Nice Try Owners.

[dreamcastrocks]

I'm actually surprised at the amount of sympathy for the owners here. It must be because we are so close to the end of the lockout and the players seem to be holding it up slightly.

Doesn't it seem silly that the owners would give an ultimatum demanding that they sign by the 27th or go back to the existing CBA for 10 years? They were the ones that were unhappy with this CBA to begin with and the reason they locked out the players in the first place.

The players more than likely will be happy to just go back to the existing CBA for another 10 years.

 

[Chris_Sanders]

Doesn't it seem silly that the owners would give an ultimatum demanding that they sign by the 27th or go back to the existing CBA for 10 years?

I don't know where you got that from. That isn't what they said at all.

They said that the league year will begin on Wednesday next week provided the players:

1. Approve the mutually negotiated offer.
2. Recertify as a union

They didn't say anything about going back to the past CBA if a deadline is not met.

The players complaints now:

#1. They haven't "read it" despite their representatives being at every negotiation.

#2. They want to recertify as a union at training camp not on Wednesday.

#3. They want an opt out clause at 7 years

#4. They think the NFL is "making them look bad". The media is "making them look bad"


My thoughts:

#1. So have your appointed rep get you the document or get a new rep.

#2. The owners will not and should not sign a deal without the official union backing. If the players fail to recertify, then they will continue to be vulnerable to anti trust lawsuits.

#3. So basically you want to plan to start this crap over again in 7 years?

#4. Or you simply "are bad"

 

[Crazy Canuck]

I don't know where you got that from. That isn't what they said at all.

They said that the league year will begin on Wednesday next week provided the players:

1. Approve the mutually negotiated offer.
2. Recertify as a union

They didn't say anything about going back to the past CBA if a deadline is not met.

The players complaints now:

#1. They haven't "read it" despite their representatives being at every negotiation.

#2. They want to recertify as a union at training camp not on Wednesday.

#3. They want an opt out clause at 7 years

#4. They think the NFL is "making them look bad". The media is "making them look bad"


My thoughts:

#1. So have your appointed rep get you the document or get a new rep.

#2. The owners will not and should not sign a deal without the official union backing. If the players fail to recertify, then they will continue to be vulnerable to anti trust lawsuits.

#3. So basically you want to plan to start this crap over again in 7 years?

#4. Or you simply "are bad"

1. The owners cannot under US labour law require that employees unionize as a means to receiving benefits under an agreement.

2. They most certainly have said that they'll revert to the old CBA on certain issues (health, worker comp., discipline, etc) unless the players re-certify by a precise date.

When the owners, through their lawyers, drop the "re-certification by a certain date" reference in their communiqué, an agreement will be quickly reached.

 

[Linderbee]

I don't know where you got that from. That isn't what they said at all.

Opening post & post #6.

 

[Mulli]

1. The owners cannot under US labour law require that employees unionize as a means to receiving benefits under an agreement.

2. They most certainly have said that they'll revert to the old CBA on certain issues (health, worker comp., discipline, etc) unless the players re-certify by a precise date.

When the owners, through their lawyers, drop the "re-certification by a certain date" reference in their communiqué, an agreement will be quickly reached.

 

[Chris_Sanders]

1. The owners cannot under US labour law require that employees unionize as a means to receiving benefits under an agreement.

2. They most certainly have said that they'll revert to the old CBA on certain issues (health, worker comp., discipline, etc) unless the players re-certify by a precise date.

When the owners, through their lawyers, drop the "re-certification by a certain date" reference in their communiqué, an agreement will be quickly reached.

1. Agan, that arguement is crap. The players legally decertified and the owners legally locked them out. They can legally continue that lockout until the players recertify. As there is no collective bargaining agreement in place, you do not lose anything by not unionizing.

The players refuse, the lockout continues.

2. DCR left out the "certain issues" part, which is what I was disagreeing with. It seemed he was claiming they would go back to the past CBA in it's entirety.

The owners don't have to drop their demands to recertify and nor should they.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

2. DCR left out the "certain issues" part, which is what I was disagreeing with. It seemed he was claiming they would go back to the past CBA in it's entirety.

The owners don't have to drop their demands to recertify and nor should they.

I took what slandirac said in his post as true. Assuming it is, that's what it sounds like.

 

[chickenhead]

I didn't get all that worked up about the news. Just seemed like the owners were muscling in the 11th hour. Which is probably to be expected in a negotiation like this.

 

[Mulli]

I didn't get all that worked up about the news. Just seemed like the owners were muscling in the 11th hour. Which is probably to be expected in a negotiation like this.

Ya, I am thinking it is all part of the back and forth. Let me know when it is all done.

 

[Crazy Canuck]

1. Agan, that arguement is crap. The players legally decertified and the owners legally locked them out. They can legally continue that lockout until the players recertify. As there is no collective bargaining agreement in place, you do not lose anything by not unionizing.

The players refuse, the lockout continues.

2. DCR left out the "certain issues" part, which is what I was disagreeing with. It seemed he was claiming they would go back to the past CBA in it's entirety.

The owners don't have to drop their demands to recertify and nor should they.

Feel free to call the argument "crap" or whatever adjective you so choose, but, in the end, the players will insist on dealing with issues on their own timetable and don't be surprised if there's a clarification communiqué from the owners stating that in fact this their right and clearly within the purview.

I can't see what people are so up in arms about. There has been months of negotiation by a small group on both sides, and it was clearly easier for the employer side to quickly brief the owners to the details. On the players side it involves first briefing the player reps, and then the 1800 + membership; clearly a longer process. Give them time to digest.

 

[JeffGollin]

Sorting Out the BS

What we were led to believe by NFL Network was that Goodell and Smith were in complete communications contact 24/7; the implication being that everything in the agreement was known, understood and presumably agreed-to by both sides.

For the NFLPA attorney and various player reps to claim that the League was somehow trying to sneak stuff into the proposed contract or that the players didn't receive all the info suggests that either (1) Goodell and/or Smith haven't been fully candid with one another, (2) Smith hasn't effectively communicated with his player reps, (3) many reps aren't good listeners (or readers) or (4) this is all a lot of NFLPA Kabuki posturing.

I vote for Kabuki.

I also get the nagging feeling that - in addition to using certification as an anti-trust hammer - the NFLPA is attempting to "have it both ways" (i.e. they're the ones who decertified in order to gain leverage. Now they want to use the recertification issue & alleged NFL interference as a means to hold the League hostage at the eleventh hour of negotiations.

 

[TJ]

What we were led to believe by NFL Network was that Goodell and Smith were in complete communications contact 24/7; the implication being that everything in the agreement was known, understood and presumably agreed-to by both sides.

For the NFLPA attorney and various player reps to claim that the League was somehow trying to sneak stuff into the proposed contract or that the players didn't receive all the info suggests that either (1) Goodell and/or Smith haven't been fully candid with one another, (2) Smith hasn't effectively communicated with his player reps, (3) many reps aren't good listeners (or readers) or (4) this is all a lot of NFLPA Kabuki posturing.

I vote for Kabuki.

I also get the nagging feeling that - in addition to using certification as an anti-trust hammer - the NFLPA is attempting to "have it both ways" (i.e. they're the ones who decertified in order to gain leverage. Now they want to use the recertification issue & alleged NFL interference as a means to hold the League hostage at the eleventh hour of negotiations.

Bingo

 

[BurqueCardFan]

Why should the players even have to "brief" the other 1,800 or so players. Isn't the player "reps" supposed to be the collective voice of each teams players?

 

[dreamcastrocks]

Why should the players even have to "brief" the other 1,800 or so players. Isn't the player "reps" supposed to be the collective voice of each teams players?

Why should Americans be allowed a voice when we vote in Representatives and Senators?

 

[ozzfloyd]

Why should Americans be allowed a voice when we vote in Representatives and Senators?

Wow, so you get briefed on a Senate bill before they vote on it?

 

[dreamcastrocks]

Wow, so you get briefed on a Senate bill before they vote on it?

They are all a matter of public record, but that doesn't really apply. Each player has to vote to ratify, not the player representatives.

 

[Mitch]

The players deferred the coin-toss by electing not to vote Wednesday. They could have beaten the owners to the punch---but, imo, they weren't organized enough to do so, and they didn't want to give the owners the final word.

And I still think that despite not being paid at the moment, many of the NFL players have had their minds set on a shortened training camp/pre-season. They will get paid eventually, so having the opportunity to miss any part of TC and the pre-season is one that many of them were hoping for, figuring this will be the only TC reprieve they will receive in the next 10 years...that is, unless some of them pull a Brett Favre.

 

[Crazy Canuck]

The players deferred the coin-toss by electing not to vote Wednesday. They could have beaten the owners to the punch---but, imo, they weren't organized enough to do so, and they didn't want to give the owners the final word.

And I still think that despite not being paid at the moment, many of the NFL players have had their minds set on a shortened training camp/pre-season. They will get paid eventually, so having the opportunity to miss any part of TC and the pre-season is one that many of them were hoping for, figuring this will be the only TC reprieve they will receive in the next 10 years...that is, unless some of them pull a Brett Favre.

You can say some profoundly silly things at time.

 

[ozzfloyd]

They are all a matter of public record, but that doesn't really apply. Each player has to vote to ratify, not the player representatives.

You're right, it doesn't apply, hence my post replying to your US representative comment. If US citizens were all required to ratify bills, then your original post would have made a bit of sense.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

You're right, it doesn't apply, hence my post replying to your US representative comment. If US citizens were all required to ratify bills, then your original post would have made a bit of sense.

My point was showing that just because you have a representative, doesn't mean that you shouldn't be allowed to review the documentation.

That's like taking your dad with you to buy a car with him telling you that you got a good deal without reading the fine print of the contract yourself.

 

[moklerman]

Then why have player rep's? At this point, the only reason it seems they've been along for the ride is an excuse to play dress up and act like businessmen. They certainly don't seem to be all on the same page or clearly relaying information to the players.

If they're all going to follow Smith's lead and then each individual is going to have to review the 500 page document themselves, then get rid of the extra baggage. There still isn't even a clear story whether or not they actually have the document to review.

Perhaps the owners move was calculated but it was a move that allowed enough time for the season to proceed relatively normally. The players are the one's playing games and focusing on "respect", posturing and everything else.

Look at Smith's 5 minute press conference yesterday. Was it really an important thing for him to take the time to come out and snipe at the NFL Network's coverage and about statements that the desertification was bogus from a couple of owners from months ago?

The guy's focusing on his grudge at the 11th hour instead of getting the deal done. The owners were sitting on their hands all day waiting for Smith is what it looked like to me. They were ready to vote early in the day and expected to be gone but stayed as long as it took to come to an agreement.

If they were just coming up with their own version of the CBA to spring on the players in an attempt to make them look bad in the media they could have had that ready to go early in the day. If it was just a media ploy then they wouldn't have waited all day to get out of there because they would have known that the players would never accept it anyway and that it would all go to the court of public opinion and linger. There was no need for them take all day.

I think they really thought they had come to an agreement. Breer even reported that there were cheers that could be heard after the vote was taken. I think these guys were happy and relieved.

Would they stage all of that? I guess anything's possible but I just don't see billionaires taking the time to play such games. Most of these owners never even show up for these things so I'm hesitant to think they'd all be participating in some acted out deception.

The players are just having their fears and paranoia exploited by Smith.

 

[DemsMyBoys]

They certainly don't seem to be all on the same page or clearly relaying information to the players.

I don't know, molkerman. Somebody fed them all the same talking points last night. After the 9th, 10th player got on ESPN/NFL Network saying exactly the same thing I turned on Doc Martin.

 

[BurqueCardFan]

This is exactly my point. This whole thing with all the player is pure window dressing and posturing. The main players (i.e. player rep's) already knew what was in the CBA that the owners voted on. Now, the players are just trying to make themselves look more important than they are by dragging this thing out.
Logistically, it's flawed to think they can get 1,900 players together to do anything. Heck, I can't even get 12 guys together on a comman day to have a fantasy football draft. It's like pulling teeth.

 

[Crazy Canuck]

This is exactly my point. This whole thing with all the player is pure window dressing and posturing. The main players (i.e. player rep's) already knew what was in the CBA that the owners voted on. Now, the players are just trying to make themselves look more important than they are by dragging this thing out.
Logistically, it's flawed to think they can get 1,900 players together to do anything. Heck, I can't even get 12 guys together on a comman day to have a fantasy football draft. It's like pulling teeth.

You can't re-certify the union without 50+1% of their vote.

All members are showing up at a team facility somewhere, so logistically it's no big deal.

 

[slanidrac16]

Bottom line is the owner's announced an agreement, the opening of camps and the start of the season....

and here lies the problem......

BEFORE THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT! Yes, the Owner's agreed to it, and that's good. But it all fell apart when they announced the "start" of the new season and put a deadline on things.

If they had inserted a couple of "IF'S and WHEN'S" in their statement, this media blowup and fans joyful expectations would have been tempered.

And how about the NFLPA refusal to comment any further today out of respect for The Kraft Family? Not so sure everybody believes that one.