Mankins could hold up NFL settlement

[townes]

Is there a link to something with a member of NFLPA saying this?

I have seen a few articles written by NFL media such as with anonymous NFLPA sources saying they will recommned no benefits for the players. Borges article for example was all based on " a source familiar with the discussions."

If you completely discount anonymous sources, you should discount them all, right?

It has been on the scroll on ESPN as the official statement from the NFLPA for at least 3 days.


I don't see a problem with discussing reports that come out through the media what I have a problem with is treating them as though they were true without actual evidence that they are, and that is what has been going on here. Of all fans Patriot fans should realize that just because a journalist or anonymous source makes a claim that doesn't make that claim true. Tomase's column the day of the Super Bowl literally destroyed the coverage of that game, and that was vetted through his editors, and he was completely full of crap.

If it turned out that Mankins actually held negotiations hostage to personal demands i would trash him for that because he would be putting his personal desires ahead of the well being of communities across the nation, let alone his fellow players. he may have the right to do as a named plaintiff, that's open to debate, however having the right to do something doesn't make actually doing it right, and that is the case here. Mankins is going to get filthy rich when this lock-out ends and there is no reason for him to hold this up at all. I don't believe the reports as they make no sense and no credible source has been identified to date, and the NFLPA has been issuing a formal statement for days that the plaintiffs are not going to be compensated. It would be absolutely foolhardy for them to do so if any player is holding things up.

 

[IllegalContact]

His anonymous NFL Source..

Read his 3 articles on the subject..

hmmm......yes......the smoking man behind the curtain.

what kind of scumbags give out info they're not supposed to?

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I agree, however it makes no sense for the NFLPA to announce a decision on this if it is still outstanding and on the table.

As for those using the Twitter standard they will still have to defend that standard from here on out, if someone says they were told something that makes it true.

One of the problems this time around though is the NFLPA isn't authorized to make any decisions because they are not certified as a union. They have basically negotiated an agreement under the auspices of court ordered mediation, and De and even the Executive Committee may have signed off on a no cost settlement (dropping) of all the lawsuits as part of that agreement, but it's no longer up to them to authorize any deal because of the action they took back in March. They are now at the mercy of the plaintiffs they recruited back in March, and Kessler is advising that group as lead council of the association legal team. De can kick him out of negotiating sessions, he can order him to stand down in mediation, but he can't muzzle him or bar him from pushing agendas where the plaintiffs or even the 32 team reps are concerned at this point in time. Again, all because of decertification. Ultimately one or two malcontent named plaintiffs or even a handful of player reps can't block a new CBA. But they can slow it's ratification and implementation down, and Kessler may be hoping they can slow it down long enough for something else to blow it up and send it back to court (Doty ruling, owners changing formula based on loss of pre season revenue, etc.).

 

[Rob0729]

The NFLPA has been saying for days that there will no compensation to the plaintiffs yet you guys continue to run with idiot speculation, like that of jason Cole and Ron Borges to the contrary. .

No! Sources speculate that the NFLPA will not seek special consideration for the the plantiffs. There has been no official word either way. I do like that you take sources that claim there will be no special compensation sought as fact and sources who say that Mankins is looking for special compensation as opinions. Individual players stated they are not seeking compensation, but there was no official announcement.

Where is the evidence? Provide evidence of this? I showed you evidence of the contrary (which you proceeded to show you don't understand the definition of evidence). Your turn.

 

[Rob0729]

By the way, here is the article where a SOURCE give Borges his "opinion" that the NFLPA will recommend not to seek special compensation. Clearly there is no "evidence" that they are making this recommendation:

After a far less wrangling and horse trading behind the scenes than some misplaced internet reports would have you believe, the NFLPA will not recommend any special considerations go to the 10 plaintiffs in the Brady case, a source familiar with the dicussions said.

BostonHerald.com - Blogs: Rap Sheet» Blog Archive » Source: NFLPA will not recommond any special considerations for the 10 plaintiffs in the Brady case

This is the only place where the NFLPA said officially or unofficially that they would not seek compensation.

 

[dhamz]

It has been on the scroll on ESPN as the official statement from the NFLPA for at least 3 days.

The offical statement you reference doesn't appear to be anywhere on ESPN's website or anywhere else that I could find. There are numerous stories sighting anonymous NFLPA sources saying that named plantiffs will not be compensated - which is different than saying compensating them was not pursued.

It would be pretty strange and brazen for the NFLPA to issue a statement about a point of the settlement. They would have been openly defying Judge Boylan's request that details of negotiatiobns be kept confidential. The request is why no one on either side involved in the negotiation is speaking on the record and all reports sight anonymous sources.

 

[townes]

No! Sources speculate that the NFLPA will not seek special consideration for the the plantiffs. There has been no official word either way. I do like that you take sources that claim there will be no special compensation sought as fact and sources who say that Mankins is looking for special compensation as opinions. Individual players stated they are not seeking compensation, but there was no official announcement.

Where is the evidence? Provide evidence of this? I showed you evidence of the contrary (which you proceeded to show you don't understand the definition of evidence). Your turn.

The NFLPA formally represents the players, taking their statement on this as evidence of the players position is valid, using Jason Cole's unnamed source as "evidence" isn't.

 

[townes]

The offical statement you reference doesn't appear to be anywhere on ESPN's website or anywhere else that I could find. There are numerous stories sighting anonymous NFLPA sources saying that named plantiffs will not be compensated - which is different than saying compensating them was not pursued.

It would be pretty strange and brazen for the NFLPA to issue a statement about a point of the settlement. They would have been openly defying Judge Boylan's request that details of negotiatiobns be kept confidential. The request is why no one on either side involved in the negotiation is speaking on the record and all reports sight anonymous sources.

ESPN has been running this for days, anyone who has followed their coverage has seen it.

 

[townes]

One of the problems this time around though is the NFLPA isn't authorized to make any decisions because they are not certified as a union. They have basically negotiated an agreement under the auspices of court ordered mediation, and De and even the Executive Committee may have signed off on a no cost settlement (dropping) of all the lawsuits as part of that agreement, but it's no longer up to them to authorize any deal because of the action they took back in March. They are now at the mercy of the plaintiffs they recruited back in March, and Kessler is advising that group as lead council of the association legal team. De can kick him out of negotiating sessions, he can order him to stand down in mediation, but he can't muzzle him or bar him from pushing agendas where the plaintiffs or even the 32 team reps are concerned at this point in time. Again, all because of decertification. Ultimately one or two malcontent named plaintiffs or even a handful of player reps can't block a new CBA. But they can slow it's ratification and implementation down, and Kessler may be hoping they can slow it down long enough for something else to blow it up and send it back to court (Doty ruling, owners changing formula based on loss of pre season revenue, etc.).

That sounds pretty much right, no argument here.

 

[Rob0729]

ESPN has been running this for days, anyone who has followed their coverage has seen it.

All they are running is the opinions of that mediot Ron Borges whose sources speculate that the NFLPA will not ask for special consideration for the plantiffs. There is zero evidence to support this though.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

No! Sources speculate that the NFLPA will not seek special consideration for the the plantiffs. There has been no official word either way. I do like that you take sources that claim there will be no special compensation sought as fact and sources who say that Mankins is looking for special compensation as opinions.

Where is the evidence? Provide evidence of this? I showed you evidence of the contrary (which you proceeded to show you don't understand the definition of evidence). Your turn.

Townes prefers selective sourcing. Which can be manipulated like stats...

The NFLPA has admitted all of the items in question were "discussed" and as an association they had basically dropped the discussion after determining there was no simple formula for plaintiff compensation that would fly from a practical or PR standpoint. Can't eliminate the tag this year because of Manning and because that does Brees no good. Can't eliminate it next year because that does Condon no good for Manning this year or Bauer and Shawartz no good for Mankins and Jackson this year. Can't demand $10M for 2 of the 250 RFA's who were screwed last season because you bargained away their FA just because they were dragged or pushed their way onto the cover sheet on a class action lawsuit, can't ask the league to refund $320M in benefits you bargained away in exchange for an uncapped year (at least not with a straight face) on a CBA that expired months ago.

Anybody with a rational brain accepts that where there is this much smoke there is some kind of fire burning whether you can see the actual flames with your own eyes or not.

 

[Rob0729]

The NFLPA formally represents the players, taking their statement on this as evidence of the players position is valid, using Jason Cole's unnamed source as "evidence" isn't.

LOL! Ok, provide their statement. You can't because they never made it.

 

[townes]

One of the problems this time around though is the NFLPA isn't authorized to make any decisions because they are not certified as a union. They have basically negotiated an agreement under the auspices of court ordered mediation, and De and even the Executive Committee may have signed off on a no cost settlement (dropping) of all the lawsuits as part of that agreement, but it's no longer up to them to authorize any deal because of the action they took back in March. They are now at the mercy of the plaintiffs they recruited back in March, and Kessler is advising that group as lead council of the association legal team. De can kick him out of negotiating sessions, he can order him to stand down in mediation, but he can't muzzle him or bar him from pushing agendas where the plaintiffs or even the 32 team reps are concerned at this point in time. Again, all because of decertification. Ultimately one or two malcontent named plaintiffs or even a handful of player reps can't block a new CBA. But they can slow it's ratification and implementation down, and Kessler may be hoping they can slow it down long enough for something else to blow it up and send it back to court (Doty ruling, owners changing formula based on loss of pre season revenue, etc.).

FTR-I would never be surprised at Kessler trying to screw things up, he's a scumbag and they should have fired him long ago for pursuing the agents agenda over the players. If any player helped him in his cause i would trash them as well as it would be deserved.

 

[dhamz]

ESPN has been running this for days, anyone who has followed their coverage has seen it.

Here is the story they have been running online for days:

NFL must satisfy Tom Brady antitrust plaintiffs to seal deal - ESPN

The official statement appears to be the words of "One high-ranking NFLPA executive" - an anonymous source.

 

[townes]

Townes prefers selective sourcing. Which can be manipulated like stats...

The NFLPA has admitted all of the items in question were "discussed" and as an association they had basically dropped the discussion after determining there was no simple formula for plaintiff compensation that would fly from a practical or PR standpoint. Can't eliminate the tag this year because of Manning and because that does Brees no good. Can't eliminate it next year because that does Condon no good for Manning this year or Bauer and Shawartz no good for Mankins and Jackson this year. Can't demand $10M for 2 of the 250 RFA's who were screwed last season because you bargained away their FA just because they were dragged or pushed their way onto the cover sheet on a class action lawsuit, can't ask the league to refund $320M in benefits you bargained away in exchange for an uncapped year (at least not with a straight face) on a CBA that expired months ago.

Anybody with a rational brain accepts that where there is this much smoke there is some kind of fire burning whether you can see the actual flames with your own eyes or not.

No, actually I went by the the statement from the NFLPA that has been running on ESPN for days, not an unnamed source from Jason Cole, who is clearly doing Kessler's bidding. At no point has anyone from the NFLPA distanced them from this report.

 

[Rob0729]

Here is the story they have been running online for days:

NFL must satisfy Tom Brady antitrust plaintiffs to seal deal - ESPN

The official statement appears to be the words of "One high-ranking NFLPA executive" - an anonymous source.

No it isn't because that anonymous source backs up townes' side of the argument.

 

[Rob0729]

No, actually I went by the the statement from the NFLPA that has been running on ESPN for days, not an unnamed source from Jason Cole, who is clearly doing Kessler's bidding. At no point has anyone from the NFLPA distanced them from this report.

Please provide that statement. dhamz provided the article stating an unnamed source, but the article provides no official statement from the NFLPA.

Also, I do think it is funny that you think Coles' source has an agenda while sources that support your theories do not.

I personally think the NFLPA is backing off requests for special treatment because they saw the PR nightmare it caused. I also think some of the plantiffs or their agents or Kessler did ask for special treatment. Whether Mankins is part of this is up for debate.

 

[townes]

Here is the story they have been running online for days:

NFL must satisfy Tom Brady antitrust plaintiffs to seal deal - ESPN

The official statement appears to be the words of "One high-ranking NFLPA executive" - an anonymous source.

A high ranking NFLPA executive is the source and no NFLPA spokesperson has denied it. ESPN has been running this as the position of the NFLPA for days, if you can't see the difference between that and Cole's "unnamed source" that's your issue.

Furthermore there is absolutely no mention of this as an outstanding issue in any reporting taking place at the meetings, at least in terms of ESPN's coverage, however Spanky4050 may disagree, and he may have a Twitter source that trumps the actual coverage.

 

[townes]

Also, I do think it is funny that you think Coles' source has an agenda while sources that support your theories do not.

.

LMAO-Have you read the piece Coles wrote?

Anyone else want to back Robo up that it wasn't agenda driven?

 

[townes]

No it isn't because that anonymous source backs up townes' side of the argument.

The source was identified as a high ranking NFLPA exec, and the NFLPA let that run on ESPN's scroll for the last 3 days without dispute.