Good News! Jeffrey Kessler is trying to sabotage the talks again

[Rob0729]

Re: Good New! Jeffrey Kessler is trying to sabotage the talks again

I think Kessler served a useful purpose for the players at one point in the process. His agenda and pitbull style definitely helped to play chicken with the owners to get them to make concessions.

Now though he is a roadblock to getting a deal done. The guy seems to only have one gear and it is attack. He has this Machiavellian idea of a free market NFL and cannot let it go even if it goes against his client's best interest and/or wishes.

Gene Upshaw did a very good job keeping him from ruining the process with his agenda, Smith has not been as effective.

If there is not a deal done in the next two weeks, most likely it will be in significant part due to Kessler and Quinn. They really don't seem to be on board with what the players want and put their own agendas ahead of their clients' desires.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: Good New! Jeffrey Kessler is trying to sabotage the talks again

So Adam Schefter reporting what went on when Smith had to admonish and toss Kessler and Quinn for trying to derail the porcess is Florio's editorial ccomments? So when the facts are against you, they are just opinion. Yes, the timing of the release of is Florio's opinion, but the Kessler trying to derail the meetings and Smith having to admonish Kessler is fact or at least as much as any report.

Schefter didn't give details on what was going on. You're reading into what happened because you have an anti-player bias and you've seized upon the lawyers as your lead villains.

As for this meeting, it seems pretty clear Kessler isn't getting what he wants from Smith and he is trying to use the players to force Smith to reject the current framework and proceed with this case. Reading what is on the table right now, the players are not caving. The 90% rule alone is a huge victory for the players (I gave an example in another thread how the Bucs abused the LTBE bonus loophole to save $25 million that they never paid out in real dollars which would be and that loophole would be pretty much closed under this rule). Unless the owners take the current framework off the table right now, any offer the players accept would not be caving. The current deal is fair for both sides and requires a sacrifice of both sides. Kessler clearly doesn't agree.

This is purely speculation on your part, and it's likely that it's incorrect.

1.) You have no idea what the current deal is

2.) There was a scheduled meeting with the players and the lawyers, as opposed to the lawyers going behind the backs of the players. This is more likely to mean that the lawyers had Smith's blessing than that they did not.

3.) While I'm glad to see that you're on board with me about the way teams were manipulating the salary cap, it's old news. In fact, it would be one reason why the attorneys would be smart to tell the players not to cave, since they could point to that as an example of how the owners were taking advantage of quirks of the last CBA, and argue that such examples are why the players should stay firm until even the minute details are ironed out.

4.) The 90% isn't a 'victory' when you're giving up hundreds of millions on the other hand and the rest of the deal isn't set. It's only a 'victory' when it becomes part of a package that's both acceptable and sound, so giving in before that happens is, indeed, caving. Your definition of what caved means is a unique one, though, so I'll give you points for re-inventing the word.

 

[Tunescribe]

Re: Good New! Jeffrey Kessler is trying to sabotage the talks again

:enranged::violent::deadhorse::scream::steamed:

 

[Rob0729]

Re: Good New! Jeffrey Kessler is trying to sabotage the talks again

Schefter didn't give details on what was going on. You're reading into what happened because you have an anti-player bias and you've seized upon the lawyers as your lead villains.

LOL! Did you read DaBruinz post where he quoted Schefter specifically said that Kessler and Quinn was the problem and Smith had to tell them to stand down? I'll post it again:

As tensions rose and anger grew, two sources said NFLPA leader DeMaurice Smith instructed his lawyers to "stand down".

Lockout: Talks 'almost blew up' Tuesday, source says - ESPN

Of course any unbiased person would read this and see that Kessler and Quinn were being cordial and agreeable and Smith needed to pull them out of there because the evil owners were taking advantage of their good nature.

Seriously, any unbiased person would read that piece and believe what I said. They would disagree with you. The report doesn't say that the owners had to have their lawyers "stand down". Besides, Kessler has a long history of this from back when Upshaw was alive. There is plenty history backing up my assertions of Kessler.

Come clean! You really are Michael Felger. I swear you posts are his thoughts word for word. I don't get why you hate that guy because I swear you guys are the same person.

BTW, I will get to the rest of your post later when I have time. I am not avoiding it.

 

[Rob0729]

Re: Good New! Jeffrey Kessler is trying to sabotage the talks again

This is purely speculation on your part, and it's likely that it's incorrect.

1.) You have no idea what the current deal is

I don't know what the details are, but I like most of the people who follow it have a very good idea what the framework is. They already laid it out. I guarantee you the final CBA will not be much different than the framework laid out to the owners last week.

2.) There was a scheduled meeting with the players and the lawyers, as opposed to the lawyers going behind the backs of the players. This is more likely to mean that the lawyers had Smith's blessing than that they did not.

Even if it was a meeting with Smith's blessing, he might not have known that Kessler would throw a wedge in the process to try to keep the antitrust deal alive (BTW, speculations is that the meeting today is to settle the suit since no players and owners are there and Judge Boland is reported to be there.

3.) While I'm glad to see that you're on board with me about the way teams were manipulating the salary cap, it's old news. In fact, it would be one reason why the attorneys would be smart to tell the players not to cave, since they could point to that as an example of how the owners were taking advantage of quirks of the last CBA, and argue that such examples are why the players should stay firm until even the minute details are ironed out.

If Kessler was talking to the rank and file, why would he be giving this speech. Their elected representatives are the ones negotiating the deal. The general player only votes on the final deal and Kessler shouldn't be advising the rank and file on what to do only the negotiating members.

4.) The 90% isn't a 'victory' when you're giving up hundreds of millions on the other hand and the rest of the deal isn't set. It's only a 'victory' when it becomes part of a package that's both acceptable and sound, so giving in before that happens is, indeed, caving. Your definition of what caved means is a unique one, though, so I'll give you points for re-inventing the word.

The 90% is absolutely a victory! The players were going to have to give up a percentage of the revenue. That was a given, the 90% is a big concession from the owners in return. Going into this process, the owners were trying to reduce the percentage of revenue the players were getting and the players were going to try to minimize the loss. Getting the 90% rule is a huge victory in that end because teams can't cheat the cap by spending far less than the salary minimum, but be over the cap with creative accounting like the Bucs who were $25 million under the salary floor eventhough they were techincally at the salary floor.

 

[BlueThunder]

As long as they get it worked out and Patriot's TC starts around July 26 or so, I'm a happy camper

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: Good New! Jeffrey Kessler is trying to sabotage the talks again

LOL! Did you read DaBruinz post where he quoted Schefter specifically said that Kessler and Quinn was the problem and Smith had to tell them to stand down? I'll post it again:

1.) I don't see any of DaBruinz' posts.

2.) Telling his attorneys to stand down does not mean that they were the problem.

Of course any unbiased person would read this and see that Kessler and Quinn were being cordial and agreeable and Smith needed to pull them out of there because the evil owners were taking advantage of their good nature.

Seriously, any unbiased person would read that piece and believe what I said. They would disagree with you. The report doesn't say that the owners had to have their lawyers "stand down". Besides, Kessler has a long history of this from back when Upshaw was alive. There is plenty history backing up my assertions of Kessler.

Come clean! You really are Michael Felger. I swear you posts are his thoughts word for word. I don't get why you hate that guy because I swear you guys are the same person.

BTW, I will get to the rest of your post later when I have time. I am not avoiding it.

You want to speculate because you have a bias against the players. Calling me out because I won't do that is nothing more than trying to change the focus from where it should be (Your bias leading to that lousy O.P.) and onto me via personal comments that have nothing to do with the issue at hand.

 

[Deus Irae]

Re: Good New! Jeffrey Kessler is trying to sabotage the talks again

I don't know what the details are, but I like most of the people who follow it have a very good idea what the framework is. They already laid it out. I guarantee you the final CBA will not be much different than the framework laid out to the owners last week.

Would these be the same "most people" that thought the deal was coming in days?

Even if it was a meeting with Smith's blessing, he might not have known that Kessler would throw a wedge in the process to try to keep the antitrust deal alive (BTW, speculations is that the meeting today is to settle the suit since no players and owners are there and Judge Boland is reported to be there.

And again, you're just speculating in a way to support your bias and your portrayal of Kessler as the uber villain.

If Kessler was talking to the rank and file, why would he be giving this speech. Their elected representatives are the ones negotiating the deal. The general player only votes on the final deal and Kessler shouldn't be advising the rank and file on what to do only the negotiating members.

Kessler is the attorney. Part of their job is to discuss the situation with their clients and to offer their opinion on what should (or should not) be done. This is basic stuff. For you to act as if telling a client not to cave is some horrible plot by the attorney is simply ridiculous.

The 90% is absolutely a victory! The players were going to have to give up a percentage of the revenue. That was a given, the 90% is a big concession from the owners in return. Going into this process, the owners were trying to reduce the percentage of revenue the players were getting and the players were going to try to minimize the loss. Getting the 90% rule is a huge victory in that end because teams can't cheat the cap by spending far less than the salary minimum, but be over the cap with creative accounting like the Bucs who were $25 million under the salary floor eventhough they were techincally at the salary floor.

90% is nothing if the rest of the deal blows and undercuts it. At that point, it becomes a loss. In order to talk about 'victory', you need the entire CBA set so that you can judge by all the provisions working together. You're smart enough to know this.

 

[BlueThunder]

One has to wonder how DaBuinz made it onto DI's ignore list?

 

[Deus Irae]

"It's not about getting a deal done as quickly as possible, it's about getting a fair deal done," said Houston linebacker DeMeco Ryans, one of the team's representatives who worked out Monday with other Texans players. "Whenever that time comes, when a fair deal is on the table, that's when it will get done. We're not in a big panic to get something done, just for the sake of getting it done."

Lockout: Four days of NFL talks beginning today, sources say - ESPN

Smart words that one would possibly expect, sensibly, to come about after an attorney talked to his client about not caving.

salary floor requiring teams to spend close to 100 percent of the cap in cash also would be included, sources told ESPN.com's John Clayton.

Lockout: Four days of NFL talks beginning today, sources say - ESPN

If that is true, it might be that your 90% wasn't even considered enough of a 'victory' on that one issue in the first place.

 

[Shelterdog]

One has to wonder how DaBuinz made it onto DI's ignore list?

You can ignore someone? How?

 

[BlueThunder]

Go to user CP and scroll down to edit ignore list

 

[Deus Irae]

You can ignore someone? How?

User CP > Edit Ignore list


Type in the poster's name and save changes

 

[Shelterdog]

Go to user CP and scroll down to edit ignore list

Thank you.

 

[BlueThunder]

Caution: Putting someone on ignore means they PWN you

 

[Joker]

yeah..but then any mod can just , say, post DaBruinz's replies to anything DI posts and DI would have to use the scroll bar to ignore them...the subsequent aggravation level would rise exponentially...leading to conflagration...and perhaps Armageddon....I love entropy:yeeha:

 

[Shelterdog]

Caution: Putting someone on ignore means they PWN you

I've been beaten into submission by some unintelligible 1800 word long pieces of keyboard vomit so if the authors want to claim PWNage, bully for them.

 

[Deus Irae]

yeah..but then any mod can just , say, post DaBruinz's replies to anything DI posts and DI would have to use the scroll bar to ignore them...the subsequent aggravation level would rise exponentially...leading to conflagration...and perhaps Armageddon....I love entropy:yeeha:

I also use a Firefox addon (Ffvb) which deletes the posts of ignored users even when they are quoted by someone else, and which eliminates the "user is on ignore" line that you normally see. It also lets you completely ignore mods, too. If you're put on ignore by using that, you're basically non-existent to the person using the program.

The only time I don't have Ffvb is when I'm using one particular computer which I upgraded to Firefox 5, because Ffvb isn't supported past Firefox 3 (I'm really hoping that someone else takes up the Ffvb program and updates it.). Hell, I didn't even know that AndyJohnson was still posting until I saw him quoted by someone when I was on that one computer.

 

[BlueThunder]

http://twitter.com/#!/mortreport

Now , if I'm on DI's ignore list...he'll miss a nice piece of info on the CBA negotiations....

I can't see why I would be however....I have such a plethora of info useful to this board

 

[Deus Irae]

Twitter

Now , if I'm on DI's ignore list...he'll miss a nice piece of info on the CBA negotiations....

I can't see why I would be however....I have such a plethora of info useful to this board

You're not on the list.


It generally takes a lot for me to put someone on the list, and I clear it (or most of it) with an 'amnesty' every year around draft time.