Bill Burt: One source says lockout is over

[DaBruinz]

Hair splitting scrutiny = waste of time for everyone involved.

Players should accept 3rd party arbitrator and be done with it..

 

[patfanken]

Reaching an agreement in principle on the major issues (money split, rookie cap, blood testing, etc.) will be one thing...the biggest one but not the whole enchilada. The devil is always in the details and if you've never attempted to decipher it it will take a couple of weeks for the suits to write a new CBA (as opposed to amending an existing one which was all they had to do for the past 18 years). And that part is actually important since language often determines enforceability and how disputes are handled by an arbitrator going forward. Then before the deal can be finalized the association will have to vote to recertify itself as a union and both sides will have to vote on the actual CBA. So like the Yogi reference both sides aptly responded to reports of progress with this week, it ain't over 'til it's over.

The good news is not only are the sides meeting with the mediator present and making progress, they are meeting/talking apart from the mediator and even dining together in some instances. That's when the real dealing is done. It's more important they get it right this time than get it done in a timely manner according to fans and mediots. We don't want to be heading down this road again any time soon. They need to craft an agreement that can be extended with minimal periodic tweeking and no threat of work stoppage for the next two decades. If they can accomplish that and the price is only one effed up off season including even potentially adversely impacting the first year of the deal, so be it.

I think you are right on the money as to what needs to happen before a new CBA is in place. Where I think people are missing the boat is what needs to happen before the LOCKOUT is lifted. And that is NOTHING. There doesn't need to be a player vote to lift the lockout. The owners can do it TOMORROW while the talks continue....if they chose to.

IF the consensus of both parties that there is going to be a completed deal by 7/15, why can't the owners lift the lockout and get the actual football year started, beginning with FA and perhaps a mini camp or two before Camps open at the the usual time, at the end of July. Why does the CBA NEED to be fully completed.

I don't think it would take away any of the leverage they have now, because they can always put it back in place, if the talks break down. Instead if they lift the lockout NOW, they will have taken the high ground in the PR battle, will little risk on the downside.

So Burt might be right after all. If the owners were smart they'd lift the lockout next week and they we can get back to what we all really do best, which is speculating and analyzing FA signings, estimating final roster make ups, and prognosticating results....3 months before they occur.

 

[Wolfpack]

Hair splitting scrutiny = waste of time for everyone involved.

Players should accept 3rd party arbitrator and be done with it..

What makes you so sure the owners would be intersted in a 3rd party arbiter? I doubt either side would be too keen on that notion.

 

[BlueThunder]

Joe Kerr is NOT a fan of hair splitting scrutiny either...:ugh:

 

[MoLewisrocks]

If they've reached an agreement in principle then that agreement would certainly allow for the preseason activities to begin as usual even if they are still dotting the i's and crossing the t's. So sure, it could take a couple weeks to officially finalize everything but that need not delay the start of camp.

No way they can re-open for business until they have not only dotted the i's and crossed the t's, both sides have to vote on it and before the players vote means anything they have to have a union to belong to...

The latest optimists speculation is that there could be an agreement in principle for the owners to vote on by June 21 and a CBA to be voted on by the members of the recertified NFLPA by July 1.

But that's the optimistic outlook. A lot of details could yet derail any agreement like judicial oversight going forward... Unless the owners get pretty much every concession they wanted they'd be foolish to allow that to continue even if they took the time to word every paragraph in a way they believed (and their lawyers tried to convince them) was irrefutable... Judges like Doty and Nelson as well as appeals courts have a way of playing both sides of the fence on language interpretation v. interpretation of intent depending on which way their politics lean, whereas arbitrators earn their living base on unbiased neitrality in actual language interpretation.

What makes you so sure the owners would be intersted in a 3rd party arbiter? I doubt either side would be too keen on that notion.

These agreements always have a mutually agreed upon, independent 3rd party arbitrator who handles grievances arising out of inevitable disputes whose decisions are binding on both sides. During the now expired CBA that was Dr. Stephen Burbank, a law professor and professional arbitrator. The problem was the last settlement agreement in 1993 made all his future rulings appealable to Judge Doty and the 8th Circuit... No other league faces that scrutiny. What they say goes provided the arbitrator doesn't rule them in violation of the terms of their CBA.

And while the arbitrator holds a hearing his decision is rendered in a timely fashion. The Williams brothers suspension is a perfect example where he agreed that the league had the right to suspend them...then the Minnesota court got involved injecting state law and made a mockery of their suspension in a decision that made all suspensions suspect only to be overruled two years later by an appeals court...

IF the consensus of both parties that there is going to be a completed deal by 7/15, why can't the owners lift the lockout and get the actual football year started, beginning with FA and perhaps a mini camp or two before Camps open at the the usual time, at the end of July. Why does the CBA NEED to be fully completed.

Because this isn't an extension of an existing CBA they're working off of. This is a whole new CBA and until the terms are put to paper and signed off on by the league and a unionized workforce the same potential liability would be at issue as what got us here... You don't operate a $9B business flying by the seat of your pants even in the short term...

 

[patfanken]

Because this isn't an extension of an existing CBA they're working off of. This is a whole new CBA and until the terms are put to paper and signed off on by the league and a unionized workforce the same potential liability would be at issue as what got us here... You don't operate a $9B business flying by the seat of your pants even in the short term...

What liability, Mo? I would assume that in the interest of getting their members back on the field and getting paid the "union" and the owners would agree to some basic rules to operate under in the short term (3-4 weeks) until the FINAL CBA is in place. And most of THAT time being would be taken up creating a 6 INCH document of legalese out of 3 pages of agreed to principles.

BTW- I think the money issue has been settled in principle, as well as all the football related issues. I'm guess that the only issue that remains is the very sticky issue of how to disengage from the existing legal case. The league will want to get out from under having the CBA under direct court supervision, while the players would still like to have that "hammer" hanging over the league. Unfortunately, this is where the "lawyers" will want to get involved and that's never a good thing

 

[Wolfpack]

No way they can re-open for business until they have not only dotted the i's and crossed the t's, both sides have to vote on it and before the players vote means anything they have to have a union to belong to...

Sorry, but that's just not true. The fact that this is a lockout (and not a strike) makes it ridiculously easy for everyone to return to work while the actual CBA is still being finalized. If the owners life the lockout, the players can all show up for work the next day; it isn't like they're on strike and would have to vote on whether or not to end it.

Besides, does anyone think there is a chance in heck that the players vote down a proposal which their own leadership recommends?

These agreements always have a mutually agreed upon, independent 3rd party arbitrator who handles grievances arising out of inevitable disputes whose decisions are binding on both sides. During the now expired CBA that was Dr. Stephen Burbank, a law professor and professional arbitrator. The problem was the last settlement agreement in 1993 made all his future rulings appealable to Judge Doty and the 8th Circuit... No other league faces that scrutiny. What they say goes provided the arbitrator doesn't rule them in violation of the terms of their CBA.

You're comparing apples and orange. A CBA already in place will have an arbiter make rulings and judgements when the inevitable conflicts arise. But no owner is going to want to turn over the entire process of drafting a new CBA to some arbiter. Among other reasons, they would have to open up all their books, which we all know they are staunchly opposed to.

Because this isn't an extension of an existing CBA they're working off of. This is a whole new CBA and until the terms are put to paper and signed off on by the league and a unionized workforce the same potential liability would be at issue as what got us here... You don't operate a $9B business flying by the seat of your pants even in the short term...

No, what you do is once both parties agree in principle to a new CBA, they say "and in the meantime since we really need training camps to begin NOW and not 3 weeks from now, we'll use last year's rules for training camp until the new CBA is finalized."

Since training camp isn't exactly the primary point of contention between owners and players (and most players aren't even being paid for camp anyway) that would be an agreement very easily made.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

What liability, Mo? I would assume that in the interest of getting their members back on the field and getting paid the "union" and the owners would agree to some basic rules to operate under in the short term (3-4 weeks) until the FINAL CBA is in place. And most of THAT time being would be taken up creating a 6 INCH document of legalese out of 3 pages of agreed to principles.

BTW- I think the money issue has been settled in principle, as well as all the football related issues. I'm guess that the only issue that remains is the very sticky issue of how to disengage from the existing legal case. The league will want to get out from under having the CBA under direct court supervision, while the players would still like to have that "hammer" hanging over the league. Unfortunately, this is where the "lawyers" will want to get involved and that's never a good thing

The kind of liability that arises whenever simple people assume they had all the bases covered in principle only to find out that the fine print disagreed with their very basic assumptions...

I don't think anything has been settled even in principle yet. I think they are making serious progress toward that goal and that is the basis of all the optimism. But the devil is always in the details...and several of those remain to be hashed out. The whole point of this for ownership was to get it right this time... The last time they rushed and agreed on some principles they were talking about opting out before the ink dried...which is what landed us here.

 

[VJCPatriot]

BTW- I think the money issue has been settled in principle, as well as all the football related issues.

Do you have a source that shows that the money issues have been settled in principle?

I'm guess that the only issue that remains is the very sticky issue of how to disengage from the existing legal case. The league will want to get out from under having the CBA under direct court supervision, while the players would still like to have that "hammer" hanging over the league. Unfortunately, this is where the "lawyers" will want to get involved and that's never a good thing

Well considering that the player's union has been disbanded, the lawyers are the ONLY ones who can negotiate the new deal, assuming that there will be one.

Where do you get this idea the players want a 'hammer' hanging over the league. I've never heard of that. Did you come up with that yourself or do you have a source?

In essence this whole fiasco is ALL about the money so if that issue is settled there's no need for a 'hammer' as you put it.

 

[Wolfpack]

Well considering that the player's union has been disbanded, the lawyers are the ONLY ones who can negotiate the new deal, assuming that there will be one.

Clearly the men (i.e. DeMaurice Smith) who used to be the official leaders of the NFLPA are still acting very much in that same capacity. They are still able to negotiate a new deal for the players. (Yes I know Smith is a lawyer but I got the impression you weren't referring to him when you say "the lawyers.")

 

[BlueThunder]

I like the idea of going under rules of last CBA for training camp and getting the players into camp to get in playing shape, practice and learn the playbook......let the lawyers sit on their fat azzes and put it in to the final document while the players get ready to start the season.....

Enough with this BS...

Lets Play FOOTBALL :rocker:

 

[Wolfpack]

I like the idea of going under rules of last CBA for training camp and getting the players into camp to get in playing shape, practice and learn the playbook......

+1. IMHO, there's a good chance we could see that happen because the rules of training camp are not really the primary bones of contention in these negotiations. It would be in everyone's best interests to get to camp ASAP and start getting ready for September 8. (Yes, I know both sides have squabbled over how long training camp can be, how many workouts can be scheduled into a 24-hour period and so forth, but those issues are not the major hang-ups of this new CBA.)

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I like the idea of going under rules of last CBA for training camp and getting the players into camp to get in playing shape, practice and learn the playbook......let the lawyers sit on their fat azzes and put it in to the final document while the players get ready to start the season.....

Enough with this BS...

Lets Play FOOTBALL :rocker:

Assuming FA rules return to norm (4 years) or less you then have guys in training camp with one team who become FA once the deal is done and they can go to another team and sell secrets...LOL

Not to mention until the language is etched in stone you can't be sure what kind of contract terms you can sign a rookie or FA to without screwing yourself up cap wise going forward... The league's executive committee reviews every trade for terms and contract for language before signing off on them. Can't do that operating on blind trust...

Enough with the BS is right...

 

[Wolfpack]

Assuming FA rules return to norm (4 years) or less you then have guys in training camp with one team who become FA once the deal is done and they can go to another team and sell secrets...LOL

Not to mention until the language is etched in stone you can't be sure what kind of contract terms you can sign a rookie or FA to without screwing yourself up cap wise going forward... The league's executive committee reviews every trade for terms and contract for language before signing off on them. Can't do that operating on blind trust...

Enough with the BS is right...

The more I read your posts, the more it seems you don't really understand what an "agreement in principle" actually is. You're trying to work out all sorts of scenarios where teams would have total uncertainty over things, like whether or not a player can become a free agent, or how such-and-such a signing would affect the new salary cap.

You need to understand that all those things would have already been decided beforehand. That's what an agreement in principle is..!! The teams would know how much cap space they'll have available, what the free agency status of their players will be, etc, etc.

There's no "blind trust" about the whole thing. It's a situation where all the bones of contention have been resolved, all major disputes settled, and everyone knows where they will stand going forward.

 

[BlueThunder]

I'm beginning to think Mo is a lawyer...or paralegal of sorts

If they can agree in principle to the terms...get the players to camp....

Let the lawyers ****er over the wording....


AMEN

 

[BradyFTW!]

I'm beginning to think Mo is a lawyer...or paralegal of sorts

If they can agree in principle to the terms...get the players to camp....

Let the lawyers ****er over the wording....


AMEN

I'm going to be honest; I've never heard anyone use the word "****er" before. Bicker, sure. ****, sure. ****er? No, but I like it. Vocabulary: expanded.

 

[Joker]

price "****ering" is as New Englandish as clam chowdah...you ****er the price of a new car...you ****er at the flea market...you try to ****er with your wife over finances (but end up with your nuts in a vise)..yes,****er is part of the lexicon hereabouts...as is "****ed", which carries very negative connotations...

 

[MoLewisrocks]

The more I read your posts, the more it seems you don't really understand what an "agreement in principle" actually is. You're trying to work out all sorts of scenarios where teams would have total uncertainty over things, like whether or not a player can become a free agent, or how such-and-such a signing would affect the new salary cap.

You need to understand that all those things would have already been decided beforehand. That's what an agreement in principle is..!! The teams would know how much cap space they'll have available, what the free agency status of their players will be, etc, etc.

There's no "blind trust" about the whole thing. It's a situation where all the bones of contention have been resolved, all major disputes settled, and everyone knows where they will stand going forward.

The more I read your posts the more I think your the one who really doesn't understand what an agreement in principle would even entail in this instance. People here are confusing the sides gradually actually closing the gap on what observers have long held were the principle issues from a financial standpoint with having already achieved an agreement in principle...

Now the devil is in the details on these things, and owners and players are working to get closer on them.

Look for the talks to continue this week, somewhere. But don't expect a resolution imminently. The CBA is long and tedious, and each side is going over every sentence, even without the lawyers in-house. "It'd be a mistake to think it's certainly going to happen,'' said one source. "There's a long way to go. But instead of people yelling at each other, trying to score debating points, now people are sitting down and talking to each other, trying to solve a very involved case. That's progress.''

I said in SI the other day my over-under for a deal is July 4. I might say July 10 now, but I still think chances are better there will be a deal than there won't -- and that deal will come within a month.

Read more: Tom Brady, Ricky*Stanzi*saddened by grim news about Tom Martinez - Peter King - SI.com

 

[Wolfpack]

The more I read your posts the more I think your the one who really doesn't understand what an agreement in principle would even entail in this instance. People here are confusing the sides gradually actually closing the gap on what observers have long held were the principle issues from a financial standpoint with having already achieved an agreement in principle...

Like I said, you seem genuinely not to know what an "agreement in principle" is. In a prior post you essentially asked (paraphrasing) "even if they have an agreement in principle in place, how can teams sign players since they won't know the salary cap rules?"

The whole point of an agreement in principle is that all those things will have been agreed to. Hence there would be no reason to continue the lockout whilst the minute details and legalese gets put to paper and the union officially recertifies.

It all depends on the timing of any such agreement. It seems July 15 is the date by which players need to report to camp without interrupting the preseason. If they came to this agreement by, say, the end of June then there would be a couple weeks worth of time to iron out the details so there's no rush. But if they had this agreement on, say, July 13, then there's no reason why the league couldn't lift the lockout and conduct camp on the 15th while the lawyers do their lawyering.