PDA

View Full Version : The league didn't approve a new CBA, they approved a settlement


Kaylore
07-21-2011, 10:42 PM
There's a big difference. From what I understand, the league didn't approve the new CBA, they approved the settlement terms in the lawsuit. They can't approve a new CBA until the union re-certify's.

Also, the man you need to keep an eye on is attorney Jeff Kessler. PFT has been following him closely. He apparently is trying to bog things down so the whole thing goes nuclear and he can win a piece of the potentially billion dollar settlement if the suit goes through.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/21/heres-how-a-deal-can-be-done-now/

At the top of the hour on ESPN, Sal Paolantonio reiterated what we’ve been saying for weeks: “We keep hearing from a lot of owners here that . . . Jeffrey Kessler is holding up this deal.”

Kessler apparently is holding up the deal in one way by ignoring all modern means of communication to insist on sending out union cards in the mail for players to sign and return.

UltimateHoboW/Shotgun
07-21-2011, 10:46 PM
God I hate lawyers!!!

Chris
07-21-2011, 10:51 PM
Ang him!

http://enterthestory.com/images/crowd_for_web.jpg

SoCalBronco
07-21-2011, 10:57 PM
Well...that's one narrative that's been presented but the other one is that its just a power play by the owners approving an agreement (and acting as if there is an agreement PR wise) containing terms that the other side hasn't agreed upon yet in order to pressure them to agree to these last few unresolved details.

Both of these things might be at play, but it does seem clear that the union isn't going to simply vote on and accept what the owners have characterized as the "agreement". This is probably going to take another week (or two if you believe Chester Pitts), so they are probably going to lose the first full week of preseason games in addition to the now cancelled HOF game.

SonOfLe-loLang
07-21-2011, 11:23 PM
Apparently the players are voting tomorrow right? And they said upon agreement they will recertify and sign union cards at the training facilities. I think this gets done.

Taco John
07-21-2011, 11:29 PM
I'm beginning to have my doubts that there will even be a season.

SonOfLe-loLang
07-21-2011, 11:39 PM
I'm beginning to have my doubts that there will even be a season.

My guess is youre overreacting

Archer81
07-22-2011, 12:01 AM
Kessler ****ed **** up in Empire City, too...

http://tinyurl.com/3erwxnm


:Broncos:

broncocalijohn
07-22-2011, 12:06 AM
Wont look good as a PR move for the players but this is much different than politics. Once this goes through in the next 2 weeks and season ticket holders get a refund on a ****ty preseason game, fans will rejoice and be ready for fall football. It won't quite be like SEC football and the sheer greatness that dominates all other types of football, but NFL will have to do. Signed, MacGruber.

Taco John
07-22-2011, 12:12 AM
My guess is youre overreacting

I hope so.

UberBroncoMan
07-22-2011, 01:42 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Kessler

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/19/Jeff_Kessler.jpg/220px-Jeff_Kessler.jpg

The man, the myth, the legend.

Apparently tried to be a Governor this year. Guess he needs them monies for them power.

Doggcow
07-22-2011, 01:48 AM
****

myMind
07-22-2011, 01:56 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Kessler

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/19/Jeff_Kessler.jpg/220px-Jeff_Kessler.jpg

The man, the myth, the legend.

Apparently tried to be a Governor this year. Guess he needs them monies for them power.

If this man has anything to do with the deal not going through, the NFL(players and owners) deserve not a single cent from my pocket.
Bureaucratic manipulations at this point are a blatant slap in the face to the people who actually reimburse the NFL coffers every year, emotionally invested fans.

tnedator
07-22-2011, 05:52 AM
There's a big difference. From what I understand, the league didn't approve the new CBA, they approved the settlement terms in the lawsuit. They can't approve a new CBA until the union re-certify's.

Also, the man you need to keep an eye on is attorney Jeff Kessler. PFT has been following him closely. He apparently is trying to bog things down so the whole thing goes nuclear and he can win a piece of the potentially billion dollar settlement if the suit goes through.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/21/heres-how-a-deal-can-be-done-now/

Yea, I had a bit of an argument with someone over this (not here, elsewhere). It wasn't helped by the fact that ESPN had splattered all over their banners "Owners approve CBA" and things like that and kept saying the CBA was voted on.

Instead, as I understand it, they voted on terms of a settlement for the antitrust and other lawsuits. These terms would form the backbone of the CBA and cover most of the key parts of the CBA that the parties needed to negotiated.

Ray Finkle
07-22-2011, 06:09 AM
Well...that's one narrative that's been presented but the other one is that its just a power play by the owners approving an agreement (and acting as if there is an agreement PR wise) containing terms that the other side hasn't agreed upon yet in order to pressure them to agree to these last few unresolved details.

Both of these things might be at play, but it does seem clear that the union isn't going to simply vote on and accept what the owners have characterized as the "agreement". This is probably going to take another week (or two if you believe Chester Pitts), so they are probably going to lose the first full week of preseason games in addition to the now cancelled HOF game.

How could the other side see the agreement? It was negotiated and approved by their man (Smith), wouldn't it have been a conflict (or shown the NFLPA hasn't decertified) if Smith shared everything?

I'm with TJ, I get the growing doubt that there will not be a season. Much like in the NHL when Gretzky and Mario created 24 hours of good will that the season would be saved....no hockey then either.

Kaylore
07-22-2011, 06:53 AM
I see this as a power play by the owners to make the players look bad and strong arm them into agreeing to a deal. The flip side, again that PFT pointed out, is the issue was the supplemental revenue sharing which was not heavily discussed in negotiations and in the current incarnation of the deal heavily favors the owners. The problem, as Mike Florio points out, is this was brought up by the owners and the players literally didn't care and elected to ignore the issue. So of course the owners said "fine, we got this" and made something favorable to them.

A deal can still get done when the players meet and vote. They only need 50% +1.

alkemical
07-22-2011, 06:57 AM
I hope so.

Weren't the owners prepared for an extended lockout?

tnedator
07-22-2011, 07:03 AM
Weren't the owners prepared for an extended lockout?

I believe one of the court cases has put a hold on the TV revenue the owners negotiated that would come in even with a lockout or strike. So, the revenue stream the owners thought they would get even with no games being played is, at least based on the current ruling, cannot be distributed to the owners.

Kaylore
07-22-2011, 07:52 AM
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/22/making-sense-of-the-last-12-hours/

Making sense of the last 12 hours

The problem seems to be that, because the owners previously have pulled multiple fast ones, the players are understandably leery as the process of striking a decade-long labor deal reaches conclusion. And with NFLPA* leadership focused on digesting the final proposal and making a good decision about how to proceed, it appears that NFLPA* leadership didn’t have the time or the inclination to herd the many cats who took to Twitter and ESPN and NFL Network to send conflicting messages about what comes next.

Part of the problem is that there are conflicting interests among the rank and file. Plenty of guys (especially those without contracts) want to get this done. And plenty of guys who possibly would face losing their starting jobs and/or roster spots if rookies and/or free agents have enough time during training camp to leapfrog the incumbent lineup would like to slow it down for a couple of weeks.

tnedator
07-22-2011, 09:07 AM
Doesn't look like we will here anything today:
RT @AlbertBreer: NFLPA statement: "Player leadership is discussing the most recent written proposal with the NFL, which includes a settlement agreement deal terms and the right process for addressing recertification. There will not be any further NFLPA statements today out of respect for the Kraft family while they mourn the loss of Myra Kraft."
RT @AlbertBreer: That statement was attributed to NFLPA president Kevin Mawae.

Dedhed
07-22-2011, 09:14 AM
I see this as a power play by the owners

This is just silly rhetoric at this point. It's not a "power play"; it's an attempt to get a deal in place in time to have the full season take place.

The players were dragging their feet, or just too dumb to get things together, so the owners took the initiative to ratify a deal.

There is no time left for power plays or maneuvering for leverage.

SonOfLe-loLang
07-22-2011, 09:16 AM
This is just silly rhetoric at this point. It's not a "power play"; it's an attempt to get a deal in place in time to have the full season take place.

The players were dragging their feet, or just too dumb to get things together, so the owners took the initiative to ratify a deal.

There is no time left for power plays or maneuvering for leverage.

I dont think the two were mutually exclusive. This is a total power play. Half the twittersphere thought football was back on as of 7pm est yesterday because of how they portrayed it to the media.

What annoys me about the players is their apparent lack of urgency here.

TheReverend
07-22-2011, 09:23 AM
It includes all the main points and framework of the future "CBA"

tnedator
07-22-2011, 09:30 AM
It includes all the main points and framework of the future "CBA"

Which makes the argument of whether or not the voters approved a new CBA or settlement, mostly semantics.

TheReverend
07-22-2011, 09:33 AM
Which makes the argument of whether or not the voters approved a new CBA or settlement, mostly semantics.

To be fair, this whole ****ing thing is just semantics now and just downright stupid

Kaylore
07-22-2011, 09:48 AM
What annoys me about the players is their apparent lack of urgency here.

The only ones who want to start soon are the free agents and the rookies because they don't have contracts. The remaining players want to delay any chance of being supplanted on the depth chart by either and know that stalling only increases their odds in this way. Also, most players hate training camp and the preseason in general. They also don't understand that the 600 mil that will be lost if they start missing preseason games is coming out of their wallets too.

tnedator
07-22-2011, 10:03 AM
The only ones who want to start soon are the free agents and the rookies because they don't have contracts. The remaining players want to delay any chance of being supplanted on the depth chart by either and know that stalling only increases their odds in this way. Also, most players hate training camp and the preseason in general. They also don't understand that the 600 mil that will be lost if they start missing preseason games is coming out of their wallets too.

I saw a Tweet from Schlereth last night saying that missing a preseason game will cost owners $200 million, but the players only $700 a piece. It's simplistic thinking on his part, and I don't believe accurate.

The players get 47 or 48% of of Revenue, so the players will miss out on about $94+ million for each missed preseason game. It might not apply to their salary this year, but over the life of the CBA, their portion must average 47/48% of the revenue, which would include preseason games.

Kaylore
07-22-2011, 10:09 AM
I saw a Tweet from Schlereth last night saying that missing a preseason game will cost owners $200 million, but the players only $700 a piece. It's simplistic thinking on his part, and I don't believe accurate.

The players get 47 or 48% of of Revenue, so the players will miss out on about $94+ million for each missed preseason game. It might not apply to their salary this year, but over the life of the CBA, their portion must average 47/48% of the revenue, which would include preseason games.

Yeah Schlereth is probably thinking what you are paid that week and doesn't realize the money is rolled over into the total revenue spent. I believe they get most of their money weekly during the season, unless I'm mistaken. I think camp and preseason gives you some, and the players are probably erroneously thinking the revenue from the preseason goes all to the owners.

tnedator
07-22-2011, 10:13 AM
Yeah Schlereth is probably thinking what you are paid that week and doesn't realize the money is rolled over into the total revenue spent. I believe they get most of their money weekly during the season, unless I'm mistaken. I think camp and preseason gives you some, and the players are probably erroneously thinking the revenue from the preseason goes all to the owners.

Yep, my thoughts exactly. They supposedly get 16 or 17 game checks (not sure if they get paid in the bye), and then other than roster bonuses and such, only get per diem's or token pay for the offseason and pre-season.

However, the union still gets their 'share' of the $800 million of preseason revenue. Now, even more than in the past, since the current proposals are for the owners to pay 95-99% of the cap, where before I believe they only had to pay 60% of the cap.

Pick Six
07-22-2011, 10:15 AM
I think the settlement of the lawsuit was one of the things that needed to happen, for football to continue. Therefore, I see it as progress...:thumbsup:

tnedator
07-22-2011, 10:19 AM
I think the settlement of the lawsuit was one of the things that needed to happen, for football to continue. Therefore, I see it as progress...:thumbsup:

It's only progress if the NFLPA, and the named plaintiffs in those cases, sign off on the settlement. So far they haven't.

Cito Pelon
07-22-2011, 10:42 AM
I lost track of all the details, but when I saw the quick unanimous decision (Al Davis abstained) by the owners my first thought was there is something fishy going on here, it can't be so easy.

SO, the owners only agreed to a settlement that encompasses a framework of a new CBA? Is that correct?

And then there is this whole re-certification deal that has to meet certain Federal guidelines, correct?

And THEN the newly certified NFLPA votes on the proposed CBA, correct?

And THEN the owners vote to accept the new CBA, correct?

TheReverend
07-22-2011, 10:45 AM
Yeah Schlereth is probably thinking what you are paid that week and doesn't realize the money is rolled over into the total revenue spent. I believe they get most of their money weekly during the season, unless I'm mistaken. I think camp and preseason gives you some, and the players are probably erroneously thinking the revenue from the preseason goes all to the owners.

Lol this. Considering most barely exceed the IQ of a peanut, I'm not surprised.

http://i678.photobucket.com/albums/vv148/splitterherz/Marvel%20Animated%20Gifs/Captain%20America/capitainamerica04.gif

Mediator12
07-22-2011, 12:59 PM
I lost track of all the details, but when I saw the quick unanimous decision (Al Davis abstained) by the owners my first thought was there is something fishy going on here, it can't be so easy.

SO, the owners only agreed to a settlement that encompasses a framework of a new CBA? Is that correct?

And then there is this whole re-certification deal that has to meet certain Federal guidelines, correct?

And THEN the newly certified NFLPA votes on the proposed CBA, correct?

And THEN the owners vote to accept the new CBA, correct?


Here is an accurate sequence of events:

1. The owners approved a settlement of the anti-trust lawsuit and the issues that caused a lockout to be implemented by them in the first place. They voted on moving on to the next step, since the players decertified and tried a legal strategy.

2. Next, the players are caught off guard since the owners ratified the negotiated agreement so quickly. They quickly spin it to something negative and attack the owners, because they took the initiative the players had the previous day.

3. The owners know that they have to get the timetable accelerated to get all the preseason games (read Revenues) played. So, they make the offer conditional on the union abandoning its decertifiaction and recertifying by next week on WED the 26th.

4. Players spin the condition because they are unprepared to answer the offer immediately. They are behind in explaining the negotiations to their entire constituency and stall with accusation.

5. Next move is the players agreeing that the terms that their team negotiated are acceptable, abandoning the legal fights, and recertifying to discuss the non-revenue issues THEY want changed from the previous CBA.

6. The owners left all of the non-revenue issues out of the negotiations, because they are fine with those. The players are the ones who want to change league discipline, etc.

That is what happened the last 24 hours and what must happen next.

Ray Finkle
07-22-2011, 01:06 PM
Here is an accurate sequence of events:

1. The owners approved a settlement of the anti-trust lawsuit and the issues that caused a lockout to be implemented by them in the first place. They voted on moving on to the next step, since the players decertified and tried a legal strategy.

2. Next, the players are caught off guard since the owners ratified the negotiated agreement so quickly. They quickly spin it to something negative and attack the owners, because they took the initiative the players had the previous day.

3. The owners know that they have to get the timetable accelerated to get all the preseason games (read Revenues) played. So, they make the offer conditional on the union abandoning its decertifiaction and recertifying by next week on WED the 26th.

4. Players spin the condition because they are unprepared to answer the offer immediately. They are behind in explaining the negotiations to their entire constituency and stall with accusation.

5. Next move is the players agreeing that the terms that their team negotiated are acceptable, abandoning the legal fights, and recertifying to discuss the non-revenue issues THEY want changed from the previous CBA.

6. The owners left all of the non-revenue issues out of the negotiations, because they are fine with those. The players are the ones who want to change league discipline, etc.

That is what happened the last 24 hours and what must happen next.


This one day will be a case study on HOW NOT TO NEGOTIATE.....the players got well, played on this.

eddie mac
07-22-2011, 02:34 PM
Does anyone have this ****er's company e-mail address???

Hulamau
07-22-2011, 02:52 PM
Somebody ought to take that sucker out! :)

Kaylore
07-22-2011, 02:57 PM
This is pretty funny. Some fan created a website for the players re-certify online. Florio points out that it could technically be considered official if enough players used it. Jeffrey Kessler put a stop to it though.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/22/nflpa-issues-warning-on-website-thats-trying-to-reconstitute-a-union/

In the opinion of NFLPA* lawyer Jeffrey Kessler, it can take as long as two weeks to reconstitute the union. In the opinion of NFL lawyer Bob Batterman, it can take as few as two hours.

The truth is somewhere in the middle, much closer to two hours than 312.

bronco militia
07-22-2011, 02:59 PM
http://cdn.wl.uproxx.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Bush1-600x410.jpg

TheReverend
07-22-2011, 03:01 PM
Here is an accurate sequence of events:

1. The owners approved a settlement of the anti-trust lawsuit and the issues that caused a lockout to be implemented by them in the first place. They voted on moving on to the next step, since the players decertified and tried a legal strategy.

2. Next, the players are caught off guard since the owners ratified the negotiated agreement so quickly. They quickly spin it to something negative and attack the owners, because they took the initiative the players had the previous day.

3. The owners know that they have to get the timetable accelerated to get all the preseason games (read Revenues) played. So, they make the offer conditional on the union abandoning its decertifiaction and recertifying by next week on WED the 26th.

4. Players spin the condition because they are unprepared to answer the offer immediately. They are behind in explaining the negotiations to their entire constituency and stall with accusation.

5. Next move is the players agreeing that the terms that their team negotiated are acceptable, abandoning the legal fights, and recertifying to discuss the non-revenue issues THEY want changed from the previous CBA.

6. The owners left all of the non-revenue issues out of the negotiations, because they are fine with those. The players are the ones who want to change league discipline, etc.

That is what happened the last 24 hours and what must happen next.

Cliffs if you're too lazy to read all that:

DeMaurice is the biggest bag of **** this side of France.

Cito Pelon
07-23-2011, 10:33 AM
Here is an accurate sequence of events:

1. The owners approved a settlement of the anti-trust lawsuit and the issues that caused a lockout to be implemented by them in the first place. They voted on moving on to the next step, since the players decertified and tried a legal strategy.

2. Next, the players are caught off guard since the owners ratified the negotiated agreement so quickly. They quickly spin it to something negative and attack the owners, because they took the initiative the players had the previous day.

3. The owners know that they have to get the timetable accelerated to get all the preseason games (read Revenues) played. So, they make the offer conditional on the union abandoning its decertifiaction and recertifying by next week on WED the 26th.

4. Players spin the condition because they are unprepared to answer the offer immediately. They are behind in explaining the negotiations to their entire constituency and stall with accusation.

5. Next move is the players agreeing that the terms that their team negotiated are acceptable, abandoning the legal fights, and recertifying to discuss the non-revenue issues THEY want changed from the previous CBA.

6. The owners left all of the non-revenue issues out of the negotiations, because they are fine with those. The players are the ones who want to change league discipline, etc.

That is what happened the last 24 hours and what must happen next.

Well, I guess the point is then that this is gonna take another week at least because the players are nowhere near re-certifying.

Cito Pelon
07-23-2011, 10:37 AM
This is pretty funny. Some fan created a website for the players re-certify online. Florio points out that it could technically be considered official if enough players used it. Jeffrey Kessler put a stop to it though.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/22/nflpa-issues-warning-on-website-thats-trying-to-reconstitute-a-union/

Well, to re-certify as a union the NFLPA* will have to meet certain Federal guidlines I'm guessing. So it could take a couple of weeks. I'm guessing, but the Feds will have to approve the NFLPA* as a bona-fide union before the NFLPA* is actually considered a union for bargaining purposes.

And THEN, the NFL and the NFLPA* will STILL have to go through the process of approving the proposed CBA. This could take more than two weeks.

gunns
07-23-2011, 10:58 AM
Kessler apparently is holding up the deal in one way by ignoring all modern means of communication to insist on sending out union cards in the mail for players to sign and return.

I heard this also. They said the owners want the vote by players in training camp. So I guess the CBA does not need to be signed before the players go to camp, as the owners were going to open the facilities.

In this whole thing the one that stinks is Smith. I believe he negotiated some items, then worried what the players would think so when the players said they hadn't seen the agreement (?) but the owners snuck some crap in, that smacks of Smith, smiling for the owners while whispering in the players ears.

Cito Pelon
07-23-2011, 11:44 AM
I heard this also. They said the owners want the vote by players in training camp. So I guess the CBA does not need to be signed before the players go to camp, as the owners were going to open the facilities.

In this whole thing the one that stinks is Smith. I believe he negotiated some items, then worried what the players would think so when the players said they hadn't seen the agreement (?) but the owners snuck some crap in, that smacks of Smith, smiling for the owners while whispering in the players ears.

Well, I don't know about all that. I think this has to go through certain, definite hoops to get done.

The negotiations were under court order to be kept secret, therefore the players got little information about the negotiations and the "framework" of the proposed CBA. So, first the players have to digest everything, and THEN vote to re-certify as a union under Federal guidlines, and THEN the CBA might get approved by the newly constituted NFLPA, and then the owners have to approve what the new NFLPA approved.

This is at least another week, maybe two, three or four weeks from being signed and delivered.

bombay
07-23-2011, 04:23 PM
Schefter tweeteed 'welcome back football' a few minutes ago.

Broncobiv
07-23-2011, 04:27 PM
Schefter tweeteed 'welcome back football' a few minutes ago.

I just read that...rushed to espn.com and here to try and figure out if there was new news. So......? Come on Adam!

Hotwheelz
07-23-2011, 05:43 PM
Yeah, we know. You don’t want to get too excited about ESPN’s report that the NFLPA* executive committee is expected to vote Monday to recommend ratification of the next CBA.

We understand.

Until the agreement is officially announced, we won’t pop any champagne. We will update you on how the next week could play out, should the agreement happen as expected hoped.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/23/players-could-report-by-wednesday-start-of-free-agency-under-discussion/

Tombstone RJ
07-23-2011, 05:45 PM
There's a big difference. From what I understand, the league didn't approve the new CBA, they approved the settlement terms in the lawsuit. They can't approve a new CBA until the union re-certify's.

Also, the man you need to keep an eye on is attorney Jeff Kessler. PFT has been following him closely. He apparently is trying to bog things down so the whole thing goes nuclear and he can win a piece of the potentially billion dollar settlement if the suit goes through.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/21/heres-how-a-deal-can-be-done-now/

wow you sound like a tv anchor man... you and buff bff's or something?