Report: NFL owners refuse to meet with players' attorneys - New England Patriots Forums

***Deus Irae*** · 04-03-2011, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Lawyers for the owners refuse to meet with the settlement attorneys for the players unless the trade association identifies itself as a union, which the players won't do at this time. The players, according to multiple sources, planned to meet with the owners March 28 and spend the week settling this mess. All that had to be done was have a short document go to federal judge Susan Nelson's court saying that the NFLPA's executive board would serve as advisors. The NFL's answer was no.

NFL: John Elway of the Denver Broncos appears to have serious interest in this year's QB class - ESPN

jsull87 · 04-03-2011, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Irae

NFL: John Elway of the Denver Broncos appears to have serious interest in this year's QB class - ESPN

dunno if you attached the right link, your link takes you through to a denver one.

It a hard one to call if the article is true. I can see why the owners would say we are not negotiating against the NFLPA if they arn't calling themselves that... it's a bit of a sham atm.

***Deus Irae*** · 04-03-2011, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsull87

dunno if you attached the right link, your link takes you through to a denver one.

It a hard one to call if the article is true. I can see why the owners would say we are not negotiating against the NFLPA if they arn't calling themselves that... it's a bit of a sham atm.

It's a mailbag. Scan to the bottom. It's in Clayton's answer to the last question.

As to the "sham" comment, I'll simply note that a lot of people have confused tactics with purpose (whether you're one of them is something I don't know, since I haven't read enough of your posts on the subject to find out), and leave it at that.

***Brady_to_Moss*** · 04-03-2011, 10:44 PM

Wake me up when this BS is over..i just want F'in football

***PatsWickedPissah*** · 04-04-2011, 07:24 AM

Ownership's position is that the decertification is a sham. They're simply being consistent with their position before it's heard in court. Contradicting your legal position isn't a wise move.

If the players want a union, they had one. They're posturing for the unthinking press.

This is simply Kabuki theater that Clayton, no deep thinker, misinterprets.

***MoLewisrocks*** · 04-04-2011, 08:46 AM

The owners having gone this far (the CBA of 1993 that resulted from a settlement agreement that injected the courts in the form of Judge Doty into the mix for the last 18 years has now expired theoretically ending court envolvement going forward) are not interested in entering into another SSA that can be interpreted to supercede ensuing CBA's. Most CBA's have an arbitration clause that is binding on the the participants. The CBA of 1993 had one and law professor Steven Burbank was the arbitor chosen by joint agreement to rule on any disputes between the NFLPA and the NFL concerning the NFL CBA. Only his rulings were frequently overturned on appeal to Judge Doty, which was only the process due to the existence of a SSA.

The owners want to operate under the same labor law rules that other union companies operate under. They don't want court oversight from some judge in Minnesota ad nauseum.

DW Toys · 04-04-2011, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MoLewisrocks

The owners having gone this far (the CBA of 1993 that resulted from a settlement agreement that injected the courts in the form of Judge Doty into the mix for the last 18 years has now expired theoretically ending court envolvement going forward) are not interested in entering into another SSA that can be interpreted to supercede ensuing CBA's. Most CBA's have an arbitration clause that is binding on the the participants. The CBA of 1993 had one and law professor Steven Burbank was the arbitor chosen by joint agreement to rule on any disputes between the NFLPA and the NFL concerning the NFL CBA. Only his rulings were frequently overturned on appeal to Judge Doty, which was only the process due to the existence of a SSA.

The owners want to operate under the same labor law rules that other union companies operate under. They don't want court oversight from some judge in Minnesota ad nauseum.

Very astute observation Cousin. I appreciate the background information I and perhaps some others here was not aware of.
DW Toys

***Rob0729*** · 04-04-2011, 11:27 AM

And one of the player representive, Hunter Hillenmeyer, admitted last week that players refused to accept the owners' financial information they offered solely because the players didn't want to look bad in the PR war.

Quote:

“It’s true, the NFL did offer some financial info towards the end of mediation,” Hillenmeyer writes. “We rejected it, not because nothing is better than something, which it is not, but because the perception would then be that we got what we needed.”

Hillenmeyer admits players refused financial info for P.R. reasons | ProFootballTalk

Both sides are wrong in this battle. I don't know why everyone wants to paint one side as the innocent victim and the other side as the evil aggressor. Both sides are being idiots, greedy bastards, and inflexible.

***Deus Irae*** · 04-04-2011, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob0729

And one of the player representive, Hunter Hillenmeyer, admitted last week that players refused to accept the owners' financial information they offered solely because the players didn't want to look bad in the PR war.

Hillenmeyer admits players refused financial info for P.R. reasons | ProFootballTalk

Both sides are wrong in this battle. I don't know why everyone wants to paint one side as the innocent victim and the other side as the evil aggressor. Both sides are being idiots, greedy bastards, and inflexible.

Quote:

I saw the proposal of what was to be shared. It's almost like the NFL sat down in a room to figure out exactly what they could concoct financially that would sound the most useful to the public, while providing the least possible usable information for the NFLPA purposes. It was almost sarcastic, like they were daring us to decertify so they could blame us for talks breaking down.

Source: Hillenmeyer: Open the Books! | NBC Chicago

The players were right to reject that offer. It would have been stupid of them to accept. There's a clear "wrong" in this battle, and it's the owners. Their words and actions have made it clear that they understand this, and they don't care. They are out to "take back" the league by their own admission, not to work out a legitimate compromise.

DEVIOUS 1 · 04-04-2011, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Irae

The players were right to reject that offer. It would have been stupid of them to accept. There's a clear "wrong" in this battle, and it's the owners. Their words and actions have made it clear that they understand this, and they don't care. They are out to "take back" the league by their own admission, not to work out a legitimate compromise.

Soooooooo, don't believe the propaganda of the owners, only believe the propaganda of the players, because thats the side your backing? Ok, got it!

I'm with Robo. There is an equal share to this blame pie, but plenty of opinion to paint one side as the villain, and the other side as the hero. Spare me.

Both sides are dug in to deeply, and are to consumed with a combination of greed/pride to compromise and get anything done.

Both sides have in one way or another, lied or mislead the public in an effort to win a fruitless PR battle.

But the bottom line to me, is that they are all dopes.

Just like the people who try to convince me one side is more wrong then the other. Dopes.

I believe the expression that applies is: Two wrongs don't make a right.