League won't lift lockout based on agreement in principle

[MoLewisrocks]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Did anyone think they would? An agreement in principal is only the first step in the pocess. :confused2:

 

[patfanken]

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.

I say the the first week of July, you say the 2nd. Is there really an argument here?. I believe the 2 parties should be able to complete a full CBA agreement within that 2-3 week period without the need of a formal "principles of agreement".

I do not agree that it would be impossible or even imprudent to operate under an agreement of principles, since it happens all the time in negotiations where time is a concern.

And I don't think my displeasure at the conduct of the lawyers activities is "hysterical", its a FACT. Too often their conflict of interest in extending this process has been pointed out over and over. Do you know how many MILLIONS of dollars Kessler's firm would have lost if the there had been an agreement before the Desertification. Why would he EVER work to get a deal done quickly.

Their disruptive behavior last week, when they were FINALLY allowed admittance was widely reported. I'm not just making it up. BTW - this isn't about the owner and players debate, its about a group on BOTH sides who have a vested interest in there NOT being a deal. Kind of makes you wonder about the process itself, doesn't it?

So when Pash makes a statement designed to throw cold water on the optimism that a framework for a deal has been agreed to, I'm inclined to be a bit cynical about his motives

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I say the the first week of July, you say the 2nd. Is there really an argument here?. I believe the 2 parties should be able to complete a full CBA agreement within that 2-3 week period without the need of a formal "principles of agreement".

I do not agree that it would be impossible or even imprudent to operate under an agreement of principles, since it happens all the time in negotiations where time is a concern.

And I don't think my displeasure at the conduct of the lawyers activities is "hysterical", its a FACT. Too often their conflict of interest in extending this process has been pointed out over and over. Do you know how many MILLIONS of dollars Kessler's firm would have lost if the there had been an agreement before the Desertification. Why would he EVER work to get a deal done quickly.

Their disruptive behavior last week, when they were FINALLY allowed admittance was widely reported. I'm not just making it up. BTW - this isn't about the owner and players debate, its about a group on BOTH sides who have a vested interest in there NOT being a deal. Kind of makes you wonder about the process itself, doesn't it?

So when Pash makes a statement designed to throw cold water on the optimism that a framework for a deal has been agreed to, I'm inclined to be a bit cynical about his motives

You said the first day of July. So it's a two week difference. And at this point all that lifting would allow for is a longer FA period. Off season programs and OTA's are over. Players and coaches and FO personnel are generally on vacation pre camp the first two or three weeks into July depending on when their training camps open. I think the first is scheduled for July 21... Bill has moved on you know, you need to follow. What's done is done. And Pash wasn't throwing cold water on a possible deal, just reiterating what Kraft and many others have also stated, that there remains a lot of work to be done before they have what they need to end the lockout which is a legally binding deal in the form of a CBA that covers all the terms and conditions and not just the major points of contention.

 

[Horace's Ivories]

Did anyone think they would? An agreement in principal is only the first step in the pocess. :confused2:

kidding right? - they were all sorts here thinking just that....

 

[townes]

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.

Well, hopefully the courts involved will hold off on any rulings until this is all done because nothing could throw the whole process off more than a decisive victory by either side in the courts. I'm guessing they will because they would prefer not to rule but if the owners insist upon ending court supervision everything could get really dicey because that is a matter for the courts to agree to and not the players.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Well, hopefully the courts involved will hold off on any rulings until this is all done because nothing could throw the whole process off more than a decisive victory by either side in the courts. I'm guessing they will because they would prefer not to rule but if the owners insist upon ending court supervision everything could get really dicey because that is a matter for the courts to agree to and not the players.

Actually I don't believe that's the case. If the players are willing to forgo it and we know the owners are the courts will be only too happy to accommodate their request...

Last time out the players wanted the judge to remain in oversight. But things were a lot different then because there had been no FA and no history with arbitration and the players had already won their case after years at at trial at least through the state court level. Right now there are no rulings pending except on appeals in relation to the legality of this lockout and a potential contract damage award appeal under advisement that remains appealable even farther if in fact the issue is in fact persued as opposed to dropped as part of a global settlement dismissing all suits pending...

 

[PatsFanStnfrd]

Except for Florio who is begging, begging for the lockout to end because traffic to his website has dried up, why should owners lift the lockout before all agreements and judicial approvals are in place. A last minute hitch after the lockout is lifted based on agreement in principle would severly compromise and hurt the owners.

 

[Oswlek]

kidding right? - they were all sorts here thinking just that....

I guess I missed it. Haven't really read the lockout threads too diligently.

 

[dhamz]

Their disruptive behavior last week, when they were FINALLY allowed admittance was widely reported. I'm not just making it up.

I guess it depends on your definition of widely reported. There was one report (Schefter I think) that in all honesty seemed more like PR for De Smith's re-election campaign than anything else. Others repeated the report which in today's 2/7 social media news cycle might mean millions of reports. I never saw anyone offer more details or other sources.

 

[supafly]

Apparently, D.Smith is telling everyone that they aren't that close at all. Not what we wanted to hear obviously..

Source: NFLPA* tells players that a deal isn’t close | ProFootballTalk

 

[Triumph]

Except for Florio who is begging, begging for the lockout to end because traffic to his website has dried up, why should owners lift the lockout before all agreements and judicial approvals are in place. A last minute hitch after the lockout is lifted based on agreement in principle would severly compromise and hurt the owners.

It would be very unprofessional to do business that way. Not to mention this is a 9 billion dollar deal.

Ha Ha Florio. He is like the Wizard of Oz behind the curtain with his dog and pony show website.