PatsFans.com Menu
PatsFans.com - The Hub For New England Patriots Fans

2011 NFL-NFLPA CBA Negotiations


Status
Not open for further replies.

jmt57

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Aug 13, 2005
Messages
19,294
Reaction score
12,880
Thought it might be a good idea to have one thread on the upcoming labor negotiations between the owners and the union regarding the CBA.


For starters, there is a website the owners have with a lot of links, frequently asked questions, and other information; just want to point out that since the owners and the NFL are providing this site there's probably a good chance the information is going to be slanted to support their position.

NFLLabor.com




Today's news: NFL players' union files collusion claim - NFL - Sporting News
The NFL players' union confirms it has filed a collusion claim against the league's owners.

The case has been filed with the same special master who is considering the union's complaint about the league's TV contracts.

In December, the league and the players' union agreed to extend the deadline to file a collusion claim.

Union spokesman George Atallah says Tuesday he can't comment on details of the collusion claim.

NFL owners and players are trying to negotiate a collective bargaining agreement to replace the one that expires in March.

Two weeks ago, special master Stephen Burbank began hearing complaints from the players' union that the NFL improperly re-negotiated network TV contracts. A ruling is expected this month.
 
Although many do not care for his commentary on rumors and speculation, Pro Football Talk's Mike Florio has done a very good job in keeping NFL fans up to date with the labor situation for quite some time now. Here's a good overview from a column he did last week, focusing on what a lockout would mean.

Ten things to know right now about the labor situation | ProFootballTalk

Florio's bullet points are:

  1. A lockout likely would begin long before September.
  2. The union has the ability to try to block a lockout.
  3. The owners have an alternative to a lockout.
  4. In a lockout, free agency would be tabled.
  5. The draft would proceed, but with no player trades.
  6. Say farewell to the offseason, training camp, and the preseason.
  7. Pressure points for the owners.
  8. Supplemental revenue sharing.
  9. De Smith’s dilemma, and possible agenda.
  10. The absence of gravitas.


It's a much longer column than what he usually writes, but well worth reading if you are interested in what's going on and some possible scenarios of what may happen soon.
 
wait a sec here

Ok i have been lurking around and noticed a lot of trade rumors about players.

I am about 95% sure that players COULD NOT be traded while there is no CBA and since no trades are allowed untill the season ends offically in march and the CBA offically ends in march how can this even happen. I know that if affects the draft and players can NOT be trade for picks it's only picks for picks.

If i am wrong correct me cause I tried to look it up and i couldn't find it. I hope this tempers the trade talks a little
 
Re: wait a sec here

They gotta get a new CBA sometime. Hopefully it will be before the draft rather than after it.
 
Re: wait a sec here

They gotta get a new CBA sometime. Hopefully it will be before the draft rather than after it.

If we don't have one before the draft I will start to seriously panic.
 
Last edited:
Re: wait a sec here

Ok i have been lurking around and noticed a lot of trade rumors about players.

I am about 95% sure that players COULD NOT be traded while there is no CBA and since no trades are allowed untill the season ends offically in march and the CBA offically ends in march how can this even happen. I know that if affects the draft and players can NOT be trade for picks it's only picks for picks.

If i am wrong correct me cause I tried to look it up and i couldn't find it. I hope this tempers the trade talks a little
My understanding is that players could not be traded for draft picks if there is a lockout - not that there could be no player-pick trades if there is no CBA.

I think that is an important but confusing distinction. While there is a very good chance that no CBA agreement will result in a lockout, that is not something that will automatically happen. The owners could decide to continue with the current rules, for example.

In other words, as soon as the trading deadline passes/restarts - on or about March 1st - players can once again be traded, and that would include being traded for draft picks.

More here: Ten things to know right now about the labor situation | Pro Football Talk

The only good news in the event of a lockout that wipes out the offseason is that the draft will still happen. As Charley Casserly of CBS pointed out last month, only the draft would happen. The flurry of signings of undrafted players immediately after the draft wouldn’t. Those players would remain unaffiliated until the lockout ends.

Though trades of current and future draft picks would be permitted on draft day, no players could be traded during the draft.

If I am wrong I'm sure somebody will soon correct me.

**Edit: see comment two posts down for correction.**
 
Last edited:
Re: wait a sec here

that all makes since. I am assuming and I am sure I am not the only that the "lockout" will start as soon as the season resets
 
Re: wait a sec here

No players can be traded if there is no CBA (in which case there will be a lockout) UNLESS ownership declares an impasse or the union decertifies. Either of those situations has to happen BEFORE the CBA actually expires on March 5th. In either of those two two scenarios there won't be a CBA but there also won't be a work stoppage. Instead the league will carry on into a season under work rules based on the last best offer management had on the table. Players and/or the union (unless it decertifies) will then be subject to those rules as if it were a CBA, although since it isn't they will likely commence a series of lawsuits to challenge either specific rules or the league's position itself as being in violation of anti trust laws. But in the meantime life and the games and things like trades will go on albeit under rules that favor ownership.

There is a third option in which both sides agree to simply maintain the status quo (old CBA) until a new deal is achieved. But ownership has already stated that option is off the table because they have no interest in maintaining that status quo. What that means is if there is football it won't be under the same conditions (terms of FA, rookie contracts, etc) as presently exist.
 
I saw a tweet earlier in the week that the hold up is no longer the 18 game season or the Rookie wage scale. Those are supposedly done deals.

What I have heard is that the owners are bickering over how to distribute the money. Basically, it's the same thing as the last time. You've got your "rich" teams who feel that the "poor" teams aren't doing enough to carry their weight.

So, who knows what's gonna happen.
 
I saw a tweet earlier in the week that the hold up is no longer the 18 game season or the Rookie wage scale. Those are supposedly done deals.

What I have heard is that the owners are bickering over how to distribute the money. Basically, it's the same thing as the last time. You've got your "rich" teams who feel that the "poor" teams aren't doing enough to carry their weight.

So, who knows what's gonna happen.

What I've read is the sticking point is that owners want players to put back a little more of their % of the take into the pie, to ensure uniform success for the NFL in general.
 
A few links to the union's side of the story from their website.

NFLPlayers.com
2011-Lockout-Central - NFLPlayers.com
100 CBA Facts You Need To Know / News - NFLPlayers.com
Fact-Sheets - NFLPlayers.com

August 2010: NFL team executives negotiated contracts of the 2010 first-round draft picks to reflect the belief there will be a lockout in 2011 by changing the payment date of option bonuses from the first two weeks of the league year, which begins in March, to around the time the first regular-season game is played in 2011, whenever that may be.

September 2010: Five months prior to the implementation of a lockout, the NFL informed its employees of its three-phase plan that will require many of its employees to take unpaid leaves of absences as well as pay cuts.

October 2010: The NFL is requiring banks lending to its teams to extend the traditional six-month grace period for declaring a default to stretch instead through to the end of the 2011 season in preparation for a lockout.

Slide3-500x375.jpg


Slide4-500x375.jpg


Slide1-500x375.jpg
 
Numbers Show NFL’s ‘Economic Realities’ for Lockout Unwarranted - SportsMoney - news on the business of sports - Forbes - 1/10/2011
“Yes, NFL players deserve to be paid well,” said Commissioner Goodell in a January letter to fans. “Unfortunately, economic realities are forcing everyone to make tough choices and the NFL is no different.”

But, do the economic realities really point to the NFL needing to make “tough choices”? Here’s how it all breaks down.


What is Goodell basing his “economic realities” on?

The league has pointed to the only financial info made available to the public, the Green Bay Packers. The “economic realities” are that in the worst economy since The Great Depression, the Packers saw reduced profits last year. The club pulled in $9.8 million in profits for the fiscal year that ended March 31. That was a decrease from $20.1 million from the year prior.

That’s the Packers, is the league offering up other financial information?

The answer shouldn’t be surprising, but it’s no. In prior labor battles, namely MLB’s 1994-95 strike the players said, “If you’re asking for salary cuts, show us your books.” The NFLPA is asking the same, and was the case in the past with baseball, the NFL has rejected the request.

Is the NFL profitable by other measures?

According to Kurt Badenhausen of Forbes SportsMoney, “The NFL has never been more profitable by our count with the average team earning $33 million in 2009 in operating profit (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) thanks to huge incomes for teams like the Cowboys, Patriots and Redskins.”

The most recent Forbes NFL franchise valuations show 19 of 32 clubs being worth at least $1 billion. In Major League Baseball, where talk of a labor stoppage at the end of 2011 is nearly non-existent, only the Yankees have a valuation of over $1 billion, as ranked by Forbes.

What are the owners looking for?

In terms of economics, a rookie wage scale and increased “expense credits”, both of which would reduce total revenues (the amount of revenues after the owners take their cut off the top before it gets to the players) by approx. 18 percent.
 
Last edited:
How Much Is The NFL Earning? Players and Owners Have Different Ideas - SportsMoney - news on the business of sports - Forbes - 12/17/2010

What’s the difference between Total Revenues and All Revenues? As Atallah correctly defines it, “ ALL revenue refers to all the revenues generated by the NFL and its operations. “Total Revenue” is a CBA term that refers to all of the monies that are left after the owners receive an expense credit. Atallah claims that the owners have received credits in excess of $1 billion in each of the past two years.

So that players receive 50 percent of All Revenues – the revenues after the expense credit to the owners. Below are the percentage of Total Revenues the players get after the owners take their cut – all of which are below 60 percent. The NFLPA claims that the below numbers were jointly reached and audited by PriceWaterhouseCoopers:

Players’ Percentage of All Revenues since 2000:

2000-56.5%
2001-52.6%
2002-51.8%
2003-50.5%
2004-52.3%
2005-51.1%
2006-52.7%
2007-51.8%
2008-51.0%
2009-50.6%

Players’ Percentage of “Total Revenue” since 2000:

2000-61.7%
2001-57.1%
2002-56.1%
2003-54.3%
2004-57.0%
2005-55.1%
2006-58.4%
2007-58.0%
2008-57.7%
2009–57.1%

The following is ARTICLE XXIV GUARANTEED LEAGUE-WIDE SALARY, SALARY CAP, & MINIMUM TEAM SALARY from the 2006 CBA (PDF)
 
Last edited:
NFL Lockout Watch: Players Union Angered By Charge That It Wants Lockout - SportsMoney - news on the business of sports - Forbes - 1/13/2011

On Wednesday, Bob Batterman, the outside labor counsel for the NFL said to the Washington Post that the NFLPA was, more or less, hoping for a lockout by the owners when the current CBA expires on March 3.

“If you want to litigate, if you want to get Congress involved, you want a lockout to occur and you want the clock to run out [on negotiations] so your decertification and litigation strategy can come into play,” Batterman said in a telephone interview.

“This is not a union eager to avoid a lockout. This is a union waiting for a lockout to occur.”

That claim angered representatives from the NFLPA; they arranged a conference call today with the media. The call was taken by NFLPA general counsel Richard Berthelsen; union president Kevin Mawae; George Atallah the assistant executive director of external affairs for the N.F.L. Players Association; and Indianapolis Colts center Jeff Saturday on the call to voice their displeasure.

On Batterman’s comments, Berthelsen said, “The NFL seems to be on a fault finding mission … The word lockout was never in the NFL’s vocabulary until Bob Batterman came on-board, and it has been a continuing theme.” Berthelsen later added, “Any suggestion we want a lockout is coming from outer space.”

The NFLPA has been keen to note that Batterman was the lead outside labor counsel for the NHL when that league locked out the players in one of the most protracted and damaging work stoppages in all of professional sports. The lockout ran for 310 days and resulted in the cancellation of the league’s 88th season.
 
More Numbers Show Labor Issue in NFL Far From Cut and Dry - SportsMoney - news on the business of sports - Forbes - 1/12/2011

The point being, the economic outlook for the league is far from abysmal. Revenues are growing, television deals with astronomical amounts associated to them continue to be reached, viewership is at an all-time high, and franchise values continue to increase.

It’s hardly the sign of a “distressed” industry.

Here’s more info, some of which shows that the gap between the amount owners are taking in compared to what the revenues are after taking their cut off the top is widening.

How much is the NFL claiming in losses?

The claim by the league is that player costs have outpaced revenue growth and owners’ cash flow declined by $200 million. There’s some problems with this. Unless costs skyrocketed, player costs in the capped system are tied to revenues. It’s possible that owners are having to put more into stadium development going forward due to the tightening credit market, and difficulties in having the public help foot large portions of the costs, but tying that aspect to the players seems like having a corporation that like McDonalds, asking those working the register to help pay for new franchises. The NFL has seen incredible revenue growth in the chilliest of economies. Asking players to take a cut has to be built on a bit more.

OK, how do the owners show that they’re on the losing end of the deal?

The league has been asked repeatedly to release financial information backing their claims. They have refused, which is, of course, a bit fishy. But, there are ways to make a case and still not give the players and media the keys to the store. Instead of using nothing but toothless rhetoric – calling numbers “voodoo economics”.

You said there was a growing revenue gap. What did you mean?

In Monday’s article, I published the ALL and TOTAL revenue figures. ALL revenues are revenues that come into the league from its varying sources. TOTAL revenues shows what revenues are at after the owners take their cut off the top for expense credits.

As this graph and trendlne show, the gap between what the owners are taking in and the amount after the owners are taking a cut is widening.

NFLAll-Total.jpg


What else is there about the graph?

You tell me… Does this look like a picture of an industry in decline? Revenues slightly leveled off just after the league reached the current CBA in 2006, but during the chilly economy, revenues have grown at an increased rate – 9% last year. This while the league saved hundreds of millions by not having to pay supplemental benefits to the players in the uncapped year, and there was a slowed spending trend on free agents, as opposed to spending more without the cap.
 
Last edited:
Instead Of Player Pay Cuts, NFL Needs More Revenue Sharing - SportsMoney - news on the business of sports - Forbes - 1/17/2011

Using the Forbes data from 2004 to 2009 – the last year Forbes ran their values – what gets painted is a case of haves and have-nots within the ownership ranks. And what that shows is instead of asking the players to take a pay cut, what is really needed is increased revenue-sharing.

Are profits leveling off in the NFL?

As pointed out in the “Economic Realities” article, the league has pointed to the only financial info made available to the public, the Green Bay Packers. The club pulled in $9.8 million in profits for the fiscal year that ended March 31 of last year. That was a decrease from $20.1 million from the year prior. The Forbes numbers use Operating Income as a measure of profit in their valuations each year. It is not a perfect measure of profit as it shows earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITA). Indeed, Operating Income grew by 3 percent from 2008 to 2009 after showing a 31 percent gain from 2007 to 2008. But here’s the rub: from 2006, the year the current CBA was reached, Operating Income in the NFL has grown 88 percent ($568.4 million to $1.069 billion). What’s interesting is that from 2004, two years before the current CBA was reached, to 2009, Operating Income in the NFL has grown by just 3 percent. The chart below shows total Operating Income (a form of profit) for the NFL from 2004 to 2009 based on the Forbes numbers:

NFLForbesOpInc04-09.jpg

Are all clubs in the NFL showing a profit?

No, according to Forbes. In 2009, the Dolphins went $7.7 million in the red, while the Lions lost $2.9 million. The league saw 2 clubs run in the red in 2008 (Seahawks, Raiders), 1 in 2007 (Lions), 5 in 2006, the first year of the current CBA (Vikings, Colts, Falcons, Seahawks, Lions), 1 in 2005 (Saints), and zero in 2004. But, in looking at these teams, the reason for some – not all – of declines Operating Income can be tied to activities on the business side. While player costs for the Dolphins increased 9 percent ($123 million in 2008 to $134 million in ’09 according to Forbes), the Dolphins refinanced $235 million of stadium debt in a deal that includes a $159 million letter of credit that backs taxable municipal bonds sold through a government conduit but for which the stadium corporation is responsible. The deal, arranged by Goldman Sachs, contains a credit reserve that is significantly bigger than it otherwise would have been to account for the possibility of a work stoppage in 2011. Another example are the Saints in 2005 who saw a massive hit due to Hurricane Katrina. The following shows the number of clubs by Operating Income that ran at a loss, according to Forbes

NFLUnproffitable.jpg


That’s running at a loss, what about reasonable profit?

Saying what is “reasonable” is a subjective endeavor. Setting a threshold of $20 million in Operating Income, here’s the number of teams each year.

NFLForbesLess20MProfit.jpg
 
Last edited:
Instead Of Player Pay Cuts, NFL Needs More Revenue Sharing - SportsMoney - news on the business of sports - Forbes - 1/17/2011

You said that there needed to be increased revenue-sharing, why?

In the “Economic Realities” article, the look was at revenues coming into the league in-total. Using the Forbes numbers, we can look at revenues by club. When looking at 2004 to 2009, what is seen is a widening gap between those at the top and the bottom of revenues, hence the comment that what the NFL really needs is increased revenue sharing.

Below shows the amount of difference between the highest revenued club and the lowest tracked since 2004. As the graph and table below it show, from 2008 to 2009, there’s a massive spike.

DiffBetweenHighLowRevNFL.jpg


Is there anything else that shows a growing disparity between haves and have-nots in the NFL?

Not only is the revenue gap widening in the NFL, so is franchise valuations. The difference between what the highest valued club and the lowest valued club are worth has widened slowly over several years, but grew to over $1 billion last year. See the chart and table below

DiffBetweenHighLowValNFL.jpg


What’s it all mean?

There’s little doubting that player salaries come into the equation with the NFL’s finances. But, the complexities as to why there would be losses has to be tied to more than just saying, “because we said so.” The Forbes numbers paints two pictures: incredible growth for some clubs, while others have not grown at the same pace. That points to an internal matter for the league’s owners to handle, more than saying it solely rests on the shoulders of increased player salaries.

Which is why the NFL is likely not opening their books to the players. In doing so, the league would make certain information available that could bolster their case. The NFL could likely show hard numbers to back their position, but instead is opting to go into bunker mentality to protect the whole, as opposed to making a case for some. Welcome to the machine that is the NFL.
 
NFL labor pains: Part One | Going inside the CBA dispute, 100 days to go | National Football Post | Andrew Brandt | 11/30/2010

Negotiations between the NFL and the NFL Players Association have produced little to this point. Despite recent optimistic comments by influential team owners such as the Patriot’s Robert Kraft, there has been more activity in lockout preparations – the NFL negotiating reduced salaries for team and league employees in 2011, the NFLPA Decertification tour, etc.—than in negotiations. It has appeared that once we entered the 2010 League Year – with no salary cap and, more importantly, no salary floor -- all urgency to negotiate a new agreement faded. And this low spending year has emboldened ownership in attempting to forge a new economic system for the future.


How did we get here?

To review, in March 2006 NFL ownership ratified a new agreement with the players by a vote of 30-2, with Ralph Wilson of the Bills and Mike Brown of the Bengals the dissenting votes. I remember the day well, communicating with our president at the Packers at the time, Bob Harlan, who kept saying that the meeting was all about revenue sharing plan. “Nothing about the labor deal?” I would ask. “No” Harlan would respond, “We’re just talking revenue sharing.”

The late Gene Upshaw – the head of the NFL Players Association at the time --had created the specter of an uncapped year ahead that would -- as he painted it -- change the way the NFL does business irrevocably and make football look like baseball. He had invoked the ominous phrase “Once the Salary Cap goes away, it’s not coming back!” that stoked fear then (it has not done so now), afraid their colleagues in that room would drive player spending to new heights without a Cap to apply the brakes.


Player payroll surge

Upon ratification of the new deal in 2006, the Cap went up geometrically. In years prior to 2006, and years since 2006, growth rates for the Cap have been in the 6-7% range. In 2006, the Cap grew 19%.

The 2005 Salary Cap for NFL teams was $85.5 million; the 2006 Salary Cap for NFL teams was $102 million. Whether that was not fully explained to ownership nor fully understood remains a mystery. However, soon after the ink was dry on the deal, more owners and league employees started to feel that the deal needed to be rolled back, especially in an environment of a lean economy and lost appetite for public funding of stadiums.


Opt-out

The agreement was supposed to continue until March of 2013. The owners had an opportunity to shorten the deal by two years if they exercised such opt-out by November of 2008.

They didn’t need to wait that long. Six months before their opt-out deadline, the NFL owners voted unanimously in May of 2008 to end the current CBA two years early, meaning 2008 and 2009 would be played with a Cap and the last season, this 2010 we are in, would be played without one. And it meant that the CBA’s expiration date would now be March 3, 2011.


New sheriffs

With new leadership on each side of the equation since 2006, the battle begins anew. Commissioner Roger Goodell is leading an ownership group determined to take back some of the turf that was lost in 2006, as the economic environment has been altered in the years since, especially in the area of stadium financing.

NFLPA Executive Director DeMaurice Smith, a surprise winner in the search to replace Upshaw, is using his dramatic presentation style learned from litigating and navigating the Washington legal and power circles to convince fans and the media that the players simply want to play. Smith is in a difficult position, merely trying to protect what he already has and show his membership that he can deliver a deal at least as good as the one they have now.

Both Goodell and Smith are negotiating a CBA for the first time, and their relationship will be paramount. To this point, there has been little to none of the chemistry that Tagliabue and Upshaw had, but the relationship is still in its early stages with more communication through the media thus far than to each other. The lack of meaningful interaction between the two, however, is a reason for the limited progress at this point.
 
Last edited:
CBA Primer, Part Two | Retired players, player safety | National Football Post | Andrew Brandt | 12/08/2010

Taking a cue from David Letterman, here are – in multiple parts - the Top Ten Issues in the NFL Labor Negotiations to prevent a lockout in 2011, starting with issues 10 and 9:

10. Retired players

DeMaurice Smith prefers using the term “former players” rather than retired players, noting the time between being an active and a former player is often the time of a phone call from a team. Smith also invited former players to the NFLPA annual meetings. Both the league and the union are seeking the hearts and minds of this group.

Smith is trying to distinguish himself from Gene Upshaw, known to be indifferent to the problems of retired players. Smith’s challenge, as Upshaw’s, is to convince active players to slice off part of their pie to go to those who preceded them. That is an internal struggle that the NFL is not a part of.

Forecast: Both sides agree to increase their funding to retired or former players, the level of which to be determined. Funding will come from different sources, among them savings from rookie spending. This will be one of the easiest issues to resolve. As noted above, the differences that the two sides may have, especially the union, may be more internal than with the other side.


9. Player safety

New concussion guidelines were issued last year and, in a gesture to the NFLPA, the NFL fired its medical director on the issue, Dr. Ira Casson, a staunch defender of the premise that there was no long-term brain loss of function from repeated concussions.

Also, NFL fine money is now increasingly allocated towards research for improving equipment for the safety of players as well.

The NFLPA has to be careful when players such as James Harrison – now fined $125,000 of his 2010 salary of $755,000, or 17% -- and Troy Polamalu question the league’s enforcement of these hits. This is a divisive issue that many offensive players support. Like the rookie contract issue, this could divide the players, never a good thing for presenting a united front in bargaing.

Forecast: Both sides agree to improved enforcement and curtailment of offseason activity (this will be part of the 18-game season resolution as well). There will continue to be independent neurological testing and more investment in research towards safer equipment design. There will be added input from the player group working on this issue, with their findings incorporated into the league’s position on the issue.

The NFL and NFLPA jointly agreed in August to have on-field discipline appeals heard by Art Shell and Ted Cottrell, who are NFL employees. The NFL will also consider adding a player representative to a panel that issues discipline -- and hears appeals -- for on-field collisions.
 
Last edited:
NFL labor pains, Part Three | CBA primer continues: Bonus recovery, Drug testing | National Football Post | Andrew Brandt | 12/15/2010

8. Bonus Recovery

Nothing frustrates team personnel more than not being able to recover previously paid bonus money for players exhibiting bad behavior. Grievance and arbitration decisions have continued to rule on the player side, including those involving Ashley Lelie (option bonus not recoverable) and MIchael Vick and Plaxico Burress (signing bonus not recoverable).

Forecast: The union will not fight this issue beyond a token effort and allow for broader recovery rights for signing and option bonus recovery. This is a relatively easy and necessary “give” for the NFLPA. It does not want to have the continued specter of players keeping their bonuses despite willful bad behavior.


7. Drug Testing

Forecast: The NFLPA supports the NFL position on a collectively bargained drug policy, for both illicit substances and steroids and allows the policy great latitude in trying to keep the issue from the courts, although it is not certain that it can. In exchange, the league relents on pushing for HGH testing.

The NFLPA is also going to be making a big issue of having an independent arbitrator -- instead of the Commissioner -- hear appeals on both conduct and drug testing. On the conduct issue, to be discussed in a coming column, the Commissioner will not give up the right to legislate morality in the best interests of the game.

On drug testing issue, however, the NFL will compromise and allow for an independent body to hear appeals. In fact, the league is willing to turn the whole issue of testing – especially for steroids and performance-enhancing drugs – to a group such as the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). My sense is the NFLPA would resist that, as the tolerance of a group like WADA is far stricter than that of the NFL.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.


Patriots Kraft ‘Involved’ In Decision Making?  Zolak Says That’s Not the Case
MORSE: Final First Round Patriots Mock Draft
Slow Starts: Stark Contrast as Patriots Ponder Which Top QB To Draft
Wednesday Patriots Notebook 4/24: News and Notes
Tuesday Patriots Notebook 4/23: News and Notes
MORSE: Final 7 Round Patriots Mock Draft, Matthew Slater News
Bruschi’s Proudest Moment: Former LB Speaks to MusketFire’s Marshall in Recent Interview
Monday Patriots Notebook 4/22: News and Notes
Patriots News 4-21, Kraft-Belichick, A.J. Brown Trade?
MORSE: Patriots Draft Needs and Draft Related Info
Back
Top