CBA Approval Status

[Rob0729]

The owners were the ones *****ing about profits, not the players.

The owners signed a CBA that put a lot of pressure on lower revenue teams. That CBA was opted out of, with the owners were arguing that they were losing profitablity despite increasingly high revenues. From what's been made public to date, the new CBA apparently didn't address that, meaning the owners took all the pressure off by taking the money from the players. Now, post 'agreement, the owners reportedly are making their own internal deal.

Naturally the players can be expected to have questions and issues about such a move. Despite the comments by Mo and Rob, the players would be fools not to see this as something to be questioned.

Ummm... In 2006, a couple small market teams voted against the CBA. This time they didn't.

Again, I am not saying revenue sharing is not an issue that needed to be taken care of in this CBA, but the players didn't think so because they never pushed for it. Not once.

It is funny that you argue that it is an important piece and the players are so concerned that the revenue sharing needed to be addressed, but if the owners didn't try to solve this issue on their own the players would have agreed to a new CBA without even touching revenue sharing. So the players thought fixing revenue sharing was unneccessary of course until the owners tried to fix it and now it is critical piece of the CBA and the players needed to be actively involved. Laughable.

The players didn't care about revenue sharing four hours ago. They shouldn't care now.

 

[Deus Irae]

Inconceivable!
You keep using the word 'obviously.' I do not think it means what you think it means.


The collective bargaining agreement dictates how much the employees are paid.
Obviously, it does not dictate how the players spend their paychecks.
Nor does it dictate how the owners spend their earnings.

The herring is red.

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

 

[Frezo]

And how is that something the players need to be part of. Just so they can go, "hey, you guys were right to opt out of the CBA"?

The new revenue splitting obviously addressed most of the concerns of the owners which means Jerry Jones is giving up more of his share of that $200 million profit. Which means the Chiefs will be less affected by the cap increase and other cost increases. Everyone wins.

You still haven't said why the players needed to be part of the discussions. The small market teams obviously were taken care of because even Mike Brown and Ralph Wilson voted for the CBA this time around.

Also, didn't the players accept the revenue sharing % split and isn't it other issues holding things up? If that's the case, why would they approve the split if they still had issues with the way the owners spend their profit?

 

[BlueThunder]

Maybe tommorrow we'll all know what the issues are that the player's reps want explained or resolved.....

Let's hope they don't have a long laundry list...looks like De has sent an email stating they need to resolve the union recertification.....what a bunch of dummies..

They are the ones that wanted to decertify to begin with....

 

[Ring 6]

"All" revenues are counted for revenue sharing purposes. So, to go to example:


Total revenue is $10 billion. Players get $5 billion. Owners get $5 billion. Everyone's happy.


BUT,


Cowboys brought in $500 million, while the Chiefs only brought in $250 million. That means that the Chiefs are paying for the same salary number as the Cowboys, but only bringing in half the revenue. The Chiefs may end up with a profit of, say, $10 million, while the Cowboys profited over $200 million. This mean the Chiefs are much more significantly affected by cap increases and other cost increases over time, w.

And that has nothing to do with the CBA

 

[Richard Camembert]

Relax, probably just reading the fine print before signing the ten year lease...and given the owner's TV deal shenanigans we all probably would too!

And thanks to Mo for all the updates!

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Inconceivable!
You keep using the word 'obviously.' I do not think it means what you think it means.


The collective bargaining agreement dictates how much the employees are paid.
Obviously, it does not dictate how the players spend their paychecks.
Nor does it dictate how the owners spend their earnings.

The herring is red.

Yup.

The real issue is that the union doesn't want to be pressured into recertification...only the non economic issues (drug testing, disciipline, health care, pensions) can't be finalized until they recertify as a union... So De wants the owners to open for business and then they can settle their remaining differences and recertify later if and when they choose to...

Catch 22. The old rules would apply if they can't renegotiate by a certain date. I don't know why that is an issue if the old deal wasn't a problem for them. This is all Kessler trying to make them focus on having the ability to decertify in 10 years...

The association doesn't have all the language on the remaining issues, and they won't until they recertify as a union...

Paranoia runs deep...Evans can't back up his allegations about stuff being snuck in...no surprise there. Nothing has been lost yet financially, and I guess Heath thinks the owners are pulling a fast one based on that. Jeezus. He seems to think Doty's ruling is still in play as their leverage...

BTW it wasn't De who sent the latest memo about recertification concerns. It was Berthleson, one of the lawyers.

Oh, and Heath Evans thinks the fans will be with the players in their angst... These players are so out of touch with reality.

 

[BlueThunder]

Agree that Evan's generalization was pure BS ...... he couldn't come up with anything specific....

Sounds like the players and De weren't ready...they better get their act together soon or revenue will be lost.....they only have a few days to agree or they'll miss the window for preseason game #1 .....

 

[Ring 6]

The owners were the ones *****ing about profits, not the players.

They didnt ***** at all. They found them un accpetable and exercised their right to opt out and proceeded to negotiate a deal that would be more profitable to them. Have you ever known anyone who had anything to do with running a business? If so, perhaps you should ask them to explain that part of the world to you.

The owners signed a CBA that put a lot of pressure on lower revenue teams. That CBA was opted out of, with the owners were arguing that they were losing profitablity despite increasingly high revenues.

They never 'argued' that. They simply acted on the belief the deal was not a good one for them.

From what's been made public to date, the new CBA apparently didn't address that, meaning the owners took all the pressure off by taking the money from the players.

You just made that up.
The owners and players negotiated a revenue split that was acceptable to both. It is irrelevant to the players whether the owners decide to redistribute part of their share.
Give it up, you have gone red in the face for months trying to jam facts into this unsubstantiated argument that you made and refuse to accept you were wrong about. Its Seymour Kaczur and the cap all over again.

Now, post 'agreement, the owners reportedly are making their own internal deal.

Post, pre, during it doesnt affect the players.

Naturally the players can be expected to have questions and issues about such a move. Despite the comments by Mo and Rob, the players would be fools not to see this as something to be questioned.

It has nothing to do with the players. Each side gets the same cut whether there is revenue sharing among owners or not.

 

[Ring 6]

Yup.

The real issue is that the union doesn't want to be pressured into recertification...only the non economic issues (drug testing, disciipline, health care, pensions) can't be finalized until they recertify as a union... So De wants the owners to open for business and then they can settle their remaining differences and recertify later if and when they choose to...

Catch 22. The old rules would apply if they can't renegotiate by a certain date. I don't know why that is an issue if the old deal wasn't a problem for them. This is all Kessler trying to make them focus on having the ability to decertify in 10 years...

The association doesn't have all the language on the remaining issues, and they won't until they recertify as a union...

Paranoia runs deep...Evans can't back up his allegations about stuff being snuck in...no surprise there. Nothing has been lost yet financially, and I guess Heath thinks the owners are pulling a fast one based on that. Jeezus. He seems to think Doty's ruling is still in play as their leverage...

BTW it wasn't De who sent the latest memo about recertification concerns. It was Berthleson, one of the lawyers.

Oh, and Heath Evans thinks the fans will be with the players in their angst... These players are so out of touch with reality.

IMO, what is happening tonight is the deal went out to the players and the players stated asking questions instead of the rubber stamp Smith thought it would get.
DANGER PR PROBLEM.
So the NFLPA* must fire back with reasons why delaying isnt their fault.
Throwing in labor law violations by forcing them to recertify (when they clearly have agreed all along they would, or they couldn't have a CBA) is just a buzz word to make it seem like the owners overstepped.
Its just freaking politics.

 

[mgteich]

The owners approved the deal a couple of hours ago. It makes sense for the players asscoication to get a chance the read the document. Clearly items were added since the last time they saw the document. Obviously, they need to see that what they have agreed to since the last draft has been added or changed. They also need to see that the unilateral additions don't affect them.

The owners chose to approve the document in the evening. The players association will spend some time tonight and tomorrow recviewing the document and then they will re-certify. To expect them to approve the document tonight is ridiculous. That might have been reasonable if they received the document at 10 AM this morning. In any case, they need to re-certify by Saturday and the players need to approve the agreement by Wednesday.

 

[Ring 6]

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

Actually he is making the opposite clear by stating that OBVIOUSLY they werent involved, because it is none of their business.
You are the only person I have heard all night raise this as something the players are dissatisfied with.

 

[Ring 6]

The owners approved the deal a couple of hours ago. It makes sense for the players asscoication to get a chance the read the document. Clearly items were added since the last time they saw the document. Obviously, they need to see that what they have agreed to since the last draft has been added or changed. They also need to see that the unilateral additions don't affect them.

The owners chose to approve the document in the evening. The players association will spend some time tonight and tomorrow recviewing the document and then they will re-certify. To expect them to approve the document tonight is ridiculous. That might have been reasonable if they received the document at 10 AM this morning. In any case, they need to re-certify by Saturday and the players need to approve the agreement by Wednesday.

Agreed/
All the speculation that there are major issues giong on is misplaced hysteria IMO

 

[Ring 6]

That's obviously incorrect, as it directly impacts the owner arguments about profitability.

Oh yes those pesky arguments you made up.

 

[BlueThunder]

I don't think they need to recertify right away...but they have to agree to the terms to get back to camp.....

If the recertification takes a week or two, it shouldn't be a big deal to the owners.....the NFLPA are the ones that are dragging feet.....read everything, understand it ( supposedly it's what the reps agreed to over the past few months) and vote on it....then let De get the recertification going....the most important issues have been agreed to, don't screw the pooch over minor crap.

If the Brady suit is an issue still, then..HOUSTON we have a PROBLEM

 

[Deus Irae]

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:

Even more surprising was the concern expressed by NFLPA* executive director DeMaurice Smith in his e-mail to the player representatives regarding the owners’ supplemental revenue sharing plan.

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.

 

[Ring 6]

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.

Its really hard to keep pretending you have me on ignore isnt it?

Smith said they agreed to a SRS and obviously we were not involved.
Only you could find something heinous in that comment.
Smith, who never pulls punches, made no comment even suggesting that there was any problem with that. OBVIOUSLY they werent involved because it has nothing to do with them.
Just because Florio speculates that there is something between the lines so he can share your cause celebre does not mean that any involved at any level has stated this is an issue in any way.
Keep trying to bend those facts into the wrong opinoin you have been stamping your feet about for months though, it is entertaining.

 

[Brady_to_Moss]

Deal will be done tomorrow

 

[Ring 6]

Deal will be done tomorrow

Probably correct.

 

[Deus Irae]

Deal will be done tomorrow

Maybe, but....

Here's the story on NFLPA's second email to player reps, saying NFL re-cert timeline violates labor law

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

Bills S George Wilson on ESPN: "This is nothing more than an attempt to get the fans to turn on the players." Doesn't expect a vote Friday.

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

Multiple player reps reiterate to me what I've been regarding a vote on settlement/CBA - no vote until all lingering issues resolved ...

http://twitter.com/JasonLaCanfora/statuses/94205093615910912

NFLPA conference call over - no vote taken. Officials leaving here. Players want to see all remaining details resolved and see full language

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

It doesn't seem like a sure thing.