Welcome to PatsFans.com

Patriots Mankins Hurt Players Stance With Holdout

Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by PatsFans.com Article, May 4, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. PatsFans.com Article

    PatsFans.com Article Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2007
    Messages:
    3,203
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    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....

  2. PatsWickedPissah

    PatsWickedPissah PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    22,515
    Likes Received:
    75
    Ratings:
    +86 / 0 / -0

    Disable Jersey

    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.
  3. brady199

    brady199 Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2007
    Messages:
    1,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Do we need anymore evidence that the owners are Evil? :mad:
  4. PatsWickedPissah

    PatsWickedPissah PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    22,515
    Likes Received:
    75
    Ratings:
    +86 / 0 / -0

    Disable Jersey

    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.
  5. brady199

    brady199 Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2007
    Messages:
    1,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

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

    Deus Irae PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    40,771
    Likes Received:
    58
    Ratings:
    +81 / 3 / -1

    Disable Jersey

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

    Gwedd PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    4,898
    Likes Received:
    15
    Ratings:
    +20 / 0 / -0

    No Jersey Selected

    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.
  8. PatsWickedPissah

    PatsWickedPissah PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    22,515
    Likes Received:
    75
    Ratings:
    +86 / 0 / -0

    Disable Jersey

    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.
  9. Triumph

    Triumph Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2004
    Messages:
    5,867
    Likes Received:
    5
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -2

    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.
  10. Fencer

    Fencer Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2006
    Messages:
    7,608
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    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.
    Last edited: May 4, 2011
  11. DaBruinz

    DaBruinz Pats, B's, Sox PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Messages:
    23,735
    Likes Received:
    47
    Ratings:
    +53 / 0 / -1

    #50 Jersey

    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.
  12. DaBruinz

    DaBruinz Pats, B's, Sox PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Messages:
    23,735
    Likes Received:
    47
    Ratings:
    +53 / 0 / -1

    #50 Jersey

    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..
  13. ausbacker

    ausbacker Brady > Manning. PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2008
    Messages:
    12,963
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +22 / 0 / -0

    #51 Jersey

    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.
  14. AndyJohnson

    AndyJohnson PatsFans.com Veteran PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    21,851
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +20 / 0 / -1

    Or because maybe its part of their job?
  15. brady199

    brady199 Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2007
    Messages:
    1,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

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

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

    ausbacker Brady > Manning. PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2008
    Messages:
    12,963
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +22 / 0 / -0

    #51 Jersey

    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.
  17. Deus Irae

    Deus Irae PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    40,771
    Likes Received:
    58
    Ratings:
    +81 / 3 / -1

    Disable Jersey

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

    ausbacker Brady > Manning. PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2008
    Messages:
    12,963
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +22 / 0 / -0

    #51 Jersey

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

    Deus Irae PatsFans.com Retired Jersey Club PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    40,771
    Likes Received:
    58
    Ratings:
    +81 / 3 / -1

    Disable Jersey

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

    ausbacker Brady > Manning. PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2008
    Messages:
    12,963
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +22 / 0 / -0

    #51 Jersey

    Not really, the Patriots still owned Mankins' rights and the action of refusing to sign a tender is still the same as holding out.
    Last edited: May 4, 2011
  21. DaBruinz

    DaBruinz Pats, B's, Sox PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Messages:
    23,735
    Likes Received:
    47
    Ratings:
    +53 / 0 / -1

    #50 Jersey


    Just like its a huge difference whether the union decertifies before or after their CBA has expired...
  22. IllegalContact

    IllegalContact Rookie

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    9,626
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +12 / 1 / -2

    mankins acted according to procedural documentation. he didn't do anything that was in breach of a contract. just because he didn't sign the contract does not mean what you think it does.

    it is no different from a rookie who is drafted and refuses to sign a deal which allows him to go back to the draft the following year. its an actualy documented proces.

    unlike holding out while under contract.....very different
  23. ausbacker

    ausbacker Brady > Manning. PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2008
    Messages:
    12,963
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +22 / 0 / -0

    #51 Jersey

    Hi Frank. Let me reiterate so you understand. The action of holding out is the same as the action of not signing your tender. Whilst I agree a hold out is infinitely worse than refusing to sign your tender what you choose to believe is your imperative.

    You cannot argue against that because it is the exact same action under a different set of circumstances and obligations. I already understood the differences in contractual obligations versus retained rights.
    Last edited: May 4, 2011
  24. TruthSeeker

    TruthSeeker PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2006
    Messages:
    1,787
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    Definately agree; it is a huge difference. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a player and a team not coming to an agreement on a contract. To classify this non-agreement as a "holdout" is totally inappropriate and unfair to Mankins. Who is to even say that the fault is Mankins for not reaching an agreement? Maybe it's more the fault of the Patriots?
  25. ausbacker

    ausbacker Brady > Manning. PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2008
    Messages:
    12,963
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +22 / 0 / -0

    #51 Jersey

    Don't start this crap again. It's both parties fault just like the CBA is both parties fault.
  26. Ian

    Ian Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2000
    Messages:
    5,033
    Likes Received:
    68
    Ratings:
    +79 / 2 / -0

    #17 Jersey

    With all due respect Deus, that really wasn't the purpose of the entry. The point was that the league actually pointed out the fact that even though Mankins completely stayed away during that entire offseason and into the early part of the season, he still returned in shape and ready to go, and even later made the Pro Bowl. Taking that into account, now they're using it as evidence that the offseason participation isn't as detrimental as the players claim. Again, that's their opinion - I was just trying to alert people to the story. I figured there may have been others who didn't see it, and as I said, I thought it was interesting that the league was actually singling him (and Welker) out in the legal documentation.

    It wasn't meant to start an argument over semantics since under contract or not, he wasn't here and didn't work out at the team's facilities, nor did he participate in any of their offseason activities. So my apologies if it created any confusion as my goal wasn't meant to mislead anyone.
    Last edited: May 5, 2011
  27. MoLewisrocks

    MoLewisrocks PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2005
    Messages:
    19,949
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +29 / 0 / -0

    Welcome to our world, Ian, where for some it's always about semantics...

    I thought from the get go the league should have pointed out to the courts just how difficult a time they have long had getting players to attend off season workout programs and how strongly the union defended their right not to and insisted voluntary meant voluntary and had been lobbying for the less is more approach... and how routinely players held out of at least off season workouts and non mandatory OTA's even if under contract either to attempt to leverage owners into more lucrative deals or just because they preferred to and could... Of course when it did come up there was talk in court of a possible evidentiary hearing on the concept of irreparable harm, which never did transpire because the judge decided the players suddenly poignant claims were IHO apparently sufficiently compelling. Maybe that is one reason the appeal has legs... The other being that if the owners did simply unite to insure no frenzy occurs in the absence of a CBA the association and it's members will then claim collusion. In fact they still have a collusion claim pending over the lack of splashy FA signings in an uncapped 2010...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page