League won't lift lockout based on agreement in principle - New England Patriots Forums

***MoLewisrocks*** · 06-22-2011, 11:51 AM

Hmm...who's have thunk...

Quote:

In comments that, as best we can tell, were noticed only by Clark Judge of CBSSports.com and Howard Balzer of 101sports.com and The Sports Exchange, NFL general counsel Jeff Pash made it clear that the lockout won’t end with the negotiation of an agreement in principle. Instead, the doors will be unlocked only after the proverbial i’s are dotted and t’s are crossed.

“We would have to make sure the documents were fully drafted and approved, then both parties would have to ratify the agreement,” Pash said, per Judge. “We would have to do it, and the players would have to do it. There is some litigation that has to be dealt with, and so we would have to go before the various courts, and that would obviously [have to happen] on a quickened basis, as the court would hear us and have those lawsuits disposed of and resolved. Then we could open up. . . .

“If both sides are going to commit to certain positions and clubs are going to be signing players, large sums of money are going to be changing hands and players are going to commit to multi-year agreements, you would want to have this confirmed — not just in a general way but down to some fairly specific details. [Because the doors would be opened] you’re not going to want to close them again for either side.”

League won’t lift lockout based only on an agreement in principle | ProFootballTalk

townes · 06-22-2011, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MoLewisrocks

Hmm...who's have thunk...

League won’t lift lockout based only on an agreement in principle | ProFootballTalk

Well, at least that makes you happy.

signbabybrady · 06-22-2011, 12:11 PM

Does this mean there is an agreement in principle in place?

Or is this just saying when there is we still need to follow thru with due dilligence?

I know some key points have been discussed and agreed on recently but I still thought there was a way to go?

townes · 06-22-2011, 12:14 PM

I was hoping the players would drop the lawsuit once an agreement in principle was reached, but i doubt that will happen if the owners won't end the lock-out.

signbabybrady · 06-22-2011, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by townes

I was hoping the players would drop the lawsuit once an agreement in principle was reached, but i doubt that will happen if the owners won't end the lock-out.

I think that is part of what would be the delay. I am not very familar with the courts but I would imagine you actually have to get in front of the judge and tell the judge formerly that you are dropping the suite.

They also would need to recertify. And I am sure there are other things that would be needed by either party. Certain switches wont flip themselves when the handshake happens and I think that is what Judge was talking about.

patfanken · 06-22-2011, 12:23 PM

That's Pash doing his best Kessler imitation. The only reason there is any kind of progress being made is because the principals on both sides have thrown the damned Lawyers out of the process. In fact the only time they participated they managed to almost undo weeks of progress in just one day!

Frankly I can't believe how hard these parasites are fighting to remain relevant and impede the process. Its like they can see the billable hours faucet starting to close to a drip and they are fighting for every last drop of money. Its obscene.

Its also ridiculous. ANY agreement in principle would carry with it all the specific details that would be necessary to get the season started. Pash makes it seem like an agreement in principle is something that would done on a napkin, and THAT's just misrepresenting the reality.

The sad part is that he might be right. I think the owners AND players would be making a big mistake if they delay starting the season AFTER the first day of July. Any time after that would cost the owners revenue, and the players (especially the UFAs) chances to get jobs. As it is the time factor, IMHO. will keep FA prices down, since many will have make very fast decisions.

When the FA period begins its going to be a lot like musical chairs. Players who try to play one team off against another could very well find themselves standing alone when the "music stops"

***Deus Irae*** · 06-22-2011, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by townes

I was hoping the players would drop the lawsuit once an agreement in principle was reached, but i doubt that will happen if the owners won't end the lock-out.

Either side would be stupid to stop things already in motion before the deal is actually signed.

***MoLewisrocks*** · 06-22-2011, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by townes

I was hoping the players would drop the lawsuit once an agreement in principle was reached, but i doubt that will happen if the owners won't end the lock-out.

I think the players will drop the lawsuit, I think all of them (including appeals) will in fact be dropped based on a settlement agreement that is predicated on both sides voting to accept the new CBA (and that will require re-certification prior to any vote). You can't re-open until you vote lest the vote not turn out as planned. The court will insure the suits are only officially settled/dismissed once that has vote has occurred cementing both sides acceptance of the new CBA.

***MoLewisrocks*** · 06-22-2011, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patfanken

That's Pash doing his best Kessler imitation. The only reason there is any kind of progress being made is because the principals on both sides have thrown the damned Lawyers out of the process. In fact the only time they participated they managed to almost undo weeks of progress in just one day!

Frankly I can't believe how hard these parasites are fighting to remain relevant and impede the process. Its like they can see the billable hours faucet starting to close to a drip and they are fighting for every last drop of money. Its obscene.

Its also ridiculous. ANY agreement in principle would carry with it all the specific details that would be necessary to get the season started. Pash makes it seem like an agreement in principle is something that would done on a napkin, and THAT's just misrepresenting the reality.

The sad part is that he might be right. I think the owners AND players would be making a big mistake if they delay starting the season AFTER the first day of July. Any time after that would cost the owners revenue, and the players (especially the UFAs) chances to get jobs. As it is the time factor, IMHO. will keep FA prices down, since many will have make very fast decisions.

When the FA period begins its going to be a lot like musical chairs. Players who try to play one team off against another could very well find themselves standing alone when the "music stops"

No substantial revenue is lost until mid July at the earliest when decisions about pre season games and TC venues become critical. It's unfortunate for UDFA's that they will miss out on OTA's but most teams know who they are targeting already. The biggest loosers could be all but a handful of elite FA in an already glutted market due to the 2010 rules pitted against the backdrop of no offseason to assimilate... But you simply can't please all the people all the time. The important thing will be getting a sustainable CBA that perhaps calls for a 10 year need for renegotiation.

You're slipping into hystrionics again ken. It doesn't seem as if the lawyers undid anything. Progress continues. It was simply never going to be over as quickly as some foolishly anticipated. If an agreement in principle could remotely contain everything a CBA entailed what would be the point in even drafting one over the other? It can't. And absent that only a fool would surrender leverage gained over months and at the cost of millions.

Oswlek · 06-22-2011, 12:51 PM

Did anyone think they would? An agreement in principal is only the first step in the pocess.