PDA

View Full Version : Thursday's votes could end 4 month lockout


SteelCityMom
07-21-2011, 08:05 AM
As NFL owners gathered for their meeting in Atlanta, their lead negotiator, Jeff Pash, said he expected the league and its players to continue working toward separate Thursday votes on a new collective bargaining agreement that would end the four-month-old lockout.

"It's obviously a complicated agreement, but I think both sides are at the point where they can close, they should close, and we should be in a position to take votes," Pash said Wednesday.

The 32 player representatives did vote Wednesday at the NFL Players Association's headquarters in Washington, but it wasn't the type of vote that was expected. Instead of simply approving the draft that lawyers and staff had been working on for the last month, the reps conditionally passed it to the Brady plaintiffs, sources told NFL Network reporter Albert Breer.

In other words, the proposal will go to the 10 plaintiffs involved in the Brady antitrust case only if the league meets certain conditions in settling that piece of litigation, and also the TV rights fees case, in which players accused owners of setting up a $4 billion lockout-insurance fund.

"We still have a lot of work to do," Atlanta Falcons (http://www.nfl.com/teams/atlantafalcons/profile?team=ATL) offensive lineman Tyson Clabo (http://www.nfl.com/players/tysonclabo/profile?id=CLA004828) told The Associated Press as he left the nearly 10-hour meeting.

The players also empowered NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith, their legal counsel and the 13-man executive committee to work out the remaining issues, according to sources. One is the players' pursuit of $320 million in benefits lost as part of the 2010 uncapped-year rules, which were negotiated in the 2006 labor deal.

The good news is, outside of a few minor issues, the players were amenable to terms that would serve as a new labor deal, should the NFLPA re-certify as a union. The Brady plantiffs -- which include quarterbacks Tom Brady (http://www.nfl.com/players/tombrady/profile?id=BRA371156), Peyton Manning (http://www.nfl.com/players/peytonmanning/profile?id=MAN515097) and Drew Brees (http://www.nfl.com/players/drewbrees/profile?id=BRE229498) -- also would have to sign off for any settlement to be reached.


More here...http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d820de123/article/nfl-players-should-be-in-a-position-to-take-votes-pash-says?module=HP11_headline_stack


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

Keeping my fingers crossed. I want football for my birthday! :chuckle:

pete74
07-21-2011, 06:29 PM
i really hope its over tonite. im sick of hearing about it and just want things back to normal. hopefully the Brady vs The NFL dosnt hold shit up or im really going to hate all those guys

steeltheone
07-21-2011, 07:47 PM
I'll be very happy to see the rookie cap...

SteelCityMom
07-21-2011, 07:55 PM
Well...to no surprise, the owners have OK'd the new labor deal in a 31-0 vote (Oakland abstaining).

Key aspects of the proposal include:

An agreement that covers the 2011 through 2020 seasons, including the 2021 draft.

Reducing the offseason program by five weeks and reducing organized team activities from 14 to 10; limiting full-contact practices in the preseason and regular season, and increasing number of days off for players.

Rookie wage scale to include four-year contracts for all drafted players (option for five years on first-rounders), three-year contracts for undrafted free agents, and strong anti-holdout rules.

Creation of a 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.

Unrestricted free agency for players after four accrued seasons; restricted free agency for players with three accrued seasons.

Over the next 10 years, additional funding for retiree benefits 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.

Salary cap plus benefits of $142.4 million per club in 2011 and at least that amount in 2012 and 2013.


There has already been a game lost...the Aug. 7th Hall of Fame game (day after my birthday...guess I don't get my wish) between the Bears and Rams because the timing would be too tight.

If the players sign off on it, they can return to team facilities on Saturday.

DeMaurice Smith just doesn't make it sound promising though. He still has the tone of doom and gloom about him. Here's the e-mail he sent the players.

"As you know the Owners have ratified their proposal to settle our differences. It is my understanding that they are forwarding it to us. As you may have heard, they apparently approved a supplemental revenue sharing proposal. Obviously, we have not been a part of those discussions. As you know from yesterday, issues that need to be collectively bargained remain open, other issues such as workers compensation, economic issues and end of deal terms remain unresolved. There is no agreement between the NFL and the Players at this time. I look forward to our call tonight."

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d820e3984/article/owners-ok-new-labor-agreement-focus-now-on-players-vote?module=HP11_breaking_news


Just sign the damn paper already. Seriously.

Farrior_roirraW
07-21-2011, 09:00 PM
Just sign the damn paper already. Seriously.

This.

F.UCKING COME ON.

Atlanta Dan
07-21-2011, 09:50 PM
Peter King's story this evening indicates someone is off message

In less than two hours Thursday, euphoria over the 38-month labor dispute between NFL players and owners being over began turning sour....

That was apparent with the sending of an email from the union's veteran general counsel, Richard Berthelsen, to the board of player representatives late Thursday night. The tone in the email, obtained by SI.com and other media outlets, was harsh enough to suggest an agreement to end the labor war could be far away. He said the deal "would in my view violate federal labor laws ... [prohibiting] employers from coercing their employees into forming a union. Those laws prohibit employers from coercing their employees into forming a union, and could result in any Agreement reached through the procedure being declared null and void."

Berthesen went on to write the proposal gives the three days (next Wednesday through Friday) "to bargain any changes to the old CBA, with the new CBA becoming final on Saturday, July 30.

"If the NFL does not agree to the players' proposed changes," wrote Berthelsen, "the old CBA terms on benefits, discipline, safety, etc. will remain unchanged for another 10 years."...

A weekend of mayhem appears certain. That's the only certainty on the immediate horizon for the NFL

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/peter_king/07/21/labor-mayhem/index.html?eref=sihp&sct=hp_t11_a1

:banging:

Kingmagyar
07-22-2011, 05:20 AM
Does anyone else think that the 32 player reps seem very Egotistical with comments like...

"We have no time line"
"We will sign when we get the best deal for the players"
"We won't be intimidated to reform our union."

I don't hear them mentioning fair deal ever. Just the best deal. And As far as no time line they better wake up and realize the moment the owners start losing more pre-season games this proposal that seems more then fair will be off the table.

If some minor things like mentioned above still need to be negotiated then get it done on Friday and lose the damn arrogance. The owners are treating the players like business partners and the players are still treating the owners like enemies.

If the Steelers weren't so close to competing for another Super Bowl I would want the owners to lock them out the entire year and then see where their Egos go next year at this time. The NHL missed an entire season and the following year the owners got everything, I mean everything they wanted in the new CBA. The players bent over and kissed their butts so they wouldn't lose another year of lost income.

This thing could be resolved by Monday but I feel like venting about the Arrogance and combative nature the Player's association has had all through this thing. And yes I know they were the ones locked out, but the CBA had the opt out clause in it if the owners weren't happy. And current and retired players are already getting more in this deal then ever before in the history of the league. It's a great deal. Take it! ...or Leave it...

BIGNASTY91
07-22-2011, 05:37 AM
I have been giving both sides the "benefit of doubt" these past couple weeks, and last night i thought it would be over. I am to the point now (like almost everyone else) that i am pissed and ready for some football!!!! Sign the damn paper's and lets play. You are getting pretty much everything you wanted already. It's called bargaining you dont get everything you want, you have to take the good with the bad!! :mad:

SteelCityMom
07-22-2011, 09:04 AM
What a giant clusterfu.ck this has become.

The players are acting like they're being held at gunpoint to sign this deal because the league released a tentative schedule. TENTATIVE! That was all based on if the players signed off on the same deal the owners did. The owners are giving them until Tuesday though to read through it all, have themselves a vote and decide if they want to recertify and sign off on it.

And now there's talk of the NFLPA suing the NFL for coercing them into forming a union? Are you freaking kidding me? :banging:

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

Think about this for a second. A trade organization is suing an employer because said employer wants the organization to UNIONIZE!

Just all this greed...makes me sick. At least I still have a hockey season to look forward to in September.

TRH
07-23-2011, 07:45 AM
Does anyone else think that the 32 player reps seem very Egotistical with comments like...

"We have no time line"
"We will sign when we get the best deal for the players"
"We won't be intimidated to reform our union."

I don't hear them mentioning fair deal ever. Just the best deal. And As far as no time line they better wake up and realize the moment the owners start losing more pre-season games this proposal that seems more then fair will be off the table.

If some minor things like mentioned above still need to be negotiated then get it done on Friday and lose the damn arrogance. The owners are treating the players like business partners and the players are still treating the owners like enemies.

If the Steelers weren't so close to competing for another Super Bowl I would want the owners to lock them out the entire year and then see where their Egos go next year at this time. The NHL missed an entire season and the following year the owners got everything, I mean everything they wanted in the new CBA. The players bent over and kissed their butts so they wouldn't lose another year of lost income.

This thing could be resolved by Monday but I feel like venting about the Arrogance and combative nature the Player's association has had all through this thing. And yes I know they were the ones locked out, but the CBA had the opt out clause in it if the owners weren't happy. And current and retired players are already getting more in this deal then ever before in the history of the league. It's a great deal. Take it! ...or Leave it...


this is making me SICK. Its become the apparent that the players don't even want to negotiate or budge. I thought both sides would start conceding a bit, but apparently not. The owners own the *&*^( teams and i don't have a problem with them seeing the majority of the money.
Plus some of the changes being thrown about will no doubt....without question...hurt, if not ruin, the game. At this point, the owners need to stand firm and not sign any deal less than what they put on the table. Period.
Unions = have ruined modern day america, end of story.
I never thought it would come to this or that i would say this, but i'm VERY QUICKLY losing interest in this and the NFL as a hole. I'm starting to look to life/interests without football being one of my interests.

cloppbeast
07-23-2011, 08:45 AM
Does anyone else think that the 32 player reps seem very Egotistical with comments like...

"We have no time line"
"We will sign when we get the best deal for the players"
"We won't be intimidated to reform our union."

I don't hear them mentioning fair deal ever. Just the best deal. And As far as no time line they better wake up and realize the moment the owners start losing more pre-season games this proposal that seems more then fair will be off the table.

If some minor things like mentioned above still need to be negotiated then get it done on Friday and lose the damn arrogance. The owners are treating the players like business partners and the players are still treating the owners like enemies.

If the Steelers weren't so close to competing for another Super Bowl I would want the owners to lock them out the entire year and then see where their Egos go next year at this time. The NHL missed an entire season and the following year the owners got everything, I mean everything they wanted in the new CBA. The players bent over and kissed their butts so they wouldn't lose another year of lost income.

This thing could be resolved by Monday but I feel like venting about the Arrogance and combative nature the Player's association has had all through this thing. And yes I know they were the ones locked out, but the CBA had the opt out clause in it if the owners weren't happy. And current and retired players are already getting more in this deal then ever before in the history of the league. It's a great deal. Take it! ...or Leave it...

I agree with everything that you said.

Prior to Friday, I sided with the players on the entire CBA issue. I felt like the owners were trying to stick to the players (I still kind of do), but wanted to pin it on them - especially Goodell.

At this point, after they've went through the painstaking process of getting a deal done during the past 3-4 weeks - now the players act like they don't want to sign it! These players only make this kind of money because the owners created a football league in the first place. I wish the appreciated it.

They get paid millions of dollars, even hundreds of thousands for minimum players, to play a game! Yeah, they're heads get ****ed up a long the way, and they put their bodies through hell during the process, but no worse then our soldiers in the military. Yet they recieve much higher pay, much better benefits than our soldiers while they face less risk - and this, to them, means they're getting the shaft. These players are starting to make me sick.

Why don't these NFL players come to my place of employment and work here to see what it really feels like to get the shaft. These players act like spoiled brats.

Atlanta Dan
07-23-2011, 09:38 AM
Prior to Friday, I sided with the players on the entire CBA issue. I felt like the owners were trying to stick to the players (I still kind of do), but wanted to pin it on them - especially Goodell.

At this point, after they've went through the painstaking process of getting a deal done during the past 3-4 weeks - now the players act like they don't want to sign it! .

I am ready for football but am disappointed by the latest con job by the owners

The deal wasn't done and the owners didn't ratify an agreement negotiated with the player reps - the owners ratified an agreement proposed by the owners

As John Clayton writes for ESPN

This was an obvious power play by owners, who want to pressure players into accepting their latest proposal and see how they respond to public pressure. On Thursday night, the NFL Players Association executive board and 32 player reps opted not to vote on the proposal. Players finally received a copy late Thursday of what the owners had passed, but their initial response wasn't favorable. They think they are being played.

Said one player who was on a conference call with the NFLPA and reps: "What they said they voted on were things we didn't even agree to. Players were ticked off at owners and have just dug a deeper trench."

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/6791952/nfl-owners-put-all-blitz-players

If I want to buy a car for $40,000 with leather seats and a 300 hp engine and your organization votes 31-0 to sell me the car for $42,000 with cloth upholstery and a 230 HP engine, what your organization is proposing to sell might be a good deal on a car but it would not be what you and I had agreed to and I would have no obligation to accept the offer

stb_steeler
07-23-2011, 12:08 PM
this is making me SICK. Its become the apparent that the players don't even want to negotiate or budge. I thought both sides would start conceding a bit, but apparently not. The owners own the *&*^( teams and i don't have a problem with them seeing the majority of the money.
Plus some of the changes being thrown about will no doubt....without question...hurt, if not ruin, the game. At this point, the owners need to stand firm and not sign any deal less than what they put on the table. Period.
Unions = have ruined modern day america, end of story.
I never thought it would come to this or that i would say this, but i'm VERY QUICKLY losing interest in this and the NFL as a hole. I'm starting to look to life/interests without football being one of my interests.

Thats what did it for some baseball fans when this happened....

tucker6
07-23-2011, 12:38 PM
I am ready for football but am disappointed by the latest con job by the owners

The deal wasn't done and the owners didn't ratify an agreement negotiated with the player reps - the owners ratified an agreement proposed by the owners

As John Clayton writes for ESPN

This was an obvious power play by owners, who want to pressure players into accepting their latest proposal and see how they respond to public pressure. On Thursday night, the NFL Players Association executive board and 32 player reps opted not to vote on the proposal. Players finally received a copy late Thursday of what the owners had passed, but their initial response wasn't favorable. They think they are being played.

Said one player who was on a conference call with the NFLPA and reps: "What they said they voted on were things we didn't even agree to. Players were ticked off at owners and have just dug a deeper trench."

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/6791952/nfl-owners-put-all-blitz-players

If I want to buy a car for $40,000 with leather seats and a 300 hp engine and your organization votes 31-0 to sell me the car for $42,000 with cloth upholstery and a 230 HP engine, what your organization is proposing to sell might be a good deal on a car but it would not be what you and I had agreed to and I would have no obligation to accept the offer

Dan,

You can't be this gullible can you? Show me where DeMo Smith has stated that the owners passed anything that wasn't agreed upon by the union except for the timeline. Don't bother checking, because he hasn't. Fact is that the owners passed the agreement as-is, and then asked the players to do the same. Why can't they? The owners passed the agreement without having the final version in front of them according to Sal Pal or Mort of ESPN, so why can't the players? Both sides got the completed version late Thursday evening at the same time.

In the end, this is a manufactured issue by the players because they feel "disrespected". I say grow up and grow a set and sign on the bottom of the page. The players are losing big time in public opinion, and don't for a minute believe that they don't care about that.

Atlanta Dan
07-23-2011, 02:01 PM
Dan,

You can't be this gullible can you? Show me where DeMo Smith has stated that the owners passed anything that wasn't agreed upon by the union except for the timeline. Don't bother checking, because he hasn't. Fact is that the owners passed the agreement as-is, and then asked the players to do the same. Why can't they? The owners passed the agreement without having the final version in front of them according to Sal Pal or Mort of ESPN, so why can't the players? Both sides got the completed version late Thursday evening at the same time.

In the end, this is a manufactured issue by the players because they feel "disrespected". I say grow up and grow a set and sign on the bottom of the page. The players are losing big time in public opinion, and don't for a minute believe that they don't care about that.

After I saw the "DeMo Smith" reference (should I call Goodell GoDo?) I did not need to read any further to figure out which side you would believe on this

Read Clayton's article

Still unresolved are a monetary settlement of the $4 billion television insurance the league secured and the players' request for $320 million of lost benefits from last season.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/6791952/nfl-owners-put-all-blitz-players

Or this

The players also feel it is a bit disingenuous for the league to insist it cannot open its doors without a fully completed collective bargaining agreement, because there are some parts of the agreement — drug testing, discipline, the process for disputing grievances — that can only be collectively bargained with a union.

Players want to negotiate those issues anew after they re-form the union, but on Thursday they said that the league wants them to accept terms from the 2006 agreement on those issues. Players are adamant that they will not be rushed just because owners want to open training camps next week and point out that the N.F.L. operated for several years without a union in the early 1990s.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/22/sports/football/NFL-Union-Labor-Deal.html?pagewanted=2&ref=football

And as far as "the completed version" being voted on by the owners, there is not a completed version on which negotiators for both sides had signed off on - since you believe I am being gullible by making that statement, maybe this quote from the owner's attorney gives a hint that what the owners ratified was not what the players already had signed off on during negotiations

Moreover, they say that virtually all of its contents have been negotiated -- with general counsel Jeff Pash maintaining that "there are no surprises in there." Nevertheless, they say they're open to discussion on items that players might consider contentious or worthy of more talk.

"It's hardly a take-it-or-leave-it offer,"...

What happens if players aren't sold on its entirety?

"Tell us about it," said Pash. "We're not saying, 'Hey, we're going home.' We'll talk about it."

http://www.cbssports.com/#!/nfl/story/15343053/players-must-take-all-time-they-need-to-make-sure-deals-right

Even assuming you believe the owners voted on something without reading it (or having their lawyers read it for them), the fact is what the owners ratified had not been appoved by the other side - if the players and their reps want to find out exactly what they are agreeing to for the next 10 years before signing off on it that does not seem outrageous to me - a delay will involve a game I watch in the fall but, unlike the players, the agreement does not involve how I earn my living.

tucker6
07-23-2011, 02:21 PM
After I saw the "DeMo Smith" reference (should I call Goodell GoDo?) I did not need to read any further to figure out which side you would believe on this

Read Clayton's article

Still unresolved are a monetary settlement of the $4 billion television insurance the league secured and the players' request for $320 million of lost benefits from last season.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/6791952/nfl-owners-put-all-blitz-players

Or this

The players also feel it is a bit disingenuous for the league to insist it cannot open its doors without a fully completed collective bargaining agreement, because there are some parts of the agreement drug testing, discipline, the process for disputing grievances that can only be collectively bargained with a union.

Players want to negotiate those issues anew after they re-form the union, but on Thursday they said that the league wants them to accept terms from the 2006 agreement on those issues. Players are adamant that they will not be rushed just because owners want to open training camps next week and point out that the N.F.L. operated for several years without a union in the early 1990s.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/22/sports/football/NFL-Union-Labor-Deal.html?pagewanted=2&ref=football

And as far as "the completed version" being voted on by the owners, there is not a completed version on which negotiators for both sides had signed off on - since you believe I am being gullible by making that statement, maybe this quote from the owner's attorney gives a hint that what the owners ratified was not what the players already had signed off on during negotiations

Moreover, they say that virtually all of its contents have been negotiated -- with general counsel Jeff Pash maintaining that "there are no surprises in there." Nevertheless, they say they're open to discussion on items that players might consider contentious or worthy of more talk.

"It's hardly a take-it-or-leave-it offer,"...

What happens if players aren't sold on its entirety?

"Tell us about it," said Pash. "We're not saying, 'Hey, we're going home.' We'll talk about it."

http://www.cbssports.com/#!/nfl/story/15343053/players-must-take-all-time-they-need-to-make-sure-deals-right

Even assuming you believe the owners voted on something without reading it (or having their lawyers read it for them), the fact is what the owners ratified had not been appoved by the other side - if the players and their reps want to find out exactly what they are agreeing to for the next 10 years before signing off on it that does not seem outrageous to me - a delay will involve a game I watch in the fall but, unlike the players, the agreement does not involve how I earn my living.

Shortening someone's long name represents whose side I'm on??? Really?? You gotta do better than that.

As for the other quotes in your post discussing open issues, were you aware that they require the union to be formed again in order to hash those issues out. You did know that right??

tucker6
07-23-2011, 02:26 PM
Even assuming you believe the owners voted on something without reading it (or having their lawyers read it for them), the fact is what the owners ratified had not been appoved by the other side - if the players and their reps want to find out exactly what they are agreeing to for the next 10 years before signing off on it that does not seem outrageous to me - a delay will involve a game I watch in the fall but, unlike the players, the agreement does not involve how I earn my living.

Again, please show me a quote from Smith or a players attorney saying that. You seem to take what an emotional player who was not in the negotiating room says at face value. I'd like you in a poker game. My house at 8 and bring lots of cash.

I guess the fact that the players require lots of time to study the agreement shows a lack of trust in Smith. The owners trusted Goodell's word enough to vote on it in executive form. Why couldn't the players show the same trust? Maybe it's just that Smith hasn't communicated well to date.

Atlanta Dan
07-23-2011, 04:15 PM
Again, please show me a quote from Smith or a players attorney saying that. You seem to take what an emotional player who was not in the negotiating room says at face value. I'd like you in a poker game. My house at 8 and bring lots of cash.

I guess the fact that the players require lots of time to study the agreement shows a lack of trust in Smith. The owners trusted Goodell's word enough to vote on it in executive form. Why couldn't the players show the same trust? Maybe it's just that Smith hasn't communicated well to date.

Thanks for keeping the personal insults coming -

You want a quote from Smith or an attorney for the players - does this excerpt from Peter King's column work ?

It's not over yet. That was apparent with the sending of an email from the union's veteran general counsel, Richard Berthelsen, to the board of player representatives late Thursday night. The tone in the email, obtained by SI.com and other media outlets, was harsh enough to suggest an agreement to end the labor war could be far away. He said the deal "would in my view violate federal labor laws ... [prohibiting] employers from coercing their employees into forming a union. Those laws prohibit employers from coercing their employees into forming a union, and could result in any Agreement reached through the procedure being declared null and void."

Berthesen went on to write the proposal gives the three days (next Wednesday through Friday) "to bargain any changes to the old CBA, with the new CBA becoming final on Saturday, July 30.

"If the NFL does not agree to the players' proposed changes," wrote Berthelsen, "the old CBA terms on benefits, discipline, safety, etc. will remain unchanged for another 10 years."..

Though the ownership side said every point had been discussed at length with the players, Smith, in the email [Sports Illustrated] saw, said otherwise. He wrote of the owners: "They apparently approved a supplemental revenue sharing proposal. Obviously, we have not been a part of those discussions. As you know ... issues that need to be collectively bargained remain open. Other issues such as workers compensation, economic issues and end of deal terms remain unresolved."

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/peter_king/07/21/labor-mayhem/index.html?sct=nfl_t11_a2

I guess we agree to disagree on this:drink:

pete74
07-23-2011, 05:55 PM
i have always sided with the owners on this and the players taking there time to read the contract really makes me feel i took the right side. its almost like they want more time off because there lawyers should of been able to go over that with a fine tooth comb in a few hours and now were waiting days.

Atlanta Dan
07-23-2011, 06:20 PM
i have always sided with the owners on this and the players taking there time to read the contract really makes me feel i took the right side. its almost like they want more time off because there lawyers should of been able to go over that with a fine tooth comb in a few hours and now were waiting days.

I can understand supporting the owners rather than the players in this dispute (everyone in the NFL is making insane amounts of $$ during a depression when the real unemployment rate is > 10%), but a contract is an agreement between two parties - the owners ratified their proposal that was sent over to the players for acceptance - the proposal will be binding for the next 10 years if accepted and includes items to which the players negotiators had not agreed - if I was being bound by something for 10 years I would not sign on the dotted line just because the other side wanted me to, especially since any revenue lost in the preseason is the owners problem (players get their 16 checks starting in September) and it is the owners who will take a haircut if any preseason games are missed. It's nothing personal - it's strictly business

Based on the Powerpoint that the NFLPA presented on Wedneday (link below) there certainly were a lot of open issues at that time f the terms of an agreement supposedly had been settled:noidea:

http://espn.go.com/photo/preview/!pdfs/espn_summary_nfldeal.pdf

tucker6
07-23-2011, 07:55 PM
Thanks for keeping the personal insults coming -

You want a quote from Smith or an attorney for the players - does this excerpt from Peter King's column work ?

It's not over yet. That was apparent with the sending of an email from the union's veteran general counsel, Richard Berthelsen, to the board of player representatives late Thursday night. The tone in the email, obtained by SI.com and other media outlets, was harsh enough to suggest an agreement to end the labor war could be far away. He said the deal "would in my view violate federal labor laws ... [prohibiting] employers from coercing their employees into forming a union. Those laws prohibit employers from coercing their employees into forming a union, and could result in any Agreement reached through the procedure being declared null and void."

Berthesen went on to write the proposal gives the three days (next Wednesday through Friday) "to bargain any changes to the old CBA, with the new CBA becoming final on Saturday, July 30.

"If the NFL does not agree to the players' proposed changes," wrote Berthelsen, "the old CBA terms on benefits, discipline, safety, etc. will remain unchanged for another 10 years."..

Though the ownership side said every point had been discussed at length with the players, Smith, in the email [Sports Illustrated] saw, said otherwise. He wrote of the owners: "They apparently approved a supplemental revenue sharing proposal. Obviously, we have not been a part of those discussions. As you know ... issues that need to be collectively bargained remain open. Other issues such as workers compensation, economic issues and end of deal terms remain unresolved."

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/peter_king/07/21/labor-mayhem/index.html?sct=nfl_t11_a2

I guess we agree to disagree on this:drink:

I'm pretty sure I didn't insert a personal insult in my post. I certainly couldn't find it.

Anyway, we do agree that we'll have to disagree. Seeing as the players have now indicated that they are ready to sign the agreement the owners approved tells me all I need to know about who was lying about all this. The players. I'm sure we'll agree a lot more when football begins, so don't take it too personal. We root for the same team. :tt03:

Atlanta Dan
07-23-2011, 08:10 PM
I'm pretty sure I didn't insert a personal insult in my post. I certainly couldn't find it.:

Dan,

You can't be this gullible can you?...

You seem to take what an emotional player who was not in the negotiating room says at face value. I'd like you in a poker game. My house at 8 and bring lots of cash.

tucker6
07-24-2011, 04:40 AM
Dan,

You can't be this gullible can you?...

You seem to take what an emotional player who was not in the negotiating room says at face value. I'd like you in a poker game. My house at 8 and bring lots of cash.

WOW, that was some hard hitting stuff right there. I didn't know you were so sensitive to a rhetorical comment. I guess I should apologize then for using rhetorical means to suggest that you took the player tweets at face value without any backup from their mngt team.