Patriots Mankins Hurt Players Stance With Holdout

[PatsFans.com Article]

Patriots Mankins Hurt Players Stance With Holdout
By: Ian Logue

Logan Mankins may be a plaintiff against the NFL in the current labor negotiations, but it appears the league plans on using him to make sure the players remain locked out....

CLICK HERE TO READ THIS STORY​

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

NFL playing hardball citing Mankins' skipping 2010 camps yet making the Pro Bowl as an example why no irreparable harm is currently being done to players as the NFLPA* claims. Welker's flippant remark about 'Let's do lockouts every spring' also goes against the Trade Association's case.

 

[brady199]

Do we need anymore evidence that the owners are Evil?

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Say what? Owners in this specific instance are simply citing player actions that contradict the Trade Assn claims of "irreparable harm" from the lockout as it currently stands.

 

[brady199]

Say what? Owners in this specific instance are simply citing player actions that contradict the Trade Assn claims of "irreparable harm" from the lockout as it currently stands.

Oh, don't mind me, I just have an agenda.

 

[Deus Irae]

Say what? Owners in this specific instance are simply citing player actions that contradict the Trade Assn claims of "irreparable harm" from the lockout as it currently stands.

These are the same owners who want clauses in the CBA about players holding out and missing camp, because camp is so important.

 

[Gwedd]

Say what? Owners in this specific instance are simply citing player actions that contradict the Trade Assn claims of "irreparable harm" from the lockout as it currently stands.

Although I initially cited both players and owners equally as being at fault, the longer this drags on, the more I side with the owners.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

These are the same owners who want clauses in the CBA about players holding out and missing camp, because camp is so important.

Yes but in this instance it's the Players claiming irreparable harm to them.
It's ironic that the lawsuit is Brady et. al. and it's countered by the NFL citing Patriots players' actions in response. Too funny.

 

[Triumph]

Although I initially cited both players and owners equally as being at fault, the longer this drags on, the more I side with the owners.

Good

The owners want a CBA so the NFL can get back to business. A permenent lock out will force to the players back to the mediation table in due time.

 

[Fencer]

Unless I'm missing something, the lockout is the common-sense fair outcome, because it's the one most like a strike.

The NFL has offered the players a pay package. The players can either accept it or, through collective action, not come to work. They're choosing the latter.

That's how we do things in this country, when the workers can pull it off.

Most relevant labor law deals with:

• Ensuring the workers can pull it off.
• Carving out exceptions in which they are not allowed to pull it off.

 

[DaBruinz]

These are the same owners who want clauses in the CBA about players holding out and missing camp, because camp is so important.

Yep. And the same owners who were perfectly willing to give the players MORE days off, less OTAs, less in terms of the off-season training program, and less days of physical contact in Training camp.

 

[DaBruinz]

What I find comical is that both Doty and Nelson ignored the fact that the Union decertified prior to the end of the CBA to bypass the 6 month rule and filed lawsuits against the league that were specifically stated as not being allowed to be filed while the CBA was still in effect. They could have filed them AFTER the CBA was expired, without issue.

In every other labor situation, particularly something like workman's comp or termination of an employee or disputes between business partners in terms of contract violations, the timeline is crucial. Yet, Doty and Nelson have basically said that the timeline of events is no longer important. Which makes absolutely no sense.

They've also, basically, said that any union can decertify at any time without penalty and regardless of what had been agreed upon in the CBA and try and force the Pro Sports leagues to cowtow to them..

 

[ausbacker]

I've never seen or heard of an owner forcing a player to hold out. That is completely on the player and the owners have every right to use this against the players.

 

[Ring 6]

These are the same owners who want clauses in the CBA about players holding out and missing camp, because camp is so important.

Or because maybe its part of their job?

 

[brady199]

I've never seen or heard of an owner forcing a player to hold out. That is completely on the player and the owners have every right to use this against the players.

There have been some teams that wouldn't let players in the facilities.

I think it happened to Vince Young and or Donavan McNabb.

 

[ausbacker]

There have been some teams that wouldn't let players in the facilities.

I think it happened to Vince Young and or Donavan McNabb.

Vince Young was asked to leave the Titans facility after a verbal altercation with Coach Fisher when he busted his thumb. Donovan McNabb I'm unsure of.

Either way holding out on a contract and being refused access to a facility whilst under contract is a different ball park.

 

[Deus Irae]

Vince Young was asked to leave the Titans facility after a verbal altercation with Coach Fisher when he busted his thumb. Donovan McNabb I'm unsure of.

Either way holding out on a contract and being refused access to a facility whilst under contract is a different ball park.

Mankins didn't hold out on a contract. The O.P. is misleading on that count.

 

[ausbacker]

Mankins didn't hold out on a contract. The O.P. is misleading on that count.

Holding out on contract/refusing to sign tender = same difference IMO.

 

[Deus Irae]

Holding out on contract/refusing to sign tender = same difference IMO.

A holdout is a player under contract refusing to show up. Mankins was not under contract. That's a huge difference.

 

[ausbacker]

A holdout is a player under contract refusing to show up. Mankins was not under contract. That's a huge difference.

Not really, the Patriots still owned Mankins' rights and the action of refusing to sign a tender is still the same as holding out.