CBA Approval Status

[MoLewisrocks]

And the latest PFT roundup:

the players conference call ended with no vote.

NFLPA* conference call ends with no vote | ProFootballTalk

The players think the owners tried to slip things into the deal.

Players: Owners tried to slip items into CBA | ProFootballTalk

And this quote from Florio (who's been riding the owners' jock all day), for all of you who think I'm making up an issue out of whole cloth, and that I'm the only one noting it:



De Smith shouldn’t be surprised about new revenue sharing arrangement | ProFootballTalk

The players may still vote to take the CBA. They may decide this stuff is not deal breaker material, in the end. However, they're doing the smart thing and taking time.

Please. The players have no say in internal league revenue sharing. Never have. It was only ever discussed in context of a CBA the last time out because the owners didn't take care of their own business ahead of time last time out. That's how Gene got his foot in the door on total revenue being part of a discussion on a new CBA. This time they did get their internal business settled quietly and privately as is their right. Goodell said over a week ago that it was being handled privately between him and the owners and would not be an impediment to a new CBA. He assured owners who may have had concerns that there would be sufficient sharing to make this deal paletable for them.

The issue is recertification. And the timeline, even though absent it nothing can be finalized. And the lawyers lobbying against any rush to do it even though they have always known because the owners have been clear there can be no CBA without it. And players reps not grasping there was never going to be a windfall settlement of pending litigation, it was simply going to have to be dropped. The league has been clear on that from the outset.

De and the Executive Committee negotiated a settlement deal to be a new CBA pending ratification and recertification. They knew some issues would remain to be finalized because they are things you can't negotiate in a CBA unless you are a union. Now he's dropped the ball on selling the framework deal to his constituents and let the lawyers throw up red herring roadblocks. No player including Evans who suggest the owners tried to change terms or sneak things in can articulate what any of those are...because there aren't any, that's just players letting the lawyers play on their paranoia. Lombardi just opined that it's hard to fathom how the players can know the owners snuck things in if they also contend they haven't got a document to review... And it's impossible to have a completed document absent recertification if you can't negotiate some terms absent a union...

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Maybe, but....



Twitter / Albert Breer: Here's the story on NFLPA' ...



Twitter / Adam Schefter: Bills S George Wilson on E ...



Twitter / Jason La Canfora: Multiple player reps reite ...



Twitter / Jason La Canfora: NFLPA conference call over ...

It doesn't seem like a sure thing.

And a lot of it could be rhetoric. I think there remains a sentiment among player reps that there was going to be a settlement to settle the lawsuits. Not gonna happen. De should have broken that news to them a while ago. The league ahs been clear on that for a while now. They also need to understand that despite their lawyers playing on their paranoia, they have to recertify before they get a finalized document to vote on because they can't negotiate those workrules within a CBA unless they are a union.

 

[Deus Irae]

ESPN.com article: NFLPA execs told Mort vote is likely Friday. NFLPA rep says no timetable. On ESPN. Confusion in nutshell.

gregg rosenthal (greggrosenthal) on Twitter

 

[TheSolderKing]

it's good to see how the owners came out and acted like douche-bags as they had to get their names out their.



This is a player thing. Why do the owners come out and vote?

 

[BlueThunder]

it's good to see how the owners came out and acted like douche-bags as they had to get their names out their.



This is a player thing. Why do the owners come out and vote?

The owners are the other half of the CBA......It takes at least TWO parties to have an agreement (unless your into having a contract with yourself to lose weight, get healthier, etc)...

The owners had already set the date months ago for the owners meeting. I believe they figured that would be a good date to target to get the CBA done by. Enough had been agreed on and the major issues resolved (as far as the owners were concerned) to get an approval vote.

They even stated that as soon as the union was recertified, they would work out the details of remaining minor issues with the union.

It seems like the only major issue that could derail this is if the Brady suit with Mankins/Jackson is a sticking point with the players.

Let's hope De gets his players on board with what he talked to Goodell about for 2 hrs on the phone and they get an approval so the players can start reporting tommorrow or Sunday for physicals.....the timeline for preseason games is already up against the wall, they don't need to delay even more.:rocker:

 

[MoLewisrocks]

it's good to see how the owners came out and acted like douche-bags as they had to get their names out their.



This is a player thing. Why do the owners come out and vote?

Another trademark post...

Because if they don't vote on a deal the players have nothing to vote on...:bricks:

And if they hadn't voted on the deal they've been working on for the last 132 days the players would have claimed they just want to play and they made a fair proposal and the owners are the ones holding up the whole process...

The players representatives are stalling on closing the deal because they live and hope they can squeeze something more out of the owners. In every negotiation there comes an end date by which it's time to take a vote. This is it. If the players feel pressured or rushed that's too damn bad. This has been going on for months. They always knew the end game had to include the lawsuits being dismissed and the union recertifying because otherwise there can be no CBA. We want to play is just hollow rhetoric. This is largely an ego driven pissing contest at this juncture based on the union wanting to appear to dictate terms or control the process. The owners don't have time for any more games. If you want camps to open on time (the majority of them open the end of next week and the earliest were scheduled to open today) and provide sufficient leeway for easing players into them physically and contractually, this is it. If it drags on past the middle of next week then the entire pre season is at risk for safety reasons the players claim are paramoung to them and financial losses will change the financial parameters of this deal and players will get less money this season and the cap will be recalculated.

 

[DaBruinz]

Apparently, you're missing the entire point. The herring is not red at all, sorry. Smith is making that point pretty clearly.

Sorry, Deus, but Urgent blew up your little stick rather nicely...

But, god forbid you admit to be wrong..

 

[DaBruinz]

My problem with the NFLPA* delaying their vote is that the document the Owners voted on is the same document that came from the negotiating teams. In other words, It's the same document that the NFLPA* Executive Council had Tuesday night.

So, why can't they have read it and voted on it in the 48 hours from Tuesday night to Thursday Night???

 

[mgteich]

This is simply not reasonable.

1) The document has changed, probably in ways that don't matter. For example, the revenue sharing agreement among owners has been added. Surely, the players should check for other changes.

2) The issue for the Council is whether and when to re-certify. They couldn't re-certify in the middle of the night.

3) After all these months, the least that the Council owes the players is to review the final document, explain why they are dropping the lawsuits and have state contingencies if Mankins and other named players do not cooperate.

My problem with the NFLPA* delaying their vote is that the document the Owners voted on is the same document that came from the negotiating teams. In other words, It's the same document that the NFLPA* Executive Council had Tuesday night.

So, why can't they have read it and voted on it in the 48 hours from Tuesday night to Thursday Night???

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

I have zero problem with the NFLPA* taking a day or so to re-read and think carefully about the document, although based on reading reports is does seem like De & the senior union reps were not exactly as prepared as they could be. I do not understand why "revenue sharing between owners" is a part of the CBA if that is true. The CBA does not contain internal union operating details, why private owner matters?

 

[BlueThunder]

Dropping the lawsuit.....

Let's hope this is not a sticking point....

I don't believe it is...

Lets Play Football :rocker:

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Pretty good summation of the last 24 hours and what went wrong and why whatever the owners did it was going to unfold this way from Florio...

Making sense of the last 12 hours | ProFootballTalk

 

[MoLewisrocks]

As far as I can see De and the Executive Committee set the players up for yet another PR black eye by failing to accept the leadership role their decertification and court mandated negotiation forced on all parties. Owners haven't digested the entire deal yet either. It's 400 pages long, although much of it remains essentially the same. They voted on the parameters of the deal they agreed upon during negotiations knowing the devil is in the details because they trusted their negotiating team had hammered out the fine print to best reflect those parameters and the few remaining legitimate issues to be finalized could not be finalized until the union recertifies and negotiates those as part of a CBA. DUH...

The owners didn't all get everything they wanted. Neither will the players. Apparently some have agendas. Including extorting money out of the owners after the deal is shaped for things they aren't entitled to. I think it came as a shock to players who somehow expected a lump sum windfall from the pending litigation they have yet to prevail on in court...even though the league has been steadfast in saying it was their expectation that those matters would be dismissed as part of THIS settlement agreement (which is what the proposed CBA represents prior to recertification).

 

[Patriot 37]

I have gone from neutral to totally with the owners in the last 24 hrs. The players look stupid and petty right now. Have a vote ! if the members don't like it reject it.

I find it hard to beleive they don't understand it yet. I realize that the average player is significantly less intelligent than the average owner, but if Jerry Jones can grasp something in 4 hours even a brain dead idiot like Joshua Cribbs should be able to figure it out in 72 hours.

 

[Rob0729]

I heard Adam Schefter on ESPN Radio and he said that the whole blow up is much ado about nothing. He said that Goodell communicated verbally to Smith everything the owners were voting on that were not in the document prior to the vote and that the owners only did that because yesterday was the only day to get all the owners together to vote and that they felt none of the issues were anything the players would disagree with.

Things got inflamed on the players' side because an NFLPA lawyer sent an e-mail to the players stating the owners were sneaking things in without stating these new things in the email. Many players felt the owners were just sneaking stuff in that would benefit the owners and be a detriment to the players at the last minute. Schefter claimed that once the player representatives found out what was really added, there really wasn't anything that they felt were serious red flags.

Schefter compared this and all the stuff still outstanding in that the owners and the players agreed to buy a luxury car and now they are fighting over whether to buy the floor mats or not.

 

[Uncle Rico]

As far as I can see De and the Executive Committee set the players up for yet another PR black eye by failing to accept the leadership role their decertification and court mandated negotiation forced on all parties. Owners haven't digested the entire deal yet either. It's 400 pages long, although much of it remains essentially the same. They voted on the parameters of the deal they agreed upon during negotiations knowing the devil is in the details because they trusted their negotiating team had hammered out the fine print to best reflect those parameters and the few remaining legitimate issues to be finalized could not be finalized until the union recertifies and negotiates those as part of a CBA. DUH...

The owners didn't all get everything they wanted. Neither will the players. Apparently some have agendas. Including extorting money out of the owners after the deal is shaped for things they aren't entitled to. I think it came as a shock to players who somehow expected a lump sum windfall from the pending litigation they have yet to prevail on in court...even though the league has been steadfast in saying it was their expectation that those matters would be dismissed as part of THIS settlement agreement (which is what the proposed CBA represents prior to recertification).

The players are talking about how the owners are trying to make them look bad when, really, it's their own doing. They need time to consider whether to recertify? Really? You haven't discussed that before? And the way some player comments make it seem like there haven't been weeks of intense negotiations and that it would be an insult to impose a random schedule on these noble men -- that's just dumb. They're talking like everything is being forced and sprung upon them. Mawae comes across as just an angry dude who's more likely to sulk in a corner than do the right thing. And every time DeMo opens his mouth I'm amazed that any progress was made on these talks at all.

With any luck it'll all turn out to be last-minute posturing and all the hard work by both sides will culminate with a timely deal. But with these guys, you just don't know.

 

[Uncle Rico]

Pretty good summation of the last 24 hours and what went wrong and why whatever the owners did it was going to unfold this way from Florio...

Making sense of the last 12 hours | ProFootballTalk

I had to laugh at this:

The NFLPA* was disappointed that the NFL presented its approval of the deal in a celebratory manner

Really? If the NFLPA had voted at a time (yesterday morning) when everyone with "**** management" skills thought they would be voting, they could have "celebrated" first. Just seems so childish anyway. A lot of work went into this plan; why wouldn't the owners seem at pleased?

 

[VJCPatriot]

It appears that one sticking point is that the players don't like how the owners are dictating the timeframe for reforming the player's union.

"In addition to depriving the players of the time needed to consider forming a union and making needed changes to the old agreement, this proposed procedure would, in my view, also violate federal labor laws," Berthelsen said in the email. "Those laws prohibit employers from coercing their employees into forming a union and could result in any agreement reached through the procedure being declared null and void."

NFL.com news: NFLPA shows displeasure with league in email to player reps

That null and void language sounds like a bad thing. I have no idea why the CBA would even have a provision dictating to the players when they'd put together their union.

Berthelsen's email said the league "demands that the players reform as a union and provide evidence by Tuesday, July 26, that a majority of players have signed union authorization cards."

Obviously the final CBA can't be agreed to until the Union is reformed, however, the CBA itself didn't need to have any such language. The CBA should be about the agreement between the players and owners on the revenue sharing and has nothing to do with the players' end of things.

I think this issue is more about the pride of the player reps. Hopefully this will be resolved internally by the players and a deal agreed to soon. The questionmark to me is if the players insisted on that language being removed from the CBA, does that mean that the owners would have to get together again to vote and recertify? And what about if there were some other terms that needed to be modified? LOL it's a logistical nightmare.

 

[Mike in 333]

Seems like a lot of the confusion stems from the way the voting by the owners took place and what was probably an overly optimistic expectation that the players would vote last night. For over a week it had been common knowledge that the owners would vote on an agreement yesterday if there was an agreement to vote on; there was and they did. That was THE day that they would be all in 1 place. That should have been no surprise to anyone. Looking back on how things unfolded in real time, the players had never given an indication that they would rubber stamp something they hadn't seen, that was a media expectation. De Smith then sent out the e-mail which questioned the owners' supplemental agreement among themselves as an example of something (I'm not sure what) that still remained open for discussion and all hell broke loose.
I think the players are just doing their due diligence by waiting until they had an understanding of what the agreement contained.
Despite all available technology, a final copy of the agreement had to be compiled, distributed, read and discussed by the player reps which takes time. Maybe if we wake up tomorrow and there is still not agreement by the players there could be a problem but up until now it seems like what the players didn't do was to follow the script for an extended version of NFL Live that expected to be able to announce a final resolution.

 

[patchick]

It appears that one sticking point is that the players don't like how the owners are dictating the timeframe for reforming the player's union.

...

I have no idea why the CBA would even have a provision dictating to the players when they'd put together their union.

Berthelsen's email said the league "demands that the players reform as a union and provide evidence by Tuesday, July 26, that a majority of players have signed union authorization cards."

Obviously the final CBA can't be agreed to until the Union is reformed, however, the CBA itself didn't need to have any such language. The CBA should be about the agreement between the players and owners on the revenue sharing and has nothing to do with the players' end of things.

Maybe I'm missing something, but the timing requirement seems totally reasonable to me. It's standard for contract offers to include a deadline by which they must be signed, otherwise the offer expires. In part that's to ensure that the process moves expeditiously, and in part it's because the factors shaping the offer can change quickly. It's not hard to picture that some of the provisions might have to be revisited if, say, the union takes so long to sign that exhibition games have to be cancelled.