Keep Texans Talk Google Ad Free!
Venmo Tip Jar | Paypal Tip Jar
Thanks for your support! 🍺😎👍

All Encompassing Lockout Thread

HOU-TEX said:
With everything being said and written right now......I'm confused. lol
Click to expand...

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 ****. 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.
 
disaacks3 said:
It depends on the specific player contract. There are some with millions at stake, while others have nothing tied to it.
Click to expand...
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.
 
badboy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
As things have evolved, I have developed a new outlook on this lockout issue.

the_glass_is_half_full_of_shit_button-p145649197184480390q37f_400.jpg
 
Dutchrudder said:
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.
Click to expand...

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... (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 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.
Click to expand...
 
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
 
Dutchrudder said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
badboy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Here 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.
 
@adbrandt "Just wanted to say hello.":) RT @McClain_on_NFL: Teams have started calling agents. about 2 hours ago

Chubby McGreasy tweeted this?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
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.
Click to expand...
 
Nice money grab by Manning et al.

That's gonna leave a mark.

Watch as the denials stream out. Good luck with that.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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
 
Once again, a good analysis of what to expect (by Andrew Brandt):

Link to full article.

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.
Click to expand...
 
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.
Click to expand...
link

NFLPA (WHAT NFLPA????) president and spokeman???????? As of THIS MORNING, the NFLPA president did not specifically address the "LAWSUIT"?????
 
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.
 
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.
 
Can confirm @SI_JimTrotter report that settlement has been voted through by player reps, passed on to plaintiffs. But only conditionally ...
 
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.
 
CloakNNNdagger said:
link

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

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.
 
michaelm said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
CloakNNNdagger said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

LINK
 
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.
 
ChampionTexan said:
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
Click to expand...


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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
link
 
Chester Pitts says the lockout won’t end 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.
Click to expand...

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

bend-over.jpg
 
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.
 
GP said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
CloakNNNdagger said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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)
 
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.
 
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
 
Porky said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm not convinced that this is the only issue left before ratification of a new CBA can occur.
 
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.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top