Mankins could hold up NFL settlement

[Deus Irae]

I must have missed where there has been a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs in this case after four years of proceedings and a jury trial...like the last time...

Either that or you just deliberately misread what's been posted.


Given the thread, it's pretty clearly the later option.

 

[Deus Irae]

LOL! I am objective compared to you at least.

Now you've proven you're insane.

 

[Clonamery]

Now you've proven you're insane.

Aren't these types of arguments saved for an appellate court?

 

[townes]

Aren't these types of arguments saved for an appellate court?

Nope, they are more likely to occur on hospital wards between 3 people each insisting they are the real ************.


I'd wait for the real one to stand up but the rapture already passed.

 

[DaBruinz]

Made clear by who?


Schefter made clear mankins had not made demands, and your fantasizing that he has doesn't change that one bit.

Schefter said that Mankins had not made any demands yet, so it would seem that you have a reading comprehension problem. You clearly don't understand the difference between "is planning to make" and "has made" Please go back and READ what was said. Learn the difference. Then maybe come back to the conversation. You might have something worth saying then.

During this entire process i said the players were willing to make a good deal for all and weren't interested in tearing down the structure of the game, whereas people like you claimed they were out to get rid of the draft and take the game apart. beyond that the deal I said would work for all is very close to what was agreed upon in the end.

Liar.. During the entire process your claim was that the players wanted the status quo. Which was NOT a good deal for all. What you said would work for all is nothing like what they came to in the end. That is what is fantasy.

And, since you clearly aren't competent enough to properly attribute to me what I said, I said that Kessler wanted to get rid of the draft and make it so that college players could enter via free agency. What I DID point out was the list of things that the PLAYERS released as things they wanted as part of a new deal.

You were the one who claimed that the lockout was illegal and you were hooting and hollering and slapping your chest about how Doty and Nelson proved you right, how the owners had miscalculated and they were going to get screwed. Yet, you disappeared when the 8th Circuit ruled that the lockout was fully legal and that Nelson had over-stepped her bounds.

 

[Deus Irae]

Aren't these types of arguments saved for an appellate court?

No, that's more of a trial court argument. Appellate courts say things like "The judge was nuts to allow that into evidence" in a more 'polite' manner, something more like "the trial judge erred by not following last year's Supreme Court ruling in Dog v. Cat...".

 

[Rob0729]

Now you've proven you're insane.

Well, I guess I have proven I am insane by encouraging your twisted logic, contrarian rants by responding to them.

 

[DaBruinz]

That was incoherent. Once again just because some idiot tweets that mankins could derail a deal it doesn't make it reality. If he makes demands that screw the deal then shriek and cry then, claiming you have the right to do so because Borges wishes it to be is absolutely idiotic.

There was nothing incoherent about that post. You claimed I said something and I proved I didn't. I showed exactly what I said.

And, btw, here was my initial post in the thread. Hopefully, you can understand it. It shows my position. Maybe you'll get that through your thick head, but I doubt it.

If Mankins or any of the named plantiffs for that matter, hold this up for selfish reasons, they can screw themselves.. Seriously. The idea that anything anti-trust has gone on outside of the agreed terms is BS.

If Mankins TRULY wanted free agency, I don't think he'd be working out with Brady and the rest of the team during those workouts.

 

[Deus Irae]

Well, I guess I have proven I am insane by encouraging your twisted logic, contrarian rants by responding to them.

No, you've proven you're insane by making a statement that was just crazy. You're nowhere near as objective about this team as I am.

 

[Rob0729]

However, when Rob's claiming to be more objective than I am, he's obviously nuts, and deserves more of a trial court response.

Of course. It is truly insane to state the blatantly obvious.

BTW, way to deflect the point about the Pats only offered Mankins top rated guard money. Classic Deus. When the facts blows up your argument, deflect and ignore. And never under any circumstances admit you are wrong no matter how foolish you get.

Also, I assume that mythical Mike Reiss article will never appear.

 

[townes]

Liar.. During the entire process your claim was that the players wanted the status quo. Which was NOT a good deal for all. What you said would work for all is nothing like what they came to in the end. That is what is fantasy.

.

Flat out lie, i said the players would agree to a rookie wage scale, would take less in percentage in return for no ceiling, and would agree to maintain the structure of the game as it was, and i condemned Kessler repeatedly for wanting to take down the way the game is run.

My statement on the status quo was that the players were fine with it and the owners created to dispute by opting out of the CBA.


Since you are apparently incapable of realizing that a mediot speculating on something doesn't make it reality i'll leave it as that, as your problems with logic and comprehension are too serious to overcome. If Mankins holds a deal up for his benefit then i'll criticize him for that, if he doesn't you can come in here and apologize for crapping on him for something he didn't even do.

 

[VJCPatriot]

No, that's more of a trial court argument. Appellate courts say things like "The judge was nuts to allow that into evidence" in a more 'polite' manner, something more like "the trial judge erred by not following last year's Supreme Court ruling in Dog v. Cat...".

LOL, dog v. cat. Sounds like a fun case. I'll have to read up on that one!
Err, anyways here's hoping everything gets ironed out. So far it looks like this thing is finally heading for a resolution and Mankins better not stand in the way of it. If he has a beef he should take it up after the CBA is signed please!

 

[townes]

ESPN is reporting that Jackson wants 10 million or UFA status, and they claim all named plaintiffs are entitled to compensation as part of a settlement, although i'm not certain what the basis for that right is. I'd love to see brady and mankins take 1$

 

[DaBruinz]

Since you are apparently incapable of realizing that a mediot speculating on something doesn't make it reality i'll leave it as that, as your problems with logic and comprehension are too serious to overcome. If Mankins holds a deal up for his benefit then i'll criticize him for that, if he doesn't you can come in here and apologize for crapping on him for something he didn't even do.

Townes - I have no issues with logic or comprehension. That is clearly you. As I pointed out earlier when you claimed that I said Mankins had made demands.

Also, you clearly didn't read my initial post, so you can GFY regarding any apology. I haven't crapped on Mankins and only someone who doesn't understand English would say otherwise.

Lastly, Greg Bedard of the Boston Globe and Jason Cole of Yahoo are still saying that Mankins has also made demands. Bedard goes as far to cite an NFL source, but also gives Cole credit for first breaking the story.

 

[Wolfpack]

Fact: Both sides did/are doing things that were within their rights.

Fact: Neither side had/has to exercise those rights

Fact: The Patriots used a one year 'loophole' in such a way that Mankins got screwed financially

Fact: Mankins is looking to find some measure of righting that 'wrong'

FACT: You're taking your own personal opinions and labelling them as "facts" when they are absolutely no such thing.

To say Mankins was "screwed" is nothing more than your personal opinion, one which is not shared by a majority of the rest of us.

 

[Wolfpack]

LOL.......a punter

I'm sorry, are punters not members of the NFLPA - or, I should say given how important technicalities are to you, members of the class filing the lawsuit? Is there some sort of separate CBA negotiations for punters or did they file a separate lawsuit?

Or does the lawsuit with Mankins' name on it represent a class which includes punters?

 

[Deus Irae]

FACT: You're taking your own personal opinions and labelling them as "facts" when they are absolutely no such thing.

To say Mankins was "screwed" is nothing more than your personal opinion, one which is not shared by a majority of the rest of us.

There was a one year loophole regarding RFAs. As a result of that, Mankins was tendered when he would ordinarily have been a UFA and able to get much more money on the market, as demonstrated by the Patriots' willingness to pay him a much higher value contract once the RFA year was up.


Sorry, but that's fact. A bunch of people who can't be bothered to look at a case objectively doesn't somehow mutate it to opinion.

 

[Wolfpack]

There was a one year loophole regarding RFAs. As a result of that, Mankins was tendered when he would ordinarily have been a UFA and able to get much more money on the market, as demonstrated by the Patriots' willingness to pay him a much higher value contract once the RFA year was up.


Sorry, but that's fact. A bunch of people who can't be bothered to look at a case objectively doesn't somehow mutate it to opinion.

What color is the sky on your world? Using a term like "screwed" is 100% opinion and, as I noted before, not even one shared by most of the people in this forum.

 

[upstater1]

On principle alone, the NFL should not give in to any players holding the deal up.

 

[Wolfpack]

On principle alone, the NFL should not give in to any players holding the deal up.

+1, and I say that as someone who would whole heartedly enjoy the chaos that would ensue within the Colts organization if Manning became a UFA.