PATSNUTme

Per ESPN Radio late this afternoon and a writer from USA Today named, Wiseman?

An agreement in principal has been reached between Upshaw and Tag. That is the purpose of the meeting tommorrow in Dallas.

However, according to Wiseman ( not sure if that's his name), he thinks there is only a 30% chance that the owners will accept it.

This fellow Wiseman has been covering the NFL since 1980 and covered both the 82 strike and the 87 almost strike.

No details as to exactly what this agreement in principal contains.

flutie2phelan

Without ESPN this past week ... in its sundry incarnations ... we'd have had no cud to chew at all.

The problem has been ... all its reports seem to be ... as Gene sees things.

Here, for instance, the story ISN'T that Gene thinks that Paul agrees with him "in principle" ... but that a lame-duck commissioner has to persuade owners who have shown quite some solidarity ... that this deal, now, is better than letting free agents suffer this year, while waiting to keep talking for the next eleven months. From the owners' standpoint, things simply are not that desperate.

__________________

JoeSixPat

Everyone is trying to scoop each other with headlines like "agreement in principle reached" when it just isn't so.

We've had identical reports for about two weeks now. I suppose if they keep it up eventually they will be right.

The reports I'm reading say that the deal will be presented to the owners tomorrow. There is no indication that they will approve it. There's no "tentative agreement" or "agreement in principle" unless both parties have actually agreed to something.

The only "agreement" I've seen is an agreement of the owners to consider the offer. Indeed, Tagliabue all but gave in to Upshaw's demand for 60%, retaining only a face saving 0.5% reduction from the Union's staunch position. I'm not holding my breath expecting owners to embrace this.

Nowhere in the reports is their any indication that the owners themselves have figured out how to share Total Football Revenue among themselves to ensure that all teams have equal money to spend on the new higher cap. That's not a minor issue to be dealt with - its the lynchpin that has prevented a REAL tentative agreement from being reached thus far.

I hope they get a deal done but this "tentative" or "in principle" stuff is just bad reporting... but eventually even a blind squirel finds a nut so we'll see.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

PatsSteve1

I hope they get a deal done but this "tentative" or "in principle" stuff is just bad reporting... but eventually even a blind squirel finds a nut so we'll see.[/QUOTE]

From dictionary.com:

ten·ta·tive Not fully worked out, concluded, or agreed on; provisional: tentative plans.

* Which is what most sites are reporting

JoeSixPat

From dictionary.com:

ten·ta·tive Not fully worked out, concluded, or agreed on; provisional: tentative plans.

* Which is what most sites are reporting[/QUOTE]

I'm not trying to argue here - let me explain again...they are reporting a tentative agreement has been reached when a tentative agreement HAS NOT been reached.

What they should do is say "a proposal will be taken to the owners for a vote" rather than "a tentative agreement has been reached"

Who exactly is agreeing here? Tagliabue? His vote doesn't count. Only the owners' vote counts.

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/5386170

THAT'S what's happening tomorrow. I've read NOTHING that says the owners have tentatively agreed to that 59.5%.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

PatsSteve1

THAT'S what's happening tomorrow. I've read NOTHING that says the owners have tentatively agreed to that 59.5%.[/QUOTE]

* The owners negotiating committee, made up of Tags and his assistants have made a tentative agreement with the union negotiating committe, made up of Upshaw and his assistants. It's, as the dictionary says, not " fully worked out, concluded, or agreed on". Even if the owners vote to accept the deal, it'll still be 'tentative' until the players vote on it and accept it. It's what a tentative deal means. I've been a union member most of my working life, and still am. Everytime the company and the union negotiating committee agree to a contract, it's a 'tentative' deal until the union members vote to accept it. I know we're just going thru wordplay masturbation here, but saying it's a tentative deal is not incorrect.

Joker

Gene Wilder to Marty Feldman in Young Frankenstein...

"SEGAGIVE???!!!!!!...."

that's what I'm getting out of all this tentative crapola

JoeSixPat

According to the Washington Post, it doesn't seem like even Tagliabue has agrees with what the press calls a "tentative agreement", let alone the owners. (making it perfectly clear that any news of the previous "tentative agreements" that the owners never agreed to have all been leaked by Upshaw)

Getting the owners to agree isn't just a minor step like having the rank and file sheetmetal workers endorse a propsal hammered out by their union reps.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...030601834.html


So "tentative agreement" means that Gene Upshaw agrees, but not Tagliabue, nor the owners, nor the players.

I get it now - thanks. I still think they've been a little loose in applying that term to all the "agreements" they've "reached' to this point.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

workhorse

My money is on this current deal being voted down. If that happens, I think it's a pretty safe bet that nothing else will change until next off season at the earliest.