agency. He was forced to take a 1 year deal and risk potential injury that would ruin his free agency value. If Dunta gets another leg injury in 2010, he doesn't get near the money he got from the Falcons. So while the short-term 10 mil for one year is nice, he would be risking losing 40 mil in free agency by way of injury and also may miss out on going to a team/coach he actually wants to play for.

On the other hand, had Dunta sat out the 2010 season, he would have made $0 and missed a season. If the team doesn't want the player to go elsewhere, they can just play that card and pay him for one year to keep him off the market. The franchise tag is basically an ultimatum to the player, and I hate the idea of that. There is no contract in place with the player, it's basically forced on them and doesn't allow the player to hit free agency, which I believe they are entitled to at that point in their career.

CloakNNNdagger
07-18-2011, 10:43 AM
And that’s supposedly what Commissioner Roger Goodell is saying, according to Chris Mortensen of ESPN. Goodell, sources told Mortensen, will do “whatever is necessary” to finish the process, including going to Washington to personally meet with the NFLPA* Executive Committee to explain the proposed deal.

Albert Breer of NFL Network reports that the members of the decertified union’s governing body will meet in Washington beginning today, and continuing into Tuesday. Per Breer, the team-by-team player representatives will arrive Wednesday. Breer explains that the goal will be to explain the proposed deal to the player reps, so that they can then pass the information along to their teammates.

Still, the time line remains a bit confusing and unclear. Mortensen has reported that a 72-hour window for signing current free agents will open on Friday, only a day after the owners approve the transaction. So when between now and Friday will the players reconstitute the union and formally settle the Brady antitrust lawsuit? NFL general counsel Jeff Pash previously insisted that the doors won’t open until all i’s are dotted and t’s are crossed; there’s a lot of i-dotting and t-crossing to be done before Friday.link (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/18/goodell-will-do-whatever-is-necessary-to-get-a-deal-done/)

You've got to have a union to have a CBA agreement. I've asked this before......won't it take a decent amount of time to go through all the steps of re-certifying? It may just be my opinion, but I feel that there is too much expected to happen at the last minute to come off without a hitch.

steelbtexan
07-18-2011, 11:47 AM
Dunta didn't want to be here under the franchise tag or during free agency. He was forced to take a 1 year deal and risk potential injury that would ruin his free agency value. If Dunta gets another leg injury in 2010, he doesn't get near the money he got from the Falcons. So while the short-term 10 mil for one year is nice, he would be risking losing 40 mil in free agency by way of injury and also may miss out on going to a team/coach he actually wants to play for.

On the other hand, had Dunta sat out the 2010 season, he would have made $0 and missed a season. If the team doesn't want the player to go elsewhere, they can just play that card and pay him for one year to keep him off the market. The franchise tag is basically an ultimatum to the player, and I hate the idea of that. There is no contract in place with the player, it's basically forced on them and doesn't allow the player to hit free agency, which I believe they are entitled to at that point in their career.

I agree with TK on this and I dont agree with him on alot of things.

The franchise tag allows the owners the ability to prove on the field that they are worthy of a long term contract. As was the case with Dunta. I'm glad they didn't get stuck with a long term deal like Atlanta did. In this case the franchise tag worked perfectly for both sides.

The franchise tag is supposed to limit a franchises liability and let the teams keep their best players if there's a contract dispute and provide a level playing field thereby helping the overall product of the league.

The best players not being able to move freely as you want is a major reason the NFL is in much better shape than the NBA or MLB. Basically it allows the fanbase to identify with their teams best playes and the overall product. Unlike the other major sports and allows the league to remain competitively balanced.

As a fan I cant see why you wouldn't like the franchise tag. I really dont care if millionaire players cant move as freely as they would like. I just want to see the best product as possible on the field every Sunday and the franchise tag helps in this regard. IMHO

HoustonFrog
07-18-2011, 12:58 PM
FA to begin July 28th

http://www.rotoworld.com/headlines/nfl/206508/football-headlines?r=1

NFL free agency is expected to begin roughly one week after the finalization of a new Collective Bargaining Agreement.
For now, the expectation is that an agreement will be done this Thursday. Teams will get three days to study the new labor rules, followed by three days to sign undrafted rookies and "keep their own." Free agency should start on the seventh day, now estimated at July 28 (not July 25). Bart Hubbuch of the New York Post describes free agency as "a fire drill. ... Packing four months of moves into about four days." The month of August will be jam-packed with NFL news.

disaacks3
07-18-2011, 01:01 PM
It's pretty simple to negotiate a contract that doesn't allow the owners to opt-out in the future. IMO, a lockout is preferable to letting the owners opt out of the deal for a year. Sounds like sour grapes for poor negotiating. The owners weren't liable to pay those benefits last year under the CBA, so why should they be liable to pay for them after the fact?

Dunta didn't want to be here under the franchise tag or during free agency. He was forced to take a 1 year deal and risk potential injury that would ruin his free agency value. If Dunta gets another leg injury in 2010, he doesn't get near the money he got from the Falcons. So while the short-term 10 mil for one year is nice, he would be risking losing 40 mil in free agency by way of injury and also may miss out on going to a team/coach he actually wants to play for. So, one is "sour grapes" and the other isn't? :confused:

You're correct in that both sides agreed to the previous CBA; however, it's not unusual in the least for new Union contracts to "make up" for inadequacies in the previous one.

Dutchrudder
07-18-2011, 01:15 PM
I agree with TK on this and I dont agree with him on alot of things.

The franchise tag allows the owners the ability to prove on the field that they are worthy of a long term contract. As was the case with Dunta. I'm glad they didn't get stuck with a long term deal like Atlanta did. In this case the franchise tag worked perfectly for both sides.

I don't think it did all that much to help the Texans, except for keep Kubiak and Smith from losing their jobs. If we had the pathetic secondary in 2010 instead of 2011, we would have a new head coach.


The franchise tag is supposed to limit a franchises liability and let the teams keep their best players if there's a contract dispute and provide a level playing field thereby helping the overall product of the league.

It doesn't level the playing field at all! It creates a HUGE imbalance towards the GM. Either take our 1 year deal for a lot of money, or sit out a year. That's not a proper negotiating platform, and the player stands to lose a lot more in that deal than the organization does.


The best players not being able to move freely as you want is a major reason the NFL is in much better shape than the NBA or MLB. Basically it allows the fanbase to identify with their teams best playes and the overall product. Unlike the other major sports and allows the league to remain competitively balanced.

The NBA and MLB are quite different from the NFL. There really isn't much comparison between them, but if you want to attribute the parity in the NFL to the franchise tag, then go right ahead.


As a fan I cant see why you wouldn't like the franchise tag. I really dont care if millionaire players cant move as freely as they would like. I just want to see the best product as possible on the field every Sunday and the franchise tag helps in this regard. IMHO

Because they earned free agency by playing out their contract. Why should anyone be forced into a contract? It's a ridiculous system, and there's no other major sport that has a similar function. I really couldn't care less if billionaire owners lose a star player because they don't want to pay them the money they think they are worth. Allow the free agency market to decide their value, and let the player decide what they want to do. If the organization wants that player for a high cost for one year, let the team offer that in free agency and let the player decide if he wants that contract.

Allstar
07-18-2011, 01:26 PM
FA to begin July 28th

http://www.rotoworld.com/headlines/nfl/206508/football-headlines?r=1

I think it's actually the 25th. The older reports said 28th, recently all the talk has been the 25th.

GP
07-18-2011, 01:31 PM
Gotta' say that I think dutchrudder is winning this debate.

The FT is a way to actually PREVENT a great player from improving any of the other 31 teams out there. It's a hostage tool, and that's why players (Such as #23 Pay Me Rick) get so mad about it. Loss of a long-term contract, and inability to move to a new team for a fresh start.

Players aren't robots. Not cattle/commodity. They're people who want what they think is a fair chance at happiness. To that end, this is why they object to the FT. The team designating the player with the FT sometimes has no real intention of pursuing a long-term deal...they just want the player for one more year--Maybe even TWO more years if they use it successively.

I feel that we held onto Dunta only as "insurance" and at some point it was decided to let him go completely at the end of that insurance season. We didn't gain anything by keeping him that last season, except see a player who (for the most part) was likely pissed off and wasn't really a "team player" like you'd want your starting veteran CB to be.

Therefore, the FT is not doing what it was intended to do. It's having the opposite effect upon players.

HoustonFrog
07-18-2011, 01:35 PM
I think it's actually the 25th. The older reports said 28th, recently all the talk has been the 25th.

And this report is switching it back to the 28th...from how it is reading and the time reported.

Dutchrudder
07-18-2011, 01:36 PM
So, one is "sour grapes" and the other isn't? :confused:

Yeah, I would say they are rather different. It sucks for Dunta to have to stay with a team/organization he doesn't respect and risk injury for a year, but I think he displayed his discontent well enough throughout that last year to ensure it didn't happen again. He wasn't a team player, he wasn't giving 100%, but the Texans had to pay 100% of his contract. But hey, that 10 million did help the Texans get their first winning season, so maybe it was worth it.


You're correct in that both sides agreed to the previous CBA; however, it's not unusual in the least for new Union contracts to "make up" for inadequacies in the previous one.

Right, I wouldn't have much of a problem with it if it were brought up months ago. To spring this on the owners (what it sounds like) at the last minute of the negotiation seems greedy to me. I would bet that they get a good portion of it, because we are so close to the point where preseason games start getting removed, but I don't think it's a move in good faith.

GP
07-18-2011, 01:41 PM
Well, if the owners pay $320 million to the players, I imagine we will definitely have that first preseason game (it's worth about $200 mill).

I can envision the NFL pushing back the first reg season game as much as they need to, to ensure that all four preseason games get played. Granted, they might still be "on the right track" for not having to change any scheduling...but I just wanted to get it on record that there will damn sure be FOUR preseason games if the owners concede the $320 mill.

And to make up the difference of about $120 mill....you guys attending games might find the concession stand prices have been jacked up a bit. Parking prices, too. DirecTV subscribes will eventually feel the burn, too, either now or maybe next year. If there's anything we can count upon, it's that the owners will find a way to recoup what they've lost. It's nothing personal. It's. Just. Business.

CloakNNNdagger
07-18-2011, 01:46 PM
No matter when the lockout ends, the timeline of logistics after the lockout ends in ESPN’s report should remain consistent. Adam Schefter and Chris Mortensen report that it will go something like this:

4 days after the ratification: Teams will be able to sign undrafted players. On the same day, teams will get a three-day window to re-sign their own players. It’s safe to say tampering will go nuts in this period as agents shop deals around.

7 days after ratification: Free agency starts. So does the league year. A lot of huge deals figure to be signed within hours. Magic.

12 days after ratification: Rosters will be set at 90 players. That’s a lot of signing in a very short amount of time.

13 days after ratification: Deadline for restricted free agents to sign offer sheets. (We’re assuming RFAs will only be third year players at this point, but that isn’t confirmed.)

17 days after ratification: A four-day period for teams to match restricted free-agent offer sheets ends.

22 days after ratification: This one isn’t agreed upon, but it could be a deadline for rookies to sign. Um, wow. This unprecedented idea is something we’ll delve into later.

26 days after ratification: The signing period for RFAs, franchise players, and transition tag players ends.link (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/11/looking-closer-at-what-the-transition-rules-will-look-like/)

Even if the lockout ends at the time currently projected, this will be a hurried, sloppy year, especially for teams with notoriously sloppy clueless FOs!

badboy
07-18-2011, 02:01 PM
That's what I see here as well. The players need to play a "Little" catch-up for $$ lost this off-season..it's not as if the new CBA (with their lower %) is going to do it for them.

The CBA and the Brady suit are still separate entities as of this moment...as is Doty's impending ruling on the TV deal. The owners might be looking at far MORE than 320 mil, if those proceed as expected.

This is a game of negotiation chicken folks. I think the players hold the better hand at the moment.how much lost income to players for missing OTAs?

Allstar
07-18-2011, 02:04 PM
Boylan's back in the building

AlbertBreer Albert Breer
Judge Arthur Boylan has arrived at the meeting.

AlbertBreer Albert Breer
Boylan straight from the airport, bags in both hands, heads upstairs to meet with the legal teams, staffs here in NYC.

AlbertBreer Albert Breer
Boylan had originally ordered the sides to report to Minneapolis today, meet jointly there tomorrow. Clearly that's changed.

badboy
07-18-2011, 02:08 PM
FA to begin July 28th

http://www.rotoworld.com/headlines/nfl/206508/football-headlines?r=1

And on the 7th day God created free agency. (in my best Charlton Heston voice.)

keyser
07-18-2011, 02:39 PM
It doesn't level the playing field at all! It creates a HUGE imbalance towards the GM. Either take our 1 year deal for a lot of money, or sit out a year. That's not a proper negotiating platform, and the player stands to lose a lot more in that deal than the organization does.

The NBA and MLB are quite different from the NFL. There really isn't much comparison between them, but if you want to attribute the parity in the NFL to the franchise tag, then go right ahead.

Because they earned free agency by playing out their contract. Why should anyone be forced into a contract? It's a ridiculous system, and there's no other major sport that has a similar function. I really couldn't care less if billionaire owners lose a star player because they don't want to pay them the money they think they are worth. Allow the free agency market to decide their value, and let the player decide what they want to do. If the organization wants that player for a high cost for one year, let the team offer that in free agency and let the player decide if he wants that contract.

I don't really disagree with you, but I think the point is that the Franchise tag is not just a simple matter of contract negotiation, it's in there for the ingegrity of the league as a whole. I think you can make a case that the NFL does better, as a whole, if you let teams maintain some continuity of the players on the team. The franchise tag and the FA rules for drafted players are the only things that help this, and the draft rules serve other purposes (parity/balance) as well. The franchise tag is supposed to help a team keep those players critical to its franchise.

There are plenty of parts of the CBA and the NFL as a whole that limit the ability of players/teams to get whatever they want, for the sake of the league as a whole (really, that's what the rookie wage scale is for, also). I wouldn't be opposed to some other mechanism for helping teams retain their "key" players over the longer term (I thought I heard that the NBA had something like this - I don't follow the NBA, though). But, I do think it's beneficial to the game as a whole (and thus, to the players and to the owners, which is why it's in the CBA) to help ensure that players, especially "star" players, stay associated with one team.

The Pencil Neck
07-18-2011, 02:55 PM
how much lost income to players for missing OTAs?

To the best of my knowledge, players only get game checks and specific bonuses. They don't get paid for the OTAs. Which is probably why they want to decrease the number of them as well as the number of preseason games (which they don't get paid for, either.)

Ryan
07-18-2011, 03:05 PM
link (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/11/looking-closer-at-what-the-transition-rules-will-look-like/)

Even if the lockout ends at the time currently projected, this will be a hurried, sloppy year, especially for teams with notoriously sloppy clueless FOs!


Sounds like we're SOL.

HOU-TEX
07-18-2011, 03:27 PM
With everything being said and written right now......I'm confused. lol

One minute I hear both sides will be voting on a new CBA on Wed and Thurs. The next minute I see they're still trying to negotiate a few things. And why aren't the two sides meeting face-to-face if there are a few details that need worked out?

Do the Brady and Doty cases need closing to ratify a new CBA?

Does the NFLPA* need to recertify before the new CBA?

Does the mysterious $320 million the players are asking for need to be resolved before the new CBA?

If these must be done, can it all be finalized by Thursday for the ratification of a CBA?

Man, I'd been doing pretty good with all these details up until a few days ago. Now these jokers have me all flustered.

disaacks3
07-18-2011, 03:38 PM
how much lost income to players for missing OTAs? It depends on the specific player contract. There are some with millions at stake, while others have nothing tied to it.

Blake
07-18-2011, 03:50 PM
With everything being said and written right now......I'm confused. lol

Dude nobody knows jack shite. I remember right after July 4th John Clayton on ESPN saying a deal was close and a deal had to be done by July 15th so that companies knew what to do with their advertising dollars. Really? Advertising dollars? What a moron. They dont know shit. they are just going with what they are fed. When I hear Roger and D. Smith say that a deal is done is when a deal is done. Anything else is speculation.

badboy
07-18-2011, 04:17 PM
It depends on the specific player contract. There are some with millions at stake, while others have nothing tied to it.Hmm..I did not think any player got paid for OTAs or millions for practice or training camps. I thought all players received a per diem and a check for each pre-season game that is very tiny compared to their regular game checks. Trying to find out what the $320million is for.

Dutchrudder
07-18-2011, 04:36 PM
Hmm..I did not think any player got paid for OTAs or millions for practice or training camps. I thought all players received a per diem and a check for each pre-season game that is very tiny compared to their regular game checks. Trying to find out what the $320million is for.

I know Andre Johnson has $800,000 tied to 'attending 90% or more of off-season workouts'. Not sure how that will be impacted by the lockout.


If I understand it correctly, the 320 million is for 'unpaid benefits' for the 2010 season. Because there was no CBA in place, the league was not liable for a lot of things it was under the previous CBA. Now the players all of a sudden want those benefits paid retroactively.

beerlover
07-18-2011, 04:40 PM
This is the latest news -
Arthur Boylan arrived in New York City Monday afternoon, fresh off his vacation. According to multiple reports, he went straight from the airport to where lawyers for the NFL and NFLPA* are meeting Monday.

The original plan was for both parties to meet Boylan on his home turf in Minneapolis Tuesday. That plan obviously changed.

It’s probably going to be a quiet Monday in labor news, but we can pass along word that the NFLPA* filed for a summary judgment, asking that the lockout to be declared illegal. The motion will be rendered a moot point if there is an agreement.

NFLPA* spokesman George Atallah told the New York Times this is just a procedural move and doesn’t indicate the state of negotiations. We’d quibble with that slightly: It indicates negotiations are ongoing, something both sides aimed to end four months ago.


like Super Mario says, nobody knows exactly what the hell is going to happen. Could get sticky last minute or they could tie things up shortly?

CloakNNNdagger
07-18-2011, 07:26 PM
As things have evolved, I have developed a new outlook on this lockout issue.

http://rlv.zcache.com/the_glass_is_half_full_of_shit_button-p145649197184480390q37f_400.jpg

thunderkyss
07-19-2011, 12:03 AM
Dunta didn't want to be here under the franchise tag or during free agency. He was forced to take a 1 year deal and risk potential injury that would ruin his free agency value. If Dunta gets another leg injury in 2010, he doesn't get near the money he got from the Falcons. So while the short-term 10 mil for one year is nice, he would be risking losing 40 mil in free agency by way of injury and also may miss out on going to a team/coach he actually wants to play for.

On the other hand, had Dunta sat out the 2010 season, he would have made $0 and missed a season. If the team doesn't want the player to go elsewhere, they can just play that card and pay him for one year to keep him off the market. The franchise tag is basically an ultimatum to the player, and I hate the idea of that. There is no contract in place with the player, it's basically forced on them and doesn't allow the player to hit free agency, which I believe they are entitled to at that point in their career.

Let's go back to the beginning with this. In 2007, Dunta was on his way to having a pro-bowl season. He suffered a knee injury while making a tackle against the Oakland Raiders. He was out for the season.

He came back in 2008, with 11 games to prove he was healthy & could be that player we need him to be. I don't think he proved it, but that is neither here, nor there. He & the Texans did not reach an agreement in 2008, his last contract year.

The Texans offer him (reportedly) a contract that would place him in the top 5 of cornerbacks in the league. He turned it down.

The Texans put the franchise tag on him. NOT just any franchise tag, but a NON-EXCLUSIVE franchise tag, meaning Dunta Robinson & his agent were free to talk to every other team in the league. He could even sign an offer sheet from another team, the only thing is the Texans have the right to make a counter offer.

Now we didn't get any contract offers from any team wanting Dunta. I don't know if Dunta even went to visit any team. I understand the other team would have had to give up a first plus a contract & maybe that is why. But, Dunta should have had an idea of what his value was if he or his agent at least talked to other teams.

6 years, $57 million, $22M guaranteed (http://blogs.ajc.com/atlanta-falcons-blog/2010/03/06/dunta-robinson-signs-57-million-contract-with-the-falcons/)... (his contract with the Falcons) is what I was led to believe we offered him (I think we offered him $24M). So we can blame Rick Smith & the Texans & all that, but I think this issue is squarely on Dunta Robinson's inflated ego.

Houston franchised Robinson (http://www.aolnews.com/2010/02/24/texans-let-dunta-robinson-leave-with-good-reason/) last year, and he was the only franchised player in the NFL who chose to sit out the entire offseason.

Some statistical measures suggest that Robinson was not just one of the worst cornerbacks for the Texans, but one of the worst-rated cornerbacks in the league.

Whether or not Robinson stayed or went, the Texans secondary was likely going to be a concern.

Allstar
07-19-2011, 12:05 AM
CONCESSIONS MADE BY OWNERS
Regarding Player Safety

No 2-a-day practices during training camp

Teams will have some helmetless and padless non-contact walkthrough practices instead of 2nd training camp practice on the same day

Reduction of offseason workouts from 14 on-field organizes activities to 9

6 of the 9 practices will be helmetless

thunderkyss
07-19-2011, 12:15 AM
Because they earned free agency by playing out their contract. Why should anyone be forced into a contract? It's a ridiculous system, and there's no other major sport that has a similar function. I really couldn't care less if billionaire owners lose a star player because they don't want to pay them the money they think they are worth. Allow the free agency market to decide their value, and let the player decide what they want to do. If the organization wants that player for a high cost for one year, let the team offer that in free agency and let the player decide if he wants that contract.

the Franchise tag was negotiated by the NFLPA..... Dunta is a member of the NFLPA & as such, he should honor that contract. This sitting out training camp thing is crap.

You seem to forget Dunta was hurt a year earlier, only played a portion of the 2008 season, which he didn't prove that he was 100% & the Texans offered him (reportedly) a similar contract to the one he signed.

So it's not like the Texans were trying to low ball him.

Allstar
07-19-2011, 01:17 AM
Source: Packers are telling players to be ready to show up on Saturday (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/18/source-packers-are-telling-players-to-be-ready-to-show-up-on-saturday/)
Posted by Mike Florio on July 18, 2011, 10:16 PM EDT

Though the labor deal still isn’t done and no one knows for sure when and if it will be, the defending world champions are making it known that players should be ready to show up at the team facility on Saturday for a meeting.

Per a source with knowledge of the situation, the Packers are telling players that the doors will open on Friday, and that the team wants the players in town in order to get started on preparations for training camp and the preseason.

This presumes that the remaining issues between the NFL and the NFLPA* will be resolved in time for the players and the owners to separately approve the new agreement. The fact that the Packers are getting the word out shows how widespread that presumption currently is.

Of course, teams aren’t supposed to be talking to players during the lockout. For many teams, however, that ship sailed a long, long time ago.

UPDATE: Jason Wilde of ESPN Milwaukee says via Twitter that the report is “100 percent true,” and that he has confirmed it through two team sources.
It's been refuted by a couple players, but if they did admit it, that would mean that the Packers broke the lockout rules so maybe they are just covering things up.

DX-TEX
07-19-2011, 07:52 AM
Time to fire up the "Texans bat Signal" on top of Reliant and get our players in.:smiliedance::specnatz:

El Tejano
07-19-2011, 09:19 AM
Source: Packers are telling players to be ready to show up on Saturday (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/18/source-packers-are-telling-players-to-be-ready-to-show-up-on-saturday/)

It's been refuted by a couple players, but if they did admit it, that would mean that the Packers broke the lockout rules so maybe they are just covering things up.

Or maybe the rule only applies to teams the NFL hates.

disaacks3
07-19-2011, 12:04 PM
Hmm..I did not think any player got paid for OTAs or millions for practice or training camps. I thought all players received a per diem and a check for each pre-season game that is very tiny compared to their regular game checks. Trying to find out what the $320million is for.

Here (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6228005) is a good breakdown of the $$ involved by different players with the % of practices they would be required to participate in to get their money.

GP
07-19-2011, 04:56 PM
@adbrandt "Just wanted to say hello.":) RT @McClain_on_NFL: Teams have started calling agents. about 2 hours ago

Chubby McGreasy tweeted this?

Allstar
07-19-2011, 06:24 PM
This should all be cleared up tomorrow. I hope...

EllisUnit
07-19-2011, 06:57 PM
This should all be cleared up tomorrow. I hope...

Me to all this speculation is killing me. i havent even ordered my NFL sunday ticket yet, so they need to hurry so i can make the call ;)

Allstar
07-19-2011, 07:01 PM
AlbertBreer Albert Breer
After dinner, I'm told the lawyers & staff will be dotting i's, crossing t's and refining a document to present to the players tomorrow ...

AlbertBreer Albert Breer
Lawyers' work is largely done. Document goes to players tomorrow to be reviewed, voted on.

Allstar
07-19-2011, 07:20 PM
Drew Brees in regard to all the talk about the plaintiffs:

@drewbrees Drew Brees
I hesitate to even dignify the false media reports with a response, but obviously they are leading people astray.

badboy
07-19-2011, 08:56 PM
Here (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6228005) is a good breakdown of the $$ involved by different players with the % of practices they would be required to participate in to get their money.Interesting that Texans did not have anyone on that list.

CloakNNNdagger
07-20-2011, 07:28 AM
Despite all the denials of their requests for monumental exclusive exceptions/privileges, the petitioners of this law suit will have left a permanent bad taste in fellow players' (not to mention fans') mouths. In the court of public opinion, there will likely be little sympathy or benefit of the doubt given to these players in the future. They will have at least labeled themselves as greedy, mega-entitled individuals who should be viewed with a jaded eye for the remainder of their careers.

Report: Some Executive Committee members were “infuriated” by reports of benefits for plaintiffs (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/20/report-nflpa-executive-committee-members-were-infuriated-by-reports-of-benefits-for-plaintiffs/)
Posted by Mike Florio on July 20, 2011, 7:37 AM EDT


As the dust settles on Tuesday’s unexpected brouhaha regarding the efforts of four named plaintiffs in the Brady antitrust lawsuit — or agents and/or lawyers working on their behalf — to get something for themselves as a settlement of the case approaches, one of the guys who reported that an effort was made to block the franchise tag from ever being used on Colts quarterback Peyton Manning and Saints quarterback Drew Brees reports that the issue ultimately was dropped based in part on the reaction from other players.

Mike Freeman of CBSSports.com reports, citing an unnamed player, that some members of the NFLPA* Executive Committee were “infuriated” by the news. “They want blood,” the unnamed player told Freeman.

The Executive Committee was meeting on Tuesday in Washington, in advance of an expected Wednesday analysis of the proposed labor deal. Since Brees is a member of the Executive Committee, there’s a chance that things may have gotten a little awkward in the room.

Freeman also opines that, to the extent Brees, Manning (via his agent), and Chargers receiver Vincent Jackson are now saying they never asked for special treatment, they’re telling the truth. Sort of. As Freeman sees it, others had been pushing the issue on behalf of players who, as a result, were able to maintain plausible deniability.

As we first heard the story last month, CAA was attempting to secure the exemption for its clients, Brees and Manning. On Tuesday, Jason Cole of Yahoo! Sports reported that an effort was being made to make Jackson and Patriots guard Logan Mankins free agents in 2011, or to get them $10 million each for the money they lost via the rules of the uncapped year and their ensuing holdouts. Greg Bedard of the Boston Globe and Freeman reported that the effort of behalf of Brees and Manning was still being made. And Adam Schefter of ESPN reported that Jackson’s agents had confirmed that Jackson indeed wanted free agency, or free money.

The issue has now been resolved, via the face-saving suggestion that the NFLPA* has decided it would be too cumbersome to negotiate deals for some or all of the 10 named plaintiffs in the Brady antitrust case. The more likely explanation is that, with a storm of criticism coming from players, some in the media, and fans, the NFLPA* realized that it wasn’t the best issue to have on the table at a time when the deal was so close to being struck.

And that’s one of the realities of the new media world in which we operate. As a PFT commenter pointed out, the twists and turns of the Reggie White antitrust action in the early 1990s weren’t covered and analyzed and reacted to in real time. Today, everything is subject to immediate assessment and scrutiny. And whoever was pushing this issue as of Tuesday grossly underestimated the extent to which the information would instantaneously trigger strong feelings that could be expressed just as instantaneously.

Playoffs
07-20-2011, 08:15 AM
Nice money grab by Manning et al.

That's gonna leave a mark.

Watch as the denials stream out. Good luck with that.

Allstar
07-20-2011, 08:45 AM
Just watched Kevin Mawae thumping his chest on TV saying that the players are not here to okay a deal. They are here to make sure things are right for the players and are not going to be rushed into a deal. Said "we're not tied to a timeline of July 21." Hopefully the proposed CBA is to their liking....

They will vote today, just to be clear.

badboy
07-20-2011, 09:08 AM
Just when I was giving a nod to the NFLPA for buying the lockout insurance, greed walks in the backdoor. Not blaming this on the PA or any players but those involved. A starving guy is given a sandwich & then screams he is being abused because he did not get french fries also.

Allstar
07-20-2011, 09:43 AM
From what I gather:

Players need a majority vote to recommend to the Plaintiffs, so 17 out of 32 votes
Plaintiffs has to be unanimous, so 10 out of 10
Owners need 24 of 32 votes

Allstar
07-20-2011, 10:10 AM
Just saw DeMeco getting off a bus on NFLN :)

GP
07-20-2011, 10:46 AM
Once again, a good analysis of what to expect (by Andrew Brandt):

Link to full article. (http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Labor-pains-ending-baby-coming-soon.html)

The road to a CBA

This morning, a completed draft is being readied for the NFLPA Executive Committee and the NFL's Labor Committee. The NFLPA Executive Committee and all 32 player representatives are set to meet today in Washington to peruse, and hopefully approve, a proposed settlement. A full vote by all 1900 players would then take place. Players would recommend that the Brady named plaintiffs sign off on the deal. Upon approval by the named plaintiffs, the ball would change possession into the Owners' hands.

On Thursday, the Owners are meeting Atlanta, with two or more executives from each team attending. If at least 24 of 32 owners ratify the proposed CBA, peace will be born after four months of grueling labor pains. The NFL would then spend Thursday and Friday briefing team executives on the intricacies of the new CBA.

Comprehensive settlement

The pending litigation and related matters – Brady v. NFL, the television contract case under Judge Doty, the NFL's unfair labor practice charge with the NLRB, the NFLPA collusion grievance from last year, etc. – are expected to be rolled up into one all-encompassing "global settlement" between the parties.

Recertification

Without a union, the labor exemption – shielding the NFL from antitrust liability – does not attach. As part of the new CBA, the NFL insists that the NFLPA return to its previous role as the exclusive union of NFL Players.

If recertification mirrors the 1993 post-White recertification, there must be:

• A majority vote (50% + 1) of NFL players – by signed authorization cards – designating the NFLPA as the exclusive collective bargaining representative of all present and future players
• The NFL voluntarily recognizing the NFLPA
• The NFLPA filing a notice with the U.S. Department of Labor and an application with the IRS (to reclassify for tax purposes from a trade association to a labor organization)

Although it sounds like a lot, in today's electronic age, preparations have likely been made for this to be done electronically, via the Internet, saving some much-needed time.

Judge Nelson's blessing

Beyond the Player and Owner votes, there is the matter of the still-pending Brady v. NFL and presenting their settlement agreement to Judge Susan Nelson, the presiding judge who has been apprised of all the negotiations from mediator Arthur Boylan.

Nelson would ensure notice was given to all 1900 NFL Players and potentially hold a hearing where Players unsatisfied with the proposed settlement are afforded the opportunity to object (Judge Doty held the same in 1993 with only a handful of players objecting). Nelson would have ultimate authority to approve the ten-year settlement and end Brady.

This process – more of a formality, especially once the NFLPA recertifies – is not expected to delay the resumption of NFL football.

A not so simple issue

One issue all sides will be watching is what will happen with decertification. The Owners will try to foreclose the NFLPA's ability to decertify in the future; the Players will resist mightily. To deny decertification as an option will be a major blow to future union leaders in all major sports leagues.

With a ten-year agreement, decertification is not something that will concern the NFL for a long time, but it is in the interest of both parties to find a mutually agreeable solution, and incorporate it into an explicit and unambiguous clause in the next CBA.

Judicial oversight

The 1993 CBA – as a result of the White settlement – carried oversight from the Minnesota District Court. That oversight has represented a pebble in the shoe of the NFL, with Judge David Doty's rulings – for Michael Vick and others – costing Owners tens of millions.

The Owners are insistent in not having similar oversight in the coming agreement, and I sense they will not.

Timeline

Upon expected approval by the full NFL ownership tomorrow in Atlanta, there is a seminar scheduled for team negotiators to review the new rules to play under in the business of football.

As we expected, there will likely be a three-day period of interaction between teams and their own players – players under contract, rookies, pending free agents. That period will be full of tampering, as players and agents will want to know what is behind Door Number Two before agreeing with their own team.

Following that time, the bell will ring on the 2011 League Year, setting off the building of rosters and talent in as compressed a time period as the modern NFL has known. Teams and agents are bracing themselves, but fans are ecstatic.

The labor pains are ending, the baby will be here soon.

CloakNNNdagger
07-20-2011, 10:48 AM
NFL Players Association president Kevin Mawae and spokesman George Atallah spoke with reporters Wednesday morning and admitted the process -- reported by some outlets as a formality -- could take a while.

"The players are not in a rush. We're not tied to a timeline of July 21st," Mawae said. "We're not going to agree to any deal unless it's the right deal for all the players."

The agreement in hand is a thorough framework of an agreement that addresses the major bargaining points but is not complete, according to the Washington Post.

"There's a lot of legal stuff that needs to take place and we all know how long lawyers take," Mawae said.

The Boston Herald reported Tuesday that the union's executive committee will not ask for any special considerations for the 10 plaintiffs listed in the Brady v. NFL antitrust suit. It had been reported that Logan Mankins and Vincent Jackson -- both plaintiffs in the suit -- wanted $10 million or the promise of unrestricted free agency as a settlement of that suit.

When asked about the plaintiffs, Mawae did not specifically address the issue.link (http://www.wcti12.com/sports/28608205/detail.html)

NFLPA (WHAT NFLPA????) president and spokeman???????? As of THIS MORNING, the NFLPA president did not specifically address the "LAWSUIT"?????

GP
07-20-2011, 11:01 AM
The players will sign the deal. July 21 was the anticipated date, with lots of details about a day-by-day laundry list of events that take place to get to a preseason and reg season on time. I believe that tomorrow will be the due date of this baby. Maybe even as of midnight tonight.

Mawae is talking tough because the end is near, and he wants to make sure everyone knows that this was a "hard" process. They don't want people to think that this same streamlined process could have happened four months ago.

Every team across the league has got its foot on the starting line, waiting for the pistol to fire. Dates are set, as spelled out by the numerous media outlets, and there's no way Mawae or other players are going to grandstand and delay this thing.

We've had two sets of people working on this: (1) The players and owners talking to each other, and (2) The lawyers acting like stenographers, writing it all down as it happens and crafting the document as talks progressed. All that's needed, IMO, is a good once-over by both sides' attorneys--which I think has already happened--and the players and owners to agree that the document IS what it is purported to be. Then the signatures, then the dropping of the lawsuit, then the pistol fires and the race is on.

That's my take.

Allstar
07-20-2011, 03:46 PM
I almost want to plug my ears and hum a song until tomorrow night and hope for the best.

Allstar
07-20-2011, 04:06 PM
JasonLaCanfora Jason La Canfora
There will be no vote by the players today, according to sources. Most reps have left. Executive committee members are still in DC

Yeesh....

Source told FOXSports.com delay stemmed from volume of CBA material that must b reviewed."That's a lot of stuff to digest in one afternoon."



BREAKING: Player reps have voted to forward settlement agreement to named plaintiffs, pending resolution of some outstanding issues. ...

@SI_JimTrotter: Player vote is conditional, meaning they're prepared to forward the settlement if certain issues can be resolvedw/owners

SI_JimTrotter Jim Trotter
One of the issues presumably is the $320 million the players lost in benefits last season during the uncapped year.

SI_JimTrotter Jim Trotter
Folks believe what you will. I have spoken to nflpa officials who told me that a conditional vote did take place.




So it sounds like they gave a conditional vote, meaning that if a few issues are resolved after a continued negotiating with the NFL, they approve the deal.

TexanSam
07-20-2011, 04:25 PM
So ESPN is reporting that the NFLPA will vote today while Sports Illustrated is saying they won't vote.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/6786248/nfl-lockout-nflpa-vote-today-settlement-source-says

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/football/nfl/07/20/wednesday-lockout-vote.ap/index.html?sct=hp_t2_a3&eref=sihp

Allstar
07-20-2011, 04:39 PM
Can confirm @SI_JimTrotter report that settlement has been voted through by player reps, passed on to plaintiffs. But only conditionally ...

Dutchrudder
07-20-2011, 04:41 PM
Can confirm @SI_JimTrotter report that settlement has been voted through by player reps, passed on to plaintiffs. But only conditionally ...

Baby steps...

Allstar
07-20-2011, 04:50 PM
AlbertBreer Albert Breer
Helping to clarify here: The good news is that players voted to pass terms that would become the CBA upon reconstitution of the union. ...

AlbertBreer Albert Breer
... The bad news is the vote was conditional on the settlement terms that go along with the lawsuits. So that needs to be worked out.

AlbertBreer Albert Breer
Bottom line: The structure of the league going forward has been negotiated and set, but this one's not over til those lawsuits die,

So basically-- if we get that global settlement, lockout should be over tomorrow.

michaelm
07-20-2011, 04:58 PM
link (http://www.wcti12.com/sports/28608205/detail.html)

NFLPA (WHAT NFLPA????) president and spokeman???????? As of THIS MORNING, the NFLPA president did not specifically address the "LAWSUIT"?????

If I understand correctly, you're questioning the existence of the NFLPA as a group/organization?

The NFLPA still exists, but it's current status is a Trade Association.

It will eventually re-certify to being a Labor Organization.

CloakNNNdagger
07-20-2011, 07:20 PM
If I understand correctly, you're questioning the existence of the NFLPA as a group/organization?

The NFLPA still exists, but it's current status is a Trade Association.

It will eventually re-certify to being a Labor Organization.

I know.................but recertification has to occur in order to legally make the CBA complete.........the recertification process will not occur (sign sealed and delivered) in the course of just a couple of hours.

ChampionTexan
07-20-2011, 07:45 PM
I know.................but recertification has to occur in order to legally make the CBA complete.........the recertification process will not occur (sign sealed and delivered) in the course of just a couple of hours.

I'm under the impression that while it may not be a two hour process, recertification isn't difficult, it's not necessary to end the lockout, and if history is any indication, it doesn't even have to happen quickly...

According to local labor attorneys who are not involved in the NFL negotiations, the process for the players association to recertify is simple and won't take long. The easiest way for it to happen is for the players to ask the owners for voluntary recognition.

A source within the NFLPA confirmed Friday that reforming as a union is a simple process. The most likely scenario, the source said, is that players' signatures could be obtained at training camp once the owners lift the lockout and allow the players to return to work.

However, there is precedent for the league operating without a players union. The previous time the players decertified, they did not reform as a union until four years later.

LINK (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11199/1161125-66.stm#ixzz1ShDmlY8l)

badboy
07-20-2011, 07:51 PM
10 year CBA will eliminate most of today's players from worrying about the next one so I believe the owners will get the upperhand with moving from under federal courts.

CloakNNNdagger
07-20-2011, 08:51 PM
I'm under the impression that while it may not be a two hour process, recertification isn't difficult, it's not necessary to end the lockout, and if history is any indication, it doesn't even have to happen quickly...






LINK (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11199/1161125-66.stm#ixzz1ShDmlY8l)


The circumstances were different in the previous decertification. The players were playing without a CBA. Lawsuits were flying. The main purpose for decertifying this time was because as a union, the players could not sue the NFL. Until the certification, that avenue is reopened. I doubt that the owners would leave it at a handshake and allow open a route for being blind-sided by yet another lawsuit by proceeding without recertification. I don't get the feeling that there is much love or trust, especially trust, left between the players and owners.

CloakNNNdagger
07-20-2011, 08:59 PM
Whoopsy! Can't imagine it! Just another little "hitch." Can't imagine it!
8:55 PM EDT

The good news? None of the 10 named plaintiffs in the Brady antitrust action want to become free agents in exchange for signing off on the settlement of the case.

The bad news? According to Mike Freeman of CBSSports.com, Chargers receiver Vincent Jackson and Patriots guard Logan Mankins still want $10 million each.

The report comes despite Jackson’s Twitter claim after the issue of free agency or free money arose on Tuesday that he wants nothing other than to play ball.link (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/20/report-vincent-jackson-logan-mankins-still-want-10-million-each/)

CloakNNNdagger
07-20-2011, 11:31 PM
Chester Pitts says the lockout won’t end for “two full weeks” (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/21/chester-pitts-says-a-deal-isnt-coming-for-two-full-weeks/)

NFL Lockout Looms As Negotiations Reach Final Day Getty Images

We’re gonna need more ice for all of this champagne.

At a time when it has been widely believed that the NFLPA* and the NFL will approve the proposed labor deal and open the doors for free agency and training camps next week, Seahawks guard Chester Pitts told Tony Bruno of FOX Sports Radio that it will take “two full weeks” to get the situation resolved.

Pitts is the Seahawks’ player representative, and he attended Wednesday’s meetings in Washington, D.C. So he’s privy to what’s going on behind closed doors.

Frankly, we don’t know what to make of any of it. Our gut feeling is that the players are dragging their feet in order to get something else from the owners, even if both the players and the owners will lose roughly $100 million each for every week of the preseason that is lost.

Jim Trotter of SI.com reported on Wednesday that the players’ request for $320 million in lost benefits during the uncapped year of 2010 remains an issue, even though that was a wrinkle of the prior CBA, which when viewed from start to finish was favorable to the players. And as Mike Freeman of CBSSports.com reported on Wednesday night, Chargers receiver Vincent Jackson and Patriots guard Logan Mankins still want $10 million each to put their signatures on the settlement papers of the Brady antitrust class action.

We think everything can get wrapped up quickly if/when the two sides decide to wrap it all up. For now, it looks like the players will be deliberately dragging their feet in the hopes of extracting a few final concessions from the owners.

Again, the two sides have resolved much thornier issues. It should be easy to resolve these remaining matters, if NFLPA* executive director DeMaurce Smith can display true leadership to his players — and if Smith can continue to keep a leash on NFLPA* lawyer Jeffrey Kessler, who possibly is stirring the “let’s get paid more money” pot.

All I've got to say is "SIR, CAN I HAVE ANOTHER?"

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_GbdBrEceVG4/Sz3qhDZNttI/AAAAAAAABZY/HW7-20P6v8s/s400/bend-over.jpg

Allstar
07-21-2011, 12:24 AM
Oh Chester.

"It’s all over the place, so I’m basically preparing like they are going to call tomorrow, but if they call in two weeks to vote I know that’s when I’m ready because until I get a call and someone says this is where we are and we are ready for you guys to vote. Whether you’re 1% done or 99% done it doesn’t matter because you are not done"

http://podcast.tonybrunoshow.com/podcasts/20110720-2.mp3

GP
07-21-2011, 12:31 AM
So what will be the bill, from the players' and owners' lawyers, to spend the time trying to figure out the $320 million dollar question????

Will it end up leaving either side about $32.78 once the bill has been paid?

Sometimes, I think people like to fight just for the sake of fighting. It's all they know. Take it away from them, and they fall into a depression, needing another catastrophe to put their meat hooks into. Geez.

CloakNNNdagger
07-21-2011, 06:47 AM
Here's a good review (all in one article) of the important points anticipated in the new CBA.

Brave New NFL: Rumored Changes We May See in the New CBA (http://www.canalstreetchronicles.com/2011/7/21/2284218/rumored-changes-well-see-in-the-new-cba)

steelbtexan
07-21-2011, 07:36 AM
Gotta' say that I think dutchrudder is winning this debate.

The FT is a way to actually PREVENT a great player from improving any of the other 31 teams out there. It's a hostage tool, and that's why players (Such as #23 Pay Me Rick) get so mad about it. Loss of a long-term contract, and inability to move to a new team for a fresh start.

Players aren't robots. Not cattle/commodity. They're people who want what they think is a fair chance at happiness. To that end, this is why they object to the FT. The team designating the player with the FT sometimes has no real intention of pursuing a long-term deal...they just want the player for one more year--Maybe even TWO more years if they use it successively.

I feel that we held onto Dunta only as "insurance" and at some point it was decided to let him go completely at the end of that insurance season. We didn't gain anything by keeping him that last season, except see a player who (for the most part) was likely pissed off and wasn't really a "team player" like you'd want your starting veteran CB to be.

Therefore, the FT is not doing what it was intended to do. It's having the opposite effect upon players.

So you're saying you like the NBA/MLB model. The FT is the difference in players not being able to do the Bosh/LeBron/Wade thing in the NFL.

For every example of Dunta example of the FT use there are Walter Jones/Peppers/Haynesworth/Seymour etc... who were FT'ed multiple times and played at a pro bowl level. Lets face it Dunta was/is a selfish and he dogged it on the field. Put the blame where it should be laid. (Squarely on Dunta)

But thie Dunta thing was a sympton ofwhat's wrong with the Texans. Dunta (supposed leader) doesn't get what he wants and whine about it, doesn't get his way and dogs it. (Some kind of leader he is)

This yr MW whine about having to play DE and they moved him to LB. So hopefully it will work out better. But if Watt or Smith get hurt do you think MW will move back to DE and Reed will play LB? The team would be better in that senario. But I doubt MW would move. (These are the Texans team leaders. LOL

TEXANRED
07-21-2011, 08:49 AM
Here's a good review (all in one article) of the important points anticipated in the new CBA.

Brave New NFL: Rumored Changes We May See in the New CBA (http://www.canalstreetchronicles.com/2011/7/21/2284218/rumored-changes-well-see-in-the-new-cba)

I thought this was interesting:

Injured Reserve: Wouldn't it be nice if a player placed on IR wasn't lost for the year? Under the old CBA, the only option a team had to play an injured player who was placed on IR then later became healthy was to cut him and give him an injury settlement, then re-sign him to a new contract. Jamal Brown might have came in handy for the Saints during the 2009 playoffs.

I never did understand the NFL's reasoning behind the IR list. Put him on a DL like baseball and call up a guy from your practice squad.

Sure you are going to get that vet who fake an injury until playoff time but you also get to see your PS guy get some reps and experience. (and may even take that vets spot if he out plays him)

Porky
07-21-2011, 09:43 AM
It seems to me that they are basically at the precipice of an agreement and that both sides could have this endorsed and agreed upon by the end of the day today - if not for Jackson and Mankins.

Assuming that is the case, if these two numbskulls drag this out for any length of time, especially if it costs games or even a delay to the season, then I don't think it goes well for them, either with their teammates and fellow players, and especially not with the fans. I think they are pretty close to the edge now in terms of delays starting. Maybe if they can wrap it up tomorrow or over the weekend we'll still be able to get things starting pretty much on time....but past that and delays and/or cancellations are inevitable.

These guys better think long and hard. NFL fans have a long memory.

Allstar
07-21-2011, 09:47 AM
dkaplanSBJ daniel kaplan
Hearing the timing of the NFLPA recertification is the latest issue now to crop up. League wants right away, players saying needs 2 weeks

CloakNNNdagger
07-21-2011, 09:49 AM
It seems to me that they are basically at the precipice of an agreement and that both sides could have this endorsed and agreed upon by the end of the day today - if not for Jackson and Mankins.

Assuming that is the case, if these two numbskulls drag this out for any length of time, especially if it costs games or even a delay to the season, then I don't think it goes well for them, either with their teammates and fellow players, and especially not with the fans. I think they are pretty close to the edge now in terms of delays starting. Maybe if they can wrap it up tomorrow or over the weekend we'll still be able to get things starting pretty much on time....but past that and delays and/or cancellations are inevitable.

These guys better think long and hard. NFL fans have a long memory.

I'm not convinced that this is the only issue left before ratification of a new CBA can occur.

Allstar
07-21-2011, 09:50 AM
There could be some surprising elements to the new CBA deal in the NFL (http://blog.chron.com/fantasyfootball/2011/07/there-could-be-some-surprising-elements-to-the-new-cba-deal-in-the-nfl/)

Details about the NFL’s CBA have been few and far between over the last month or so as the judge’s gag order has kept things relatively quiet, but I’ve learned from more than once source that fans could end up being very surprised with some of aspects in this deal that should be completed by this weekend.

I’ve been asking myself “why would NFL veterans and their leader, DeMaurice Smith, negotiate a new deal that would get so many veterans cut as a result of teams needing to get under the cap?”

The players are clearly excited about the agreement in the proposed CBA that would force teams to spend as much money as needed to reach the $120 million dollar threshold, but this deal could still hurt veterans on teams who have been aggressive with their spending and who find themselves over the proposed $120 million threshold.

I might have found my answer.

I’ve learned from people close to the negotiations that we may not see the massive cap casualties that we’ve expected. In fact, there may not be any penalties for teams who are over the $120 million dollar threshold. What that would allow teams to do is hang onto veterans, if they so choose, without penalty. What was less clear to me was whether or not we’ll actually even see a salary cap. It is my understanding that for the first few years of this deal, the “cap” on spending could be soft or even non-existant.

Now why would the owners agree to that? Isn’t that the baseball model that has created such a disparity between the haves and the have nots? Yes and no.

Many on the players side believe that this CBA has as much to do with the big market owners trying to find a way to force out the owners of small market teams as it does with finding a way to split up money between players and owners. There is big TV money on the way and both the players and owners know this. I promise you that if Bob Kraft and Jerry Jones were in charge of getting a deal done, they would have made the minimum spending $140 million or more and they would have agreed to a CBA a LONG TIME AGO. According to my sources, many owners view this CBA as their big opportunity to get rid of owners they don’t like.

So in summary, we might all be surprised to find out that there is actually a soft cap or even no cap for the first few years of this deal as the NFL transitions from the old CBA to the new CBA. If that is the case, then could any team in the league become a player in the free agent market this year no matter how much they are currently spending? It could happen.

GP
07-21-2011, 09:57 AM
If there is "no cap," then we can kiss Aso and probably other top tier CBs goodbye.

No way can Bob outspend Jerry Jones, Daniel Snyder, and maybe a few others. He won't do it. It's not his style.

If this happens, it could affect the NFL landscape for YEARS. It could land the top players in the top markets and create too wide of a gap between the haves and the have nots. It'll make agents demand more for their clients because teams can now go after players with reckless abandon.

To me, this basically unravels anything the owners were trying to accomplish--Remember how they said they were needing more revenue, and that players needed to take less???

So if there's no cap--or at least some variation that renders a "cap" pointless--doesn't this end up eating their wallet and making them right back at square one?

:cusswords:

CloakNNNdagger
07-21-2011, 10:09 AM
There could be some surprising elements to the new CBA deal in the NFL (http://blog.chron.com/fantasyfootball/2011/07/there-could-be-some-surprising-elements-to-the-new-cba-deal-in-the-nfl/)

We may finally indisputably find out what McNair's true colors are.

disaacks3
07-21-2011, 10:14 AM
we may finally indisputably find out what mcnair's true colors are.

Green?

Cjeremy635
07-21-2011, 10:21 AM
How much of the delay do you think is due to the fact that some of these veteran guys, who have a vote, don't want to deal with training camp and preseason? I know that may sound dumb, but that keeps going round and round in my mind for some reason. If there is no training camp and not many preseason games, I would think that some of those old vets may not have to worry about losing their starting roles. After all, this is about what's the best thing for them. Especially when I keep hearing that "they (the players) are in no hurry to get a deal done".

Allstar
07-21-2011, 10:37 AM
I think the delay has to do with the fact that 1900 players are just now seeing a deal for the first time. It's only natural for them to want to see if they can get a little more.

CloakNNNdagger
07-21-2011, 10:45 AM
There could be some surprising elements to the new CBA deal in the NFL (http://blog.chron.com/fantasyfootball/2011/07/there-could-be-some-surprising-elements-to-the-new-cba-deal-in-the-nfl/)

This article would explain how this formula will totally screw the smaller market teams.

NFL Team Parity and Revenue Sharing (http://proplayerinsiders.com/nfl-team-parity-and-revenue-sharing/)

SheTexan
07-21-2011, 10:48 AM
I think the delay has to do with the fact that 1900 players are just now seeing a deal for the first time. It's only natural for them to want to see if they can get a little more.

Greedy bastards!!! How bout THIS!! The FANS file a friggin lawsuit against the players for mental and emotional distress!! Geeeezzzzz! They don't settle this crap SOON I'm gonna find it real difficult to "pull" for a favorite player! They can all kiss my fat old butt!!

Dutchrudder
07-21-2011, 10:50 AM
So you're saying you like the NBA/MLB model. The FT is the difference in players not being able to do the Bosh/LeBron/Wade thing in the NFL.

For every example of Dunta example of the FT use there are Walter Jones/Peppers/Haynesworth/Seymour etc... who were FT'ed multiple times and played at a pro bowl level. Lets face it Dunta was/is a selfish and he dogged it on the field. Put the blame where it should be laid. (Squarely on Dunta)

But thie Dunta thing was a sympton ofwhat's wrong with the Texans. Dunta (supposed leader) doesn't get what he wants and whine about it, doesn't get his way and dogs it. (Some kind of leader he is)

This yr MW whine about having to play DE and they moved him to LB. So hopefully it will work out better. But if Watt or Smith get hurt do you think MW will move back to DE and Reed will play LB? The team would be better in that senario. But I doubt MW would move. (These are the Texans team leaders. LOL

Having a hard salary cap for the last ~20 years is what made the NFL competitive, it's not just the franchise tag. The F tag was started in 1993, but the use of it has gone way up in the last 5 years. It's now a hostage tool used by organizations who have the cap space to hang on to players that would otherwise leave them. Teams have every opportunity in the world to make a deal with their players, but if the player doesn't want to be there, then I don't want to see him forced to be there. I guess you could say I'm in favor of a free market.

I wouldn't have as much of a problem with it if there were more limits to it. Say a player can only be F tagged once ever by a single team, or each organization can use the F tag once per 2 years. Force them to use it strategically rather than as an enforcement tool to keep players from hitting the market. Also, if they reduced the cost of signing an F tag recipient to just a 1st round pick, then I think it would be less of an issue, because nobody is going to pay two 1sts for a player on top of a big contract.

TD
07-21-2011, 10:54 AM
There could be some surprising elements to the new CBA deal in the NFL (http://blog.chron.com/fantasyfootball/2011/07/there-could-be-some-surprising-elements-to-the-new-cba-deal-in-the-nfl/)

So this has been more about a salary floor than ceiling? Not sure I'm buying that. A phase-in period for a hard cap makes sense....I think the author may be reading too much into it.

CloakNNNdagger
07-21-2011, 10:57 AM
I think the delay has to do with the fact that 1900 players are just now seeing a deal for the first time. It's only natural for them to want to see if they can get a little more.

I don't know how you feel about it, but I think that there are so many people involved with so many diverse agendas, and so many complicated issues, and so many financial issues................that even once an agreement is in place at the last minute, when everyone has a chance to digest everything (sort of like Obamacare) and see how it really works (or doesn't work) and what it actually results in..............a ways down the line, there will be some very unhappy parties.

CloakNNNdagger
07-21-2011, 11:24 AM
It seems to me that they are basically at the precipice of an agreement and that both sides could have this endorsed and agreed upon by the end of the day today - if not for Jackson and Mankins.

Assuming that is the case, if these two numbskulls drag this out for any length of time, especially if it costs games or even a delay to the season, then I don't think it goes well for them, either with their teammates and fellow players, and especially not with the fans. I think they are pretty close to the edge now in terms of delays starting. Maybe if they can wrap it up tomorrow or over the weekend we'll still be able to get things starting pretty much on time....but past that and delays and/or cancellations are inevitable.

These guys better think long and hard. NFL fans have a long memory.

If this were the only hang up, the players could take care of it quickly.
Two 10 million dollar contracts divided by 1900 players. Each player could ante in a mere 10 thousand dollars into the kitty to satisfy these two douche bags................AFTER the CBA is signed and sealed, THEN beat the crap out of them.........that makes everybody happy!!!!!!:kitten:

Brandon420tx
07-21-2011, 11:35 AM
Progress may be halted till the players recertify into a union, could take 2 weeks http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/21/latest-labor-issue-nflpa-recertification-timeline/ Way-to-go-NFL-and-Plantiffs+D.Smith

Double Barrel
07-21-2011, 11:39 AM
This article would explain how this formula will totally screw the smaller market teams.

NFL Team Parity and Revenue Sharing (http://proplayerinsiders.com/nfl-team-parity-and-revenue-sharing/)

Interesting article. Thanks for sharing.

I'm torn on this one. As an NFL fan, I think the genius of revenue sharing is indisputable as it pertains to the overall success of the league. Obviously, it is a good thing for most cities to feel like this could be their year at the start of every season.

Where I'm torn is as a Texans fan, a big market team with a decade of suck as it's history. As a Texans fan, I want what is best for our team, and that would obviously be the ability to gain a competitive advantage over our opponents. If that means we get to sign players that smaller market teams can't because our owner has more money to spend, it's tough to not want that for our team.

I tend to lean more toward being an NFL fan, though...until I read this...

At the vote for the last CBA, Buffalo Bills owner Ralph Wilson warned the league about the dangers inherent in the 2006 deal, “The non-shared revenue is growing and it’s got to be addressed, otherwise markets like Buffalo won’t be able to compete.”

I have much respect for Wilson, BUT SCREW THE BILLS!!!!! :aggressive:

Porky
07-21-2011, 11:40 AM
If this were the only hang up, the players could take care of it quickly.
Two 10 million dollar contracts divided by 1900 players. Each player could ante in a mere 10 thousand dollars into the kitty to satisfy these two douche bags................AFTER the CBA is signed and sealed, THEN beat the crap out of them.........that makes everybody happy!!!!!!:kitten:

At which point they might need a Dr. Hmmm, you needing more patients or something? :spin:

CloakNNNdagger
07-21-2011, 11:41 AM
Progress may be halted till the players recertify into a union, could take 2 weeks http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/21/latest-labor-issue-nflpa-recertification-timeline/ Way-to-go-NFL-and-Plantiffs+D.Smith

I've been pointing this out all along. Recertification doesn't "just happen." It's unbelievable to me that anyone involved or the media hadn't begged the question until the 11th hour.

CloakNNNdagger
07-21-2011, 11:44 AM
At which point they might need a Dr. Hmmm, you needing more patients or something? :spin:

While everyone else is trying to grab a piece of the pie before it's gone..........what's wrong with that?:)

Porky
07-21-2011, 11:52 AM
In all seriousness, I think the absouloute genius of the NFL is parity by design. A hard salary cap combined with revenue sharing along with an inverse draft order lets the fans of every NFL team dream that this is their year - and it can be. Many small market clubs have gone far or even won Superbowls. You don't have to have the NFL version of the Yankees to compete in this league. Because of that, success is driven by upper management, drafting suyccessfully, and having a HC and staff to put it together consistently.

To me, that philosphy that the owners developed - all for one, and one for all, is the primary reason why NFL surpassed baseball as America's favorite sport over the past few decades. You think Royals fans go into every year thinking they can beat the Yanks?

Call it Socialism, or what have you but in the limited world in which the NFL lives, it works. To me, this is a delicate balance and if they mess this up and clubs fall into the haves and the havenots, you will see a slow erosion of support. What's best for the weakest and smallest market teams is what's best for the NFL as a whole imo.

CloakNNNdagger
07-21-2011, 11:53 AM
Interesting article. Thanks for sharing.

I'm torn on this one. As an NFL fan, I think the genius of revenue sharing is indisputable as it pertains to the overall success of the league. Obviously, it is a good thing for most cities to feel like this could be their year at the start of every season.

Where I'm torn is as a Texans fan, a big market team with a decade of suck as it's history. As a Texans fan, I want what is best for our team, and that would obviously be the ability to gain a competitive advantage over our opponents. If that means we get to sign players that smaller market teams can't because our owner has more money to spend, it's tough to not want that for our team.

I tend to lean more toward being an NFL fan, though...until I read this...


This would be the case working under the assumption that :

1)Bob is willing to release significantly more monies than in the past.

2)There are some smarts applied to whom the monies are applied.

With that said, advantage would only be gained if the Texans leave behind their past tendencies.
You can have all the money in the world available, but if you don't use it or don't use it wisely.................

GP
07-21-2011, 11:56 AM
I think what we're seeing is the NFL squeezing out inferior markets, such as Buffalo. They want to get rid of the ghost towns and have only the metropolis cities remaining.

This is why L.A. will get a new stadium: To get a team to move there, increasing revenue for the league.

Lower-tiered markets have become a drain on the system, and a few owners who are doing the giving are tired of the ones who are doing too much taking. With the mom & pop operations out of the way, it streamlines the system.

Gradually, I think you'll see an end to revenue sharing altogether. This means that historic teams like the Bills are going to die or be moved. Your only means of survival will be to have a large customer base and a super-lean model of financial operations. Which means that Bob McNair is in great position to make sure the Texans are battling for 10-6 or 11-5 for the next 300+ years.

Double Barrel
07-21-2011, 12:08 PM
ITo me, that philosphy that the owners developed - all for one, and one for all, is the primary reason why NFL surpassed baseball as America's favorite sport over the past few decades. You think Royals fans go into every year thinking they can beat the Yanks?


Well, besides the fact that football is a thousand times better sport to watch than baseball...

This would be the case working under the assumption that :

1)Bob is willing to release significantly more monies than in the past.

2)There are some smarts applied to whom the monies are applied.

With that said, advantage would only be gained if the Texans leave behind their past tendencies.
You can have all the money in the world available, but if you don't use it or don't use it wisely.................

This is true. I was not taking into account the various other factors that directly contribute to successful franchises...all of which we seem to be lacking most of the time... :thinking:

I think what we're seeing is the NFL squeezing out inferior markets, such as Buffalo. They want to get rid of the ghost towns and have only the metropolis cities remaining.

This is why L.A. will get a new stadium: To get a team to move there, increasing revenue for the league.

Lower-tiered markets have become a drain on the system, and a few owners who are doing the giving are tired of the ones who are doing too much taking. With the mom & pop operations out of the way, it streamlines the system.

Gradually, I think you'll see an end to revenue sharing altogether. This means that historic teams like the Bills are going to die or be moved. Your only means of survival will be to have a large customer base and a super-lean model of financial operations. Which means that Bob McNair is in great position to make sure the Texans are battling for 10-6 or 11-5 for the next 300+ years.

I'm torn on this one....at the end of the day, the NFL is an entertainment business, and the ultimate purpose of business is profit. It seems to be a welfare system for keeping markets that are no longer viable afloat...which I'm fundamentally opposed to in regular life, so it's tough to justify here...

Plus, when we lost the Oilers, I did not see fans from other cities giving a rat's ass about Houston football fans. If anything, they ridiculed our city, so I'm honesty reaching a cynic's attitude and saying eff them, too. Karma is a *****, as they might find out really soon.

Especially the Bills...did I mention SCREW THE BILLS??!!!

So, maybe I'm not so torn about it... :fingergun:

El Tejano
07-21-2011, 12:10 PM
I think what we're seeing is the NFL squeezing out inferior markets, such as Buffalo. They want to get rid of the ghost towns and have only the metropolis cities remaining.

This is why L.A. will get a new stadium: To get a team to move there, increasing revenue for the league.

Lower-tiered markets have become a drain on the system, and a few owners who are doing the giving are tired of the ones who are doing too much taking. With the mom & pop operations out of the way, it streamlines the system.

Gradually, I think you'll see an end to revenue sharing altogether. This means that historic teams like the Bills are going to die or be moved. Your only means of survival will be to have a large customer base and a super-lean model of financial operations. Which means that Bob McNair is in great position to make sure the Texans are battling for 10-6 or 11-5 for the next 300+ years.

And the old Oiler fan in me wouldn't mind seeing that one bit. :foottap: After what their team did to us to make sure they were able to move, I'm all for it. I don't ever wish this on any fan but I wouldn't mind it for Buffalo, Tenn, Pittsburgh and Dallas with Indy really being close (once Manning is gone I'm sure I'll want them to stay though).

BIG TORO
07-21-2011, 12:15 PM
Johns Clayton reports that NFL owners have been told by league to be prepared to vote on new CBA between 3:30 and 5:30p.m.

DX-TEX
07-21-2011, 12:24 PM
@AlbertBreer saying it would take $35 mill a day out of owners offer if recert delays process. Messages being delivered.

Owners laying some old time smack down. "Sign the paper...NOW!"

Porky
07-21-2011, 12:31 PM
In every day life, I am right with DB. And I can understand the Bills hate. But the NFL is a business entity unto itself. It's not the same as company A competing with Comany B. It's more like the Scranton office competing with the Eerie PA office. I mean who sells the most paper?

If you owned lets say Office Max and you had put some stores in a few smaller markets, might you not expect the profit from the stores in Houston to help keep the stores in Buffalo running, at least too a certain extent?

Maybe I am a traditonalist, but I don't want to see any fan go through losing a team. I really don't. I remember how crushed I was when Bud took football from Houston, and whether its Buff, Jacksonville, or yes even Possum Holler, I have empathy toward my fellow fans out there, and I think this would definetely lead to some of these smaller markets moving or even folding over time.

Cjeremy635
07-21-2011, 12:34 PM
Owners laying some old time smack down. "Sign the paper...NOW!"

I agree 100%. Stop pu$$y-footin' around and sign the damn papers!

Allstar
07-21-2011, 12:48 PM
AlbertBreer Albert Breer
Our own @SportsLawGuy explaining it on the air now ... Reforming of union could take place electronically, and happen quickly.

@JasonLaCanfora
Jason La Canfora
On the issue of NFLPA recertification, people I speak to believe that could be done in a matter of hours, not days. Shouldn't be big delay

CloakNNNdagger
07-21-2011, 01:09 PM
AlbertBreer Albert Breer
Our own @SportsLawGuy explaining it on the air now ... Reforming of union could take place electronically, and happen quickly.

@JasonLaCanfora
Jason La Canfora
On the issue of NFLPA recertification, people I speak to believe that could be done in a matter of hours, not days. Shouldn't be big delay

I saw those tweets also. But I keep thinking about how the process has gone thus far..........shoulda, woulda, coulda............

Allstar
07-21-2011, 01:36 PM
D Smith about to address the media in less than 5 minutes on NFLN.

Edit: JasonLaCanfora Jason La Canfora
I'm told De Smith will be speaking briefly to clear up a procedural issue. No major news expected

Allstar
07-21-2011, 01:53 PM
Smith wanted everyone to know that the decertification process was a huge decision that took a long time. He said that recertification is an equally important decision. Didn't make it sound like it would take long time to do, just that it might take a bit to make the actual decision.

The Pencil Neck
07-21-2011, 01:58 PM
Smith wanted everyone to know that the decertification process was a huge decision that took a long time. He said that recertification is an equally important decision. Didn't make it sound like it would take long time to do, just that it might take a bit to make the actual decision.

That legal analyst said they need to get 1% of their original membership to agree for them to recertify. That's like... 19 people?

That shouldn't be hard to do.

But... that raises the question, if you get 19 people to re-up, so to speak, does that mean that you only need 50%+1 of those guys who've agreed to be in the union to agree to the CBA?

EDIT: It wasn't 1%, it was 51%. I misheard.

Allstar
07-21-2011, 02:04 PM
I took his speech as just another negotiation tactic. He's threatening the owners to let this process linger.

TexanSam
07-21-2011, 02:24 PM
Damnit, we just want some football. Players but hurry the eff up.

Allstar
07-21-2011, 02:24 PM
CullenJenkins Cullen Jenkins
I find it amazing how as a player I am watching espn to get info instead of being updated by someone. Reporters know more than we do.

BobMcGinn Bob McGinn
by SI_JimTrotter
A player representative estimated today that 10-12 #NFL teams have openly flouted lockout rules by contacting agents regarding free agents.

Showtime100
07-21-2011, 02:30 PM
CullenJenkins Cullen Jenkins

I find it amazing how as a player I am watching espn to get info instead of being updated by someone. Reporters know more than we do.

I wonder if that has something to do with the fact that the reporters are there reporting for a 24/7 sports network and he's presumably at home. I get his point though, so far I haven't heard DeMaurice Smith say, "Hold on folks, I gotta call Cullen first" and it made me wonder too. :spin:

Cjeremy635
07-21-2011, 02:31 PM
Smith wanted everyone to know that the decertification process was a huge decision that took a long time. He said that recertification is an equally important decision. Didn't make it sound like it would take long time to do, just that it might take a bit to make the actual decision.

How the eff do they not already know what they want to do? That's one of the lamest things I've ever heard. The lockout has been going on for 100+ days. Whoever was/is in charge of planning this thing out should be fired! It just seems to me like they would have already had A, B, and C mapped out in the event of agreeing to the new CBA. Schmucks....:foottap:

Showtime100
07-21-2011, 02:46 PM
All I know is if something goes wrong right here, right now, the fans rage will be heard unlike anything we've seen thusfar maybe from any work stoppage in any sport. That would be dangling the carrot too close to a hungry, pissed off bunch of fans.

http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r65/ShowtimeN15580/Emoticons%20II/create.gif

Allstar
07-21-2011, 02:47 PM
michaelombardi Michael Lombardi
I fully expect the players to vote on their call tonight.stay w/ NFLNet for details with @SportsLawGuy

Cjeremy635
07-21-2011, 02:50 PM
All I know is if something goes wrong right here, right now, the fans rage will be heard unlike anything we've seen thusfar maybe from any work stoppage in any sport. That would be dangling the carrot too close to a hungry, pissed off bunch of fans.

http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r65/ShowtimeN15580/Emoticons%20II/create.gif

QFT!!! :aggressive:

GP
07-21-2011, 02:50 PM
LOL. This is just the players jacking with the owners.

Cjeremy635
07-21-2011, 02:52 PM
LOL. This is just the players jacking with the owners.

Just to jack with the players, I'd hire nothing but scrubs and do the whole season that way. I'd watch it and go to every game just to spite those SOBs. That would show their asses who the boss is.

DX-TEX
07-21-2011, 02:54 PM
michaelombardi Michael Lombardi
I fully expect the players to vote on their call tonight.stay w/ NFLNet for details with @SportsLawGuy

Vote on what? Recertification or CBA?

Cjeremy635
07-21-2011, 02:56 PM
Vote on what? Recertification or CBA?

They probably don't even know.....:gun:

Double Barrel
07-21-2011, 03:01 PM
In every day life, I am right with DB. And I can understand the Bills hate. But the NFL is a business entity unto itself. It's not the same as company A competing with Comany B. It's more like the Scranton office competing with the Eerie PA office. I mean who sells the most paper?

If you owned lets say Office Max and you had put some stores in a few smaller markets, might you not expect the profit from the stores in Houston to help keep the stores in Buffalo running, at least too a certain extent?

Maybe I am a traditonalist, but I don't want to see any fan go through losing a team. I really don't. I remember how crushed I was when Bud took football from Houston, and whether its Buff, Jacksonville, or yes even Possum Holler, I have empathy toward my fellow fans out there, and I think this would definetely lead to some of these smaller markets moving or even folding over time.

I generally agree with you, and like I mentioned, it was pure genius to initiate revenue sharing several decades ago. It was visionary on the part of Lamar Hunt, and certainly was a major contribution toward the growth and success of the league.

However, there has to be a certain point where a given franchise has some minimal financial support from the city/fans that it's based. I'm not sure what that number would be, but it would not be prudent for the NFL to carry a team whose fanbase simply does not provide the financial support required to sustain the operation.

While tradition is certainly admirable, the cold hard reality of economic viability must play an equal role. For instance, Buffalo is a dying city. My in-laws are from there, and they'll tell you that the population is dwindling year by year. At what point does the league admit that keeping a city in that location comes at too big of an economic cost? Jacksonville is another example, especially when they are tarping 20,000 seats (or whatever the number is right now).

Houston did not lose the Oilers because we did not support the team. We lost the Oilers because Bud was greedy and made the decision to move based purely on financial benefit to his bank account. He regretted the decision, later admitting that he should have let the Astros move first, but the fact that the NFL came back to H-town in a mere 5 years proves that this is a city that will financially support an NFL franchise. A decade of sold-out games proves it. Bud is a jackass, and I can't blame the move on fans or politicians. Fans and politicians are the ones that got things done and supported Bob McNair and the Texans, after all. Bud had no patience and let his greed kill the Oilers.

How the eff do they not already know what they want to do? That's one of the lamest things I've ever heard. The lockout has been going on for 100+ days. Whoever was/is in charge of planning this thing out should be fired! It just seems to me like they would have already had A, B, and C mapped out in the event of agreeing to the new CBA. Schmucks....:foottap:

I agree completely. I swear the image of a man with his head up his butt keeps coming to mind. The head games and BS tactics are really running the risk of pissing off a huge section of the fanbase. They are reaching a point where a lot of that ill will from fans will not be temporary. Finalize a deal now, and the majority of fans will eventually forgive and forget. Keep acting like jackasses and miss some real games, and I'm not so sure that folks will be as forgiving of the greed.

Cjeremy635
07-21-2011, 03:13 PM
I agree completely. I swear the image of a man with his head up his butt keeps coming to mind. The head games and BS tactics are really running the risk of pissing off a huge section of the fanbase. They are reaching a point where a lot of that ill will from fans will not be temporary. Finalize a deal now, and the majority of fans will eventually forgive and forget. Keep acting like jackasses and miss some real games, and I'm not so sure that folks will be as forgiving of the greed.

I agree 100%. Couldn't have said it any better. I live for the 6 months out of the year that there's football, but I'd force myself to walk away from it if they keep this crap up. It's rediculous, greedy, and childish.....and I've had enough.

Allstar
07-21-2011, 03:26 PM
mortreport Chris Mortensen
Players will debate and discuss but certainly will recertify as a union, but want lockout lifted asap once they approve settlement tonight

mortreport Chris Mortensen
In nutshell, I do expect players to approve settlement but lockout could be delayed if owners insist on waiting for recertification process

GeorgeAtallah George Atallah
I'll continue the marathon analogy and say the last mile is the most painful...hang with us tweeps.

Porky
07-21-2011, 03:38 PM
I generally agree with you, and like I mentioned, it was pure genius to initiate revenue sharing several decades ago. It was visionary on the part of Lamar Hunt, and certainly was a major contribution toward the growth and success of the league.

However, there has to be a certain point where a given franchise has some minimal financial support from the city/fans that it's based. I'm not sure what that number would be, but it would not be prudent for the NFL to carry a team whose fanbase simply does not provide the financial support required to sustain the operation.

While tradition is certainly admirable, the cold hard reality of economic viability must play an equal role. For instance, Buffalo is a dying city. My in-laws are from there, and they'll tell you that the population is dwindling year by year. At what point does the league admit that keeping a city in that location comes at too big of an economic cost? Jacksonville is another example, especially when they are tarping 20,000 seats (or whatever the number is right now).

Houston did not lose the Oilers because we did not support the team. We lost the Oilers because Bud was greedy and made the decision to move based purely on financial benefit to his bank account. He regretted the decision, later admitting that he should have let the Astros move first, but the fact that the NFL came back to H-town in a mere 5 years proves that this is a city that will financially support an NFL franchise. A decade of sold-out games proves it. Bud is a jackass, and I can't blame the move on fans or politicians. Fans and politicians are the ones that got things done and supported Bob McNair and the Texans, after all. Bud had no patience and let his greed kill the Oilers.



I agree completely. I swear the image of a man with his head up his butt keeps coming to mind. The head games and BS tactics are really running the risk of pissing off a huge section of the fanbase. They are reaching a point where a lot of that ill will from fans will not be temporary. Finalize a deal now, and the majority of fans will eventually forgive and forget. Keep acting like jackasses and miss some real games, and I'm not so sure that folks will be as forgiving of the greed.

Your Jax analyis I can see because that town doesn't come out in support in strong numbers, but in Buffalo that isn't the case. While they don't have the population of a city like Houston and I realize that they are losing population, that fanbase is rabid and sells that stadium out yearly. What else should they or can they do? And let's not blame this all on the fans. The player salaries have risen dramatically and the cost of a ticket is out of reach of many of the very most rabid fans. If players and owners aren't satisified with the ticket sales, merchandise etc, I think the only place they need to look is their own mirrors. Enough of blaming the fans for your own greed.

In terms of the lockout and this certification crap - it's just that - crap. It's about to piss me off. It's so transparent its not even funny. Of course it won't take two weeks to recertify. My guess is it's done tomorrow via email or something.... but you guys are right. If they hold things up trying to squeeze every last penny out of the owners they are going to look greedy, petty and silly, and the NFL fanbase is going to turn on them in a hurry. If OTOH, they approve tonight, and recertify tomorrow I think the vast majority will be ready for some football and ready to forgive and forget both sides greed and the egos the size of Texas.

GP
07-21-2011, 03:38 PM
In other words, the players are scared that the owners won't end the lockout...so they want the lockout ended in order to justify re-certifying.

And the owners are equally paranoid that the players will take 2 weeks to re-certify rather than re-certify quickly.

Was there not a mother-lovin' way to write up the document so as to:

1. Get a vote by owners

2. Get a vote by players

3a. Present the new document for the CBA deal, with all signatures not being counted as "offical" until......

3b. Players re-certify, and

3c. Owners end lockout

And build into the agreement an amount of "damages" restitution for either side if either side dicks around and costs the other side time and/or money that would be deemed harmful to either side?????????

Bring it on down to Liquorville! Yeah!

http://thatsenuff.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/snl-liquorville-275x155.jpg

Cjeremy635
07-21-2011, 03:40 PM
In other words, the players are scared that the owners won't end the lockout...so they want the lockout ended in order to justify re-certifying.

And the owners are equally paranoid that the players will take 2 weeks to re-certify rather than re-certify quickly.

Was there not a mother-lovin' way to write up the document so as to:

1. Get a vote by owners

2. Get a vote by players

3a. Present the new document for the CBA deal, with all signatures not being counted as "offical" until......

3b. Players re-certify, and

3c. Owners end lockout

And build into the agreement an amount of "damages" restitution for either side if either side dicks around and costs the other side time and/or money that would be deemed harmful to either side?????????

Bring it on down to Liquorville! Yeah!

http://thatsenuff.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/snl-liquorville-275x155.jpg

Priceless!

Allstar
07-21-2011, 03:57 PM
judybattista Judy Battista
Players Association wants players to sign physical union cards. They signed them to dissolve union; said players comfortable w/that process.

Double Barrel
07-21-2011, 04:14 PM
Your Jax analyis I can see because that town doesn't come out in support in strong numbers, but in Buffalo that isn't the case. While they don't have the population of a city like Houston and I realize that they are losing population, that fanbase is rabid and sells that stadium out yearly. What else should they or can they do? And let's not blame this all on the fans. The player salaries have risen dramatically and the cost of a ticket is out of reach of many of the very most rabid fans. If players and owners aren't satisified with the ticket sales, merchandise etc, I think the only place they need to look is their own mirrors. Enough of blaming the fans for your own greed.


Over 30% of the Bills season tickets are folks from Toronto (which is why they are playing some of their home games in Toronto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bills_Toronto_Series)now). The city of Buffalo cannot economically support the team, much less build a new stadium to keep up with other NFL teams.

And then there is this: Buffalo Bills Attendance Drops Dramatically In 2010 (http://www.buffalorumblings.com/2011/1/4/1913932/buffalo-bills-attendance-drops-dramatically-in-2010)

"The report indicates that The Ralph was full of Bills fans at an 86.2 percent capacity this season. That's the second-lowest percentage in the AFC, ahead of just Oakland."

I'm not trying to advocate moving the Bills. What I am trying to figure out is where is the cut-off point for the NFL to financially support a franchise to keep it alive?

I agree about the greed. It's a capitalistic system, though, so part of the American economic landscape. And with the exception of taxpayer financed stadiums, I cannot be against a free market enterprise. The NFL is supply and demand at it's finest.

Allstar
07-21-2011, 04:28 PM
Picked this scoop up on a different site:

For the record, they just clarified through the legal expert on NFLN that the union didn't de-certify they simply dissolved.

Difference being that full-on decertification involves filing a lot of formal paperwork with the NLRB, which was not the case in this scenario - instead the union simply said that it was no longer representing the players association, which gave the NFLPA access to suing under anti-trust laws.

All that's required to reincorporate (bad word, but it's the one that's coming to mind, "reassemble" might be more appropriate) as a union, in so much as is legally required to pass a CBA, is for the association to show proof that 51% of membership have the intent of reunionizing (in addition to the separate issue of approving the CBA).

D. Smith and the player reps have been stressing that they want to ensure that every player voice is heard, though in large part this is likely because the union/PA wants to ensure that the tactic of de-certifying or dissolving the union for purposes of being able to sue the league under antitrust law is available to them in any future labor disputes. So it is a case not that the PA/Union has to, but that they want to.

b0ng
07-21-2011, 04:30 PM
Remember the owners can unilaterally end the lockout whenever they want.

Allstar
07-21-2011, 04:38 PM
Michael Silver wrote:


Ok, here's where we are on labor. Both sides ready to approve settlement with conditions, but there's still a significant staredown...
...Players say nfl lawyer bob batterman wants them to agree to adhere to terms of 2006 cba on non-compensation issues...
...Players want to recertify and THEN negotiate new terms...
Issues in play include: Discipline-grievance process, drug testing/substance abuse, disability bens, pensions, work rules, health & safety

disaacks3
07-21-2011, 04:42 PM
...Players want to recertify and THEN negotiate new terms...
Issues in play include: Discipline-grievance process, drug testing/substance abuse, disability bens, pensions, work rules, health & safety

Was this the stuff Chester Pitts was rambling on about? He said that there were things that simply could NOT be negotiated until AFTER re-certification. Seems like a longer list than I expected.

IDEXAN
07-21-2011, 04:44 PM
So after 4 months, why isn't the union prepared to recertify (or
reform ) again so they can consummate the new CBA ? D. Smith and his crack legal team appear to have dropped the ball ?

DexmanC
07-21-2011, 04:50 PM
Just to jack with the players, I'd hire nothing but scrubs and do the whole season that way. I'd watch it and go to every game just to spite those SOBs. That would show their asses who the boss is.

"HeHateMe" could come out of retirement!

That guy's by far the most-memorable Non-NFL player
in history.

Allstar
07-21-2011, 04:58 PM
Footballsfuture.com forums:

Based on the reports, the players want this:

We will vote to approve the settlement, but it will take a few days to re-certify (thus, we cannot vote on the CBA for a few days). We want the owners to end the lockout while we recertify and allow us to negotiate the non-compensation portions of the CBA when the recertification is complete

The owners want this:

We will vote to approve the settlement, but we want you to accept the 2006 (expiring) CBA in all aspects except the compensation (which is detailed in the global settlement) otherwise we will not end the lockout.

Allstar
07-21-2011, 05:11 PM
Per Schefter

De Smith and Roger Goodell have been on phone the past hour, trying to work out a way to lift lockout if both sides approve deal tonight.

NFL could open facilities as early as Friday so players can use them to discuss issue and sign union cards needed for recertification.

EllisUnit
07-21-2011, 05:27 PM
Per Schefter

this would be great, but for some reason i dont think the hard headed owners will do it.

Showtime100
07-21-2011, 05:32 PM
I feel like I'm watching a dash to the endzone....GO!...GO!!.....GOOOOOO!!!!

http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r65/ShowtimeN15580/Houston%20Texans/DSC_0240.jpg

But for God's sakes don't trip on your way in.

GP
07-21-2011, 05:52 PM
Over 30% of the Bills season tickets are folks from Toronto (which is why they are playing some of their home games in Toronto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bills_Toronto_Series)now). The city of Buffalo cannot economically support the team, much less build a new stadium to keep up with other NFL teams.

And then there is this: Buffalo Bills Attendance Drops Dramatically In 2010 (http://www.buffalorumblings.com/2011/1/4/1913932/buffalo-bills-attendance-drops-dramatically-in-2010)

"The report indicates that The Ralph was full of Bills fans at an 86.2 percent capacity this season. That's the second-lowest percentage in the AFC, ahead of just Oakland."

I'm not trying to advocate moving the Bills. What I am trying to figure out is where is the cut-off point for the NFL to financially support a franchise to keep it alive?

I agree about the greed. It's a capitalistic system, though, so part of the American economic landscape. And with the exception of taxpayer financed stadiums, I cannot be against a free market enterprise. The NFL is supply and demand at it's finest.

You know what? After having remembered ALL those Sundays of watching Paul MaGuire (ex Bills players) act like a royal ass when he had the displeasure of being on the broadcast crew of Oilers games (on NBC).....it would be fine with me if the Bills ceased to exist. Tasker can suck it, too.

You can't stop the change train. We know all about THAT.

Allstar
07-21-2011, 05:53 PM
I feel like I'm watching a dash to the endzone....GO!...GO!!.....GOOOOOO!!!!


But for God's sakes don't trip on your way in.

Or pull a Desean Jackson

http://sportsbonehead.com/files/2008/09/desean-jackson-drops-fumble-1-yard-line.jpg

Allstar
07-21-2011, 05:59 PM
BREAKING: Resolution passed by the owners.


This is all that the owners can do. It's all up to the players now.

TEXANRED
07-21-2011, 06:03 PM
Or pull a Desean Jackson

http://sportsbonehead.com/files/2008/09/desean-jackson-drops-fumble-1-yard-line.jpg

Thank God you didn't post the pic of Gaffney doing the same thing. He even jumped up in the stands afterwards like it was Greenbay.

Allstar
07-21-2011, 06:04 PM
Vote was 31 to 0

only one voter abstained.... guess who?









http://azsportstalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Al-Davis-arrives-to-set-of-The-Walking-Dead1.jpg

Allstar
07-21-2011, 06:05 PM
Thank God you didn't post the pic of Gaffney doing the same thing. He even jumped up in the stands afterwards like it was Greenbay.

Haha, if I remember correctly, that ended up a touchback turnover. Yeesh, we were a joke....

TEXANRED
07-21-2011, 06:06 PM
Vote was 31 to 0

only one voter abstained.... guess who?







http://azsportstalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Al-Davis-arrives-to-set-of-The-Walking-Dead1.jpg


I didn't the Emperor owned a team?

TEXANRED
07-21-2011, 06:08 PM
Haha, if I remember correctly, that ended up a touchback turnover. Yeesh, we were a joke....

Yes it was a touch back. It sucked.

I don't know if we can be so quick to take away the word "were" but we are working on it.

brakos82
07-21-2011, 06:08 PM
I didn't the Emperor owned a team?

I think he accidentally a whole coca-cola bottle.

Allstar
07-21-2011, 06:10 PM
Players will review the proposal now.

BetaV1
07-21-2011, 06:15 PM
Let's get this done!

Allstar
07-21-2011, 06:17 PM
Hall of Fame Game cancelled. Facilities open Saturday, and league year will start next Wednesday pending on the union re-certifying.

Allstar
07-21-2011, 06:24 PM
Sounds like the timeline remains the same. Wednesday is the day for full free agency.

TexCanada
07-21-2011, 06:27 PM
Sounds like the timeline remains the same. Wednesday is the day for full free agency.

Hopefully this actually happens. Thanks for the info.

Allstar
07-21-2011, 06:29 PM
Actually, make it Tuesday.

JasonLaCanfora Jason La Canfora
Following the reconstitution of the NFLPA and CBA approval by NFLPA, free agency signings start at 2ET on 7/27, per the NFL press release


Also, no op-out clause in the CBA. 10 solid years of Football!

Showtime100
07-21-2011, 06:31 PM
Actually, make it Tuesday.

JasonLaCanfora Jason La Canfora
Following the reconstitution of the NFLPA and CBA approval by NFLPA, free agency signings start at 2ET on 7/27, per the NFL press release


Also, no op-out clause in the CBA. 10 solid years of Football!

I'm getty greedy. Now I want 10 years of solid football. :D

Allstar
07-21-2011, 06:35 PM
Personal conduct policy remains the same. Players don't get a pass for acting up during the lockout.

Allstar
07-21-2011, 06:41 PM
Here's the full press release:


NFL clubs approve comprehensive agreement (http://nfllabor.com/2011/07/21/nfl-clubs-approve-comprehensive-agreement/)

NFL clubs approved today the terms of a comprehensive settlement of litigation and a new 10-year collective bargaining agreement with the NFL Players Association.

The vote was taken at a league meeting in Atlanta where the clubs were briefed on the terms of the agreement and the rules for the transition into the new League Year. The agreement must be ratified by the NFL Players Association in order for the league year to begin.

“We are pleased to announce that our clubs have approved the terms of a long-term negotiated agreement with the NFL players,” said NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell. “It includes many positive changes that emerged from a spirit of compromise rooted in doing what is best for the game and players. DeMaurice Smith and his team, and the players and owners involved in the negotiations, deserve great credit for their skill and professionalism. If approved by the players, this agreement will allow the league and its players to continue to benefit from the NFL’s popularity and will afford a unique opportunity to deliver to fans an even better, safer, and more competitive game in the future.

“On behalf of the NFL, our teams and players, I want to express our deep appreciation to Chief Magistrate Judge Arthur Boylan. Judge Boylan was the court-appointed mediator, but his contributions far exceeded that role. His patience, determination, and commitment helped keep everyone focused on the goal, and helped lead us to today’s announcement.”

The NFL announced that players can begin voluntary workouts at club facilities on July 23 if the NFLPA Executive Board approves the settlement terms. Following the reconstitution of the NFLPA as a union and approval of the new CBA by the NFLPA membership, the League Year and free agency signings will start at 2:00 PM ET on July 27 and training camps for all teams will open on July 27. Day one activities will be limited to physicals, meetings, and conditioning. Players will practice without pads on days two and three.

As part of the transition rules for the 2011 League Year, the parties have agreed that the CBA’s specified deadlines for certain free agency contract tenders will be delayed to the dates indicated below. For example, the deadline for the CBA’s “June 1 Tender” to Unrestricted Free Agents will be changed from June 1 to August 12.

Following are key dates on the revised 2011 League Calendar, contingent upon ratification of the agreement by the players prior to these dates:

JULY

July 23 Voluntary training, conditioning and classroom instruction permitted until first day of clubs’ preseason training camps.

July 23 Pre-2011 League Year Period commences. 2011 Free Agency List to be issued and will become effective on the first day of the 2011 League Year (July 27). Clubs/players may begin to renegotiate contracts. Clubs may begin to sign Drafted Rookies and their own UFAs, RFAs, Exclusive Rights Players and Franchise Players.

July 23 Waivers begin for the 2011 League Year.

July 23 Starting at 2:00 PM ET, clubs may negotiate with, but not sign, Undrafted Rookie Free Agents, free agents, and other clubs’ UFAs, RFAs, and Franchise Players.

July 24 Starting at 2:00 PM ET, clubs may begin to sign undrafted rookie free agents.

July 27 2011 League Year commences at 2:00 PM ET, provided NFLPA has ratified CBA. Free Agency Signing Period begins. Clubs may sign free agents and other clubs’ Unrestricted Free Agents. Clubs may sign Offer Sheets. Trading period begins. All Clubs must be under the Salary Cap. Top 51 rule applies.

July 27 Expand rosters to 90-man limit.

July 27 Training Camps open for all clubs, provided NFLPA has ratified CBA. Day One activities limited to physicals, meetings, and conditioning. No pads permitted on Day Two or Day Three.

AUGUST

August 9 Deadline for players under contract to report to their clubs to earn an Accrued Season for free agency.

August 11-15 First Preseason Weekend

August 12 Deadline for signing of Offer Sheets by Restricted Free Agents. (17-day period concludes)

August 12 Deadline for June 1 Tender to Unrestricted Free Agents. If the player has not signed a Player Contract with a Club by August 26, he may negotiate or sign a Player Contract from August 26 until the Tuesday following the tenth week of the regular season, at 4:00 PM ET, only with his Prior Club.

August 12 Deadline: if a Drafted Rookie has not signed a Player Contract by this date, he cannot be traded during his initial League Year and may sign a Player Contract only with the drafting Club until the day of the Draft in the next League Year.

August 13-17 Each Club has until five days prior to its second preseason game to provide any tendered but unsigned Exclusive Rights Player or Restricted Free Agent with written notice of the Club’s intent to place the player on the Exempt List if the player fails to report at least the day before the Club’s second preseason game.

August 16 Deadline for Prior Club to exercise Right of First Refusal to Restricted Free Agents. (Four-day matching period conlcudes)

August 17 Deadline for June 1 Tender to Restricted Free Agents who have received a Qualifying Offer for a Right of First Refusal Only.

August 18-22 Second Preseason Weekend.

August 25-28 Third Preseason Weekend.

August 26 Signing Period ends for Unrestricted Free Agents who received the June 1 Tender.

August 29 Deadline for June 15 Tender to Restricted Free Agents. If player’s Qualifying Offer is greater than 110% of the player’s prior year’s Paragraph 5 Salary (with all other terms of his prior year contract carried forward unchanged), the Club may withdraw the Qualifying Offer on August 29 and retain its exclusive negotiating rights to the player, so long as the Club immediately tenders the player a one-year Player Contract of at least 110% of his prior year’s Paragraph 5 Salary, with all the terms of his prior year’s contract carried forward unchanged.

August 30 Clubs reduce rosters from 90 players to 75 players.

SEPTEMBER

September 1-2 Fourth Preseason Weekend.

September 3 Clubs reduce rosters to 53 players.

September 8-12 First Regular-Season Weekend.

September 18-19 Second Regular-Season Weekend

September 20 Deadline at 4:00 PM ET for any Club that designated a Franchise Player to sign such player to a multi-year contract or extension.

If approved by the players, the new collective bargaining agreement will include the following key terms:

TERM:

The fixed term of the agreement covers the 2011 through 2020 seasons and includes the 2021 draft.

PLAYER HEALTH AND SAFETY:

Immediate implementation of changes to promote player health and safety by:

Reducing the off-season program by five weeks, reducing OTAs from 14 to 10;
Limiting on-field practice time and contact;
Limiting full-contact practices in the preseason and regular season;
Increasing number of days off for players.

Opportunity for current players to remain in the player medical plan for life.
An enhanced injury protection benefit of up to $1 million of a player’s salary for the contract year after his injury and up to $500,000 in the second year after his injury.
No change to the 16-4 season format until at least 2013; any subsequent increase in the number of regular-season games must be made by agreement with the NFL Players Association.
$50 million per year joint fund for medical research, healthcare programs, and NFL Charities, including NFLPA-related charities.

RETIRED PLAYER BENEFITS:

Over the next 10 years, additional funding for retiree benefits of between $900 million and $1 billion. The largest single amount, $620 million, will be used for a new “Legacy Fund,” which will be devoted to increasing pensions for pre-1993 retirees.
Other improvements will be made to post-career medical options, the disability plan, the 88 Plan, career transition and degree completion programs, and the Player Care Plan.

DRAFT/FREE AGENCY SYSTEM:

An annual Draft of seven rounds plus compensatory picks for teams which lose free agents.
Unrestricted free agency for players after four accrued seasons; restricted free agency for players with three accrued seasons.
Free agency exceptions (franchise and transition players).

ENTRY LEVEL COMPENSATION SYSTEM:

New entry-level compensation system including the following elements:

All drafted players sign four-year contracts.
Undrafted free agents sign three-year contracts.
Maximum total compensation per draft class.
Limited contract terms.
Strong anti-holdout rules.
Clubs have option to extend the contract of a first-round draftee for a fifth year, based on agreed-upon tender amounts.

Creation of new fund to redistribute, beginning in 2012, savings from new rookie pay system to current and retired player benefits and a veteran player performance pool.

ECONOMICS:

Salary cap plus benefits of $142.4 million per club in 2011 ($120.375 million for salary and bonus) and at least that amount in 2012 and 2013.
Beginning in 2012, salary cap to be set based on a combined share of “all revenue,” a new model differentiated by revenue source with no expense reductions. Players will receive 55 percent of national media revenue, 45 percent of NFL Ventures revenue, and 40 percent of local club revenue.
Beginning in 2012, annual “true up” to reflect revenue increases or decreases versus projections.
Clubs receive credit for actual stadium investment and up to 1.5 percent of revenue each year.
Player share must average at least 47 percent for the 10-year term of the agreement.
League-wide commitment to cash spending of 99 percent of the cap in 2011 and 2012.
For the 2013-2016 seasons, and again for the 2017-2020 seasons, the clubs collectively will commit to cash spending of at least 95 percent of the cap.
Each club committed to cash spending of 89 percent of the cap from 2013-2016 and 2017-2020.
Increases to minimum salaries of 10 percent in Year 1 with continuing increases each year of the agreement.

2011-2012 TRANSITION RULES:

Special transition rules to protect veteran players in 2011. All teams will have approximately $3.5 million in what would otherwise be performance-based pay available to fund veteran player salaries.
Each club may “borrow” up to $3 million in cap room from a future year, which may be used to support veteran player costs.
In 2012, each club may “borrow” up to $1.5 million in cap room from a future year. Both these amounts would be repaid in future years.

OTHER:

No judicial oversight of the agreement. Neutral arbitrators jointly appointed by the NFL and NFLPA will resolve disputes as appropriate.
Settlement of all pending litigation.

# # #

Allstar
07-21-2011, 06:50 PM
SI_JimTrotter Jim Trotter
there remains work to be done.


SI_JimTrotter Jim Trotter
End of NFL lockout clouded by potential recertification of union - Jim Trotter - SI.com http://fb.me/RoJySXSy


SI_JimTrotter Jim Trotter
if the players like the proposal they will ratify the settlement and forward it to the named plaintiffs. however you can take it to the bank that the players are not going to ratify this proposal as currently presented. #nfl

SI_JimTrotter Jim Trotter
there were outstanding issues that had yet to be resolved, and the players are not going to ratify the proposal w/o those being addressed.

Double Barrel
07-21-2011, 06:58 PM
Personal conduct policy remains the same. Players don't get a pass for acting up during the lockout.

You can just imagine Goodell polishing his paddle for Harrison right now...

Allstar
07-21-2011, 07:02 PM
LanceZierlein Lance Zierlein
NFL player reps and their entire side including De Smith are pissed. They believe owners tried to sneak things into deal at the last minute

LanceZierlein Lance Zierlein
Players side will leak info like crazy now. That's my guess. They don't want to let owners portray them as the holdup if deal was altered

RTP2110
07-21-2011, 07:06 PM
Man, some of the tweets are hilarious:


Faux John Madden
BREAKING: NFL Owners vote 31-0 to ratify new CBA deal. The 31-0 margin probably also looks familiar if you're a Panthers fan.


Faux John Madden
NFL owners vote 31-0 in favor of new CBA. Al Davis abstained from voting, but to be fair.. It's hard for a dead guy to vote


Dan Wetzel
Owners ratify CBA. NFL lockout nearly over. Everyone party like a Bengal tonight

thunderkyss
07-21-2011, 07:15 PM
This yr MW whine about having to play DE and they moved him to LB. So hopefully it will work out better. But if Watt or Smith get hurt do you think MW will move back to DE and Reed will play LB? The team would be better in that senario. But I doubt MW would move. (These are the Texans team leaders. LOL

Were did this come from? I haven't heard of Mario whining. The only thing I heard him say was that if that's what the coaches want him to do, that's what he's going to do.

In fact, the coach (Wade) said that Mario's position won't change, in Wade's system, the strongside DE plays exactly like he does in the 4-3.

thunderkyss
07-21-2011, 07:17 PM
I thought this was interesting:



I never did understand the NFL's reasoning behind the IR list. Put him on a DL like baseball and call up a guy from your practice squad.

Sure you are going to get that vet who fake an injury until playoff time but you also get to see your PS guy get some reps and experience. (and may even take that vets spot if he out plays him)

I think it's more about teams finding loop-holes to the 52 (53?) man rosters.

I agree with you, they need to come up with something better though.

Allstar
07-21-2011, 07:22 PM
Were did this come from? I haven't heard of Mario whining. The only thing I heard him say was that if that's what the coaches want him to do, that's what he's going to do.

Mario and Antonio made it clear that they were not happy with the switch to 3-4 right after Wade's hire.

Pantherstang84
07-21-2011, 07:28 PM
The owners just said, "Check"

The NFLPA* is on the clock...

thunderkyss
07-21-2011, 07:28 PM
Having a hard salary cap for the last ~20 years is what made the NFL competitive, it's not just the franchise tag. The F tag was started in 1993, but the use of it has gone way up in the last 5 years. It's now a hostage tool used by organizations who have the cap space to hang on to players that would otherwise leave them. Teams have every opportunity in the world to make a deal with their players, but if the player doesn't want to be there, then I don't want to see him forced to be there. I guess you could say I'm in favor of a free market.

I wouldn't have as much of a problem with it if there were more limits to it. Say a player can only be F tagged once ever by a single team, or each organization can use the F tag once per 2 years. Force them to use it strategically rather than as an enforcement tool to keep players from hitting the market. Also, if they reduced the cost of signing an F tag recipient to just a 1st round pick, then I think it would be less of an issue, because nobody is going to pay two 1sts for a player on top of a big contract.

The Franchise tag came up, because of the salary cap (at least that is what I remembered). Before the salary cap, a team can do whatever it takes to sign an important member of their team. Sky's the limit.

With the cap, that is no longer possible since you have finite dollars you are allowed to spend on your team. The franchise dollars still have to fit under that cap.

I don't know if it is unfair to use the tag.

Most of the time it is used, it has been because there were generally questions about a players ability to play in the future.... that was the case with Owen Daniels & Dunta Robinson, even though the Texans offered to make them top 5 compensated at their position.

Which I think is pretty solid for the organization.

Both guys, felt they were worth more. I like Owen Daniels & I'd love to see him paid as the top TE in the league. But, there are some pretty damn good TEs in the league. OD top 5.... I'd support that argument any day of the week. OD #1... I don't think I can win that.


Dunta, I didn't think he was worth top 5 money. I was glad he turned it down. I would have loved for him not to have signed & sat out all year. We'd have got the same thing out of him on the field.

Allstar
07-21-2011, 07:30 PM
And now we're back to where we started

dkaplanSBJ daniel kaplan
USA Today reporting players have rejected the deal.

Pantherstang84
07-21-2011, 07:31 PM
And now we're back to where we started

dkaplanSBJ daniel kaplan
USA Today reporting players have rejected the deal.

So now it is no longer a lockout. It is now a strike.

djohn2oo8
07-21-2011, 07:32 PM
judybattista Judy Battista
NFLPA says they haven't seen the owners' proposal yet.
40 seconds ago

Allstar
07-21-2011, 07:33 PM
Well I think it should get done by Tuesday.

Allstar
07-21-2011, 07:34 PM
NFLN saying that the players don't plan to vote tonight.

thunderkyss
07-21-2011, 07:36 PM
This would be the case working under the assumption that :

1)Bob is willing to release significantly more monies than in the past.



2)There are some smarts applied to whom the monies are applied.

With that said, advantage would only be gained if the Texans leave behind their past tendencies.
You can have all the money in the world available, but if you don't use it or don't use it wisely.................

Weren't we in cap hell for Kubiak's first two years? Can you get to cap hell by holding back the monies?

The problem has never been Bob's willingness to spend. It has been his business managers value assessment & negotiating abilities.

Too much money to the wrong people.

Allstar
07-21-2011, 08:21 PM
Chris Mortensen

Person on conf call sent message that players are calm, having businesslike conversation. Won't decide on voting until they get a full document from league.

Pantherstang84
07-21-2011, 08:40 PM
So now it is no longer a lockout. It is now a strike.

Sorry I should have said walkout. You cannot have a strike without a union.

XI CMURDER IX
07-21-2011, 08:44 PM
So now it is no longer a lockout. It is now a strike.

It is still a lockout... The owners ratified a proposal essentially to give to the players. They didn't ratify a new CBA. That means until the players approve this proposal, it is still a lockout.

DX-TEX
07-21-2011, 08:50 PM
ArianFosterArian Foster
Just got a call from my agent. I will be joining Kobe Bryant to play bball in Turkey.

25 minutes ago

ArianFosterArian Foster
Im at chik-fil-a, no pressure here, just a damn good sandwich RT @Magnum7One3 sounds like owners trying to put the pressure you guys

1 hour ago

Arian...you so crazy.:hurrah:

Texan_Bill
07-21-2011, 09:12 PM
Arian...you so crazy.:hurrah:

I actually wanted to post Arian's tweet in another thread that claimed Chik Fil A was only for white people.... Go Arian, GO!!!

HoustonFrog
07-21-2011, 09:23 PM
LanceZierlein Lance Zierlein
NFL player reps and their entire side including De Smith are pissed. They believe owners tried to sneak things into deal at the last minute

LanceZierlein Lance Zierlein
Players side will leak info like crazy now. That's my guess. They don't want to let owners portray them as the holdup if deal was altered

I've been reading this. This makes me hate the owners more than I did before. I want football but I almost out of principle want the players to say "eff you" even if it takes extra days. Right now someone punching Goodall would be a good start.

Nawzer
07-21-2011, 09:30 PM
Chris Mortensen on ESPN just reported that the NFLPA got the whole document from the owners side and they don't think any of the areas of contention are major issues. He said that they will vote on this tomorrow and there is a good chance that the players will agree to this deal. I don't know what the big deal was anyway, why would the players sign a deal without reading the whole thing? Seems like the owners tried to sneak a few things in, but nothing I think that will prevent a vote.