Good News! Jeffrey Kessler is trying to sabotage the talks again

[Joker]

 

[Mike the Brit]

Who will join me in wishing that this hand job brings a happy ending?

Of course. But I'm a pessimist -- I fear a sticky moment.

 

[Rob0729]

I just heard Sal Pal on Sirius NFL radio. He said the two sides have pretty much agreed to the revenue split and the only major issues left are rookie wage scale and how free agency this year will work when the lockout is lifted. Sounds like a final agreement for both sides to vote on will be done sometime this weekend.

 

[Sean Pa Patriot]

I just heard Sal Pal on Sirius NFL radio. He said the two sides have pretty much agreed to the revenue split and the only major issues left are rookie wage scale and how free agency this year will work when the lockout is lifted. Sounds like a final agreement for both sides to vote on will be done sometime this weekend.

well i think they are close enough for them not to screw it up.. however if preseason games get cancelled its going to be a long fall... but the major issues are done they are just being petty with free angency....

 

[Rob0729]

well i think they are close enough for them not to screw it up.. however if preseason games get cancelled its going to be a long fall... but the major issues are done they are just being petty with free angency....

Sal Pal said that worst case scenario as of right now, the deal isn't done by Wednesday and they push back the preseason one week and play the final preseason games Labor Day weekend (typically no games are played that weekend) and the the season would start as normal.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

LaCanfora has more detailed information on where they reportedly remain apart. It's significant if they have not yet agreed on the union re-certification which is a given or more significantly the oversight issue which could be a deal breaker on the owners side. The players are said to be treating the right of first refusal on select FA as a deal breaker on their end, although that makes little sense because it impacts maybe 50-100 players in year one only... It's not thought to be a deal breaker for ownership. I imagine it would become one though if the existing tags on plaintiffs are at issue. No way Polian will tolerate that.

Owners are requesting that OL designations for tag purposes be broken into 3 positional groups, OT, OG, OC and that is not seen as an issue...

They are still haggling over how the split will work. Supposedly the player rationale for the pre tax split is if you open the door to any deductions you've opened pandora's deduction box. Fine then, change the split %... And they are still struggling with the rookie comp formula, how much negotiation vs. straight slotting and length of deals. Hopefully by the end of business today we have reason to start a new more focused thread on the lockout and an impending CBA than this trainwreck of a thread has become.

NFL.com news: Rookie compensation, free agency remain issues in labor talks

 

[BlueThunder]

I heard or read somewhere that the loss of one preseason came would mean $3 mil less cap money per team......ouch

The longer the talks last after a dealine date for missing games, the less likely a deal gets done....:bricks:

 

[lamafist]

Your recollection of history is incorrect. In 1993, both sides agreed to a partnership because Judge Doty warned both sides that he was going to impose his own version of free agency and this version would not be what either side wanted and neither side would be happy. So both sides agreed to enter into a partnership.

It wasn't the players filed an antitrust lawsuit because the owners were offering a partnership and a share of the revenues, but the players wanted a free market system. The partnership was a compromise between two parties. This compromise was heavily in the players' favor because they won an antitrust decision that stated the way the owners did business was illegal. If the owners had their way, there would still be Plan B free agency and the players would be making a fraction of what they are today. They didn't have that option. They had to give into the players.

Besides, if this wasn't the case, why would the players agree to enter into a partnership back in 1993 if they didn't want it? The NFL was operating all along except for a short strike in 1987, and Judge Doty declared Plabn B free agency violated antitrust laws. If the players didn't want to enter into a partnership with the owners and Judge Doty was going to give them a free agency system that they wanted better, why give into the owners? They had the owners over a barrell in 1993, why would they let the owners impose a partnership on them that owners wanted and the players didn't. You have all the leverage and you cave to the other sides demands? That doesn't pass the stink test.

The fact of the matter is both sides entered into a partnership because that is what both sides were pushed into making that agreement by Judge Doty and the compromise they made in 1993 would have been better for both sides than what the courts would have been put into place. In a perfect world (at least from each sides perspective), neither side would have agreed to the system that has been in place since 1993. The owners were very happy with Plan B free agency and would have continued it until this day. The Players wanted to be assured a significant piece of the revenue but with more freedom to make more money and go to whatever team they wanted.

As for the players wanting a partnership, of course they want a partnership. Being just employees or hired guns would not have benefitted them as a whole. Yes, they were trying to get the right to sign with whatever team they wanted, but they also wanted a bigger piece of the pie and getting a significant share of the revenue. Don't make it like the owners forced a partnership on them because owners were backed into a corner.

Seriously, are you telling me that in 1993 after the players won a major ruling from Judge Doty, the players rolled over and gave the owners everything they wanted? They had all the leverage going into the CBA settlement and gave into the owners and created a system that they didn't want, but the owners did?

My recollection of history is just fine -- yours is the more deeply problematic.

Judge Doty did indeed threaten to impose his own free agency agreement, but at no point did he ever suggest that it would not be what either side wanted and neither side would be happy. Furthermore, Doty had already ruled on issues regarding restrictions of free agency in Powell v. the NFL and while presiding over McNeil v. the NFL, in which plan B free agency was struck down in a jury trial. There is absolutely no suggestion in any of Doty's pre-White v. NFL rulings that there would be much the players would not like about a free agency plan imposed by his ruling.

So why, then, did the NFLPA opt to compromise with the league in their settlement of White v. the NFL that created the '93 CBA? There are many reasons. Principal among them was time. Doty had ruled in the favor of the players six years prior in 1987 in Powell v. NFL, which the NFL appealed and had successfully overturned, and the appeal of the appeal was still pending. Any system imposed by Doty in '93 would similarly be appealed, and it would likely take years of continuing litigation before any system imposed by the courts would ever be actually executed.

Another reason the players agreed to the settlement was that Judge Doty could only rule on antitrust violations of restrictions on free agency, whereas
the CBA the NFL proposed was a comprehensive plan that contained concessions the players were interested in areas other than free agency. It was also still a huge, huge win for them in terms of free agency and its inflating affect on player salary. The players weren't "caving" to the owners by accepting the salary cap and a share of revenue instead of an entirely market-based system -- they were agreeing to slightly blunted terms of victory so as to create a more stable, sustainable labor peace with the owners.

Basically, the NFL cut its losses, and crafted a smart, fair compromise deal reflected their loss of leverage due to the players' legal victories, but didn't completely give up the ghost. The salary cap, while by no means something the players desire on their own, was designed to not be unreasonably restrictive, and the case for its long-term positive effect on the health and success of the NFL was convincing. The fact that this would make the players more like partners as opposed to employees is really a byproduct of the deal and wasn't a big deciding factor.

 

[Joker]

"more deeply problematic" is terrible English...and I have a hard time remembering what the eff happened 1993 MINUTES ago, never mind almost two decades past....man, this strike has to end ...fast...

 

[NEPats1]

Latest Updates by Florio and Freeman:

Stalemate arises over rookie wage scale

Thanks for nothing, Arthur Boylan.

As the U.S. Magistrate Judge who presided over the labor talks like a referee and then decided to leave the stadium with the ball inside the five starts his vacation, some believe that the process can continue without him, given the threat of the looming loss of preseason revenue. We’re not so sure that’s the case.

A source with knowledge of the dynamics of the negotiations tells us that the league and the players are at a stalemate on the issue of the rookie wage scale.

Per the source, the owners still are pushing for five-year contracts for first-round picks. But that approach would make it harder for truly great players to be properly compensated before making it through five years with enough left in the tank to justify a big contract. That would actually make it better for great players to slide into round two, since the players would be eligible for free agency, or at a minimum the franchise tag, after four years of play.


Stalemate arises over rookie wage scale | ProFootballTalk

NFL: Can the moderates hold off the extremists?

The talks between the players and owners stalled slightly Friday. There was very little progress made as of late in the day. But that's not the news.

The feeling that emerged from the post-8th Circuit ruling that kept the lockout in place was that both the owners and the players doing the negotiating are determined not to allow the ruling to derail the talks. Thus the negotiations remain productive and the sides do remain close to a deal. We are still on target for a handshake agreement next week.

That was the message from several people on both the player and management side with knowledge of the discussions. There is still widespread belief that both the preseason and regular season will be saved.

What's happened in the past few hours alone is that the moderates from both sides are trying to make sure the extremists from both sides don't use the ruling to push various extremist agendas. The feeling is that if things aren't handled delicately, the fanatics could ruin everything.

The problem with the court ruling -- besides its timing -- is that crazies from both sides can use it to push their agendas. There are people within the trade association who want to continue to fight the owners and possibly lose the season. This ruling, they think, helps them. There are owners who want to union bust and the lockout, in effect, helps them.


NFL: Can the moderates hold off the extremists? - CBSSports.com

 

[NEPats1]

ESPN"s Schefter and Mortensen with the Latest Update:

Sources: Sides eye July 21 ratification

There is a growing belief inside league circles that the NFL and NFL Players Association will have an agreement in place that can be ratified during the July 21 league meetings in Atlanta, according to sources familiar with the state of negotiations.

As one NFL owner said this weekend, there's "no reason to believe it won't get done."

Other people familiar with the talks now think an agreement in principle will be put in place in the next seven to 10 days, a handshake deal that would allow each side to ratify the deal to start the 2011 season.

Here is how the outlined plan for a July 1 deal could be adjusted for a potential July 21 deal with what would be the corresponding dates, according to sources familiar with the document, which many teams in the league have not yet seen:

• July 1 (July 21): Educate the clubs on the news league rules and allow voluntary training for teams and agents.

• July 5 (July 25): Sign undrafted rookies, as well as give free agents a chance to re-sign with their teams.

• July 8 (July 28) -- League year starts and free agency begins.

• July 13 (Aug. 2) -- Rosters must be set at 90 players.

• July 14 (Aug. 3) -- Deadline for restricted free agents to sign offer sheets.

• July 18 (Aug. 7 ) -- A four-day match period for teams to match restricted free-agent offer sheets.

• July 23 (Aug 12) -- Deadline for rookies to sign contracts (not yet agreed upon).

• July 27 (Aug. 16) -- Signing period for restricted free agents ends, as does the signing period for franchise and transition tenders.

• Aug. 9 (Aug. 29) -- Deadline for players to report to earned credit for an accrued season toward free agency.

NFL lockout: League, players moving toward deal, sources say - ESPN