Delete This Account

i'm a little uncertain about the effects as it's never been clearly explained to me. hey, i'm a dumbass sports writer by trade and a Canadian by birth, so two strikes against me there. what i do know is that the anti-trust law was considered a threat to the NFL when the union decertified back in the late 80s/early 90s, though i'm not sure how that opens the door to that. the trouble at the union's end is by decertifying, it then has no control over whether its members cross the line. and yet, there were some -- Trace Armstrong for one -- during the recent executive director election that raised the possibility of decertifying the union once again to re-open that threat. jw

actually, nflpa has wanted no part of Waters. she's unhappy with the union over pensions because her husband, Sidney Williams, is a former NFLer. jw

cool. and i meant no offense to Kelly, but it was one of the few times I've noticed he missed the mark. jw

KellyTFBD, you might resist temptation to open thread ... after seeing how you agreed with Clayton's position against Mr. Wilson. no offense, though, at the time there was plenty of confusion and also plenty of relief that a deal -- any deal -- had been struck. we are, however, awaiting your retraction then again, i thought Mike Williams at the time was a good pick. jw

to be fair, i don't exactly recall what Mr. Wilson said/not said at time the CBA was announced. it's all a little hazy. i do know it didn't take long for him to get on the revenue-sharing pulpit in meeting with Pataki and announcing the long-term future of Bills franchise was in jeopardy. the most recent reference to not having all the information in front of the owners was from Mr. Wilson's recollections from interview this past weekend. he did say the deal was "no good financially" (though he might be speaking in hindsight), and stressed that owners never got a chance to see "the other side of the paper, all the rules and policy-making and so forth," while noting that many of the other owners (except for Brown ... happy now Cinc? ) were quick to raise their hands in approval. the point being: it was a rushed and patchwork process pieced together at the last minute, which i think goes against any suggestion that the owners understood exactly what they were getting themselves into. jw ADDS: "Didn't"

Mr. Wilson has suggested that what owners saw and voted on was a very bare-bones version of the agreement, without any of the fine print (and not a lot of large print, for that matter). and if i recall correctly, no one could make heads or tails of the deal for two months or so, because union and nfl lawyers were still working out the details. Mr. Wilson's problem with it was he wasn't going to vote on something that was handed to him 45 minutes ago. and if the CBA didn't pass, he was willing to chance going into uncapped year. jw

thanks very much. i stand corrected or, at the very least, updated. note, though, that there is ongoing talk on capital hill that if the union (and to some degree, the league) don't get their retired players' concerns with pension corrected, congress, led by Maxine Watters, will consider action. it's a threat, don't know how realistic, but it's there. as for vacation, Lori, i'll hoist a couple for sure. and yes, StuckInCinc, bringing the camera! jw Sabres interested in Cammalleri (?)

don't know if it's just the players with lavish lifestyles. jerry jones, who's only industry is running the cowboys, has plenty at stake with the new stadium opening and all. there is also the negative perception that comes with labor strife, which could very well lead to the networks seeking their own givebacks when it comes to tv deals. this is high-stakes stuff for both sides. jw ADD: and thanks Rubes. trying to keep this as open-ended as possible without resorting to name-calling and trolling as happens "occassionally" in these threads. trouble is, as interested as i am in this topic and discussion, i'm trying to get my work done here as it's my last day before vacation.

they're not exactly a force that's going to be at the negotiating table. but if they fall on Smith's side, the also won't be a hindrance, and that can't be understated. by bringing the retired players on board, then the union can finally produce a common front, and not have critics from the chorus chime in against it. it doesn't tip the scales in the union's favor entirely, but it helps by not being a distraction. jw

i personally don't think the owners were looking that far ahead. i could be wrong, but the sense was that they had dodged a bullet on this one and settled what they thought was a "good deal." the fact that it was rushed through at the last minute, one major reason Mr. Wilson was against it, leads me to believe that they were willing to sign anything to simply have a deal. trouble was, the devil was in the details of the fine print, which no one -- including Mr. Wilson -- had time to read. and, from my perspective, it was rushed through because Kraft, Snyder and Jones were either in new stadiums or ready to build one, and they needed to keep the status quo of labor peace. and it was those three who applied pressure on Tagliabue to get the deal done. as i'm told, Tagliabue was in no position to wait on the matter. the fact that Mr. Wilson was painted as a "know-nothing," is also an indication that the owners thought this was a good deal and they were not looking ahead or building any type of a war chest. the best thing they did, i think, was include that out-clause. but i don't think anyone at that table ever figured they would be using it so quickly, particularly based on the responses that came out of that meeting. jw

haven't spoken to Laird, so not sure on that end. and you and KRC are absolutely correct. there's still a long way to go on the retired players front. i'd expect Smith, at some point, to announce that one of the concessions he's also looking for is including a new pension formula with the NFL ... now that's a tough one. the union's argument, which has some (stress: some) merit, is that the NFL also has a stake in the pension plan, and also needs to step up to the plate. and this is where things get complicated and could muddy up labor talks, because the NFL does have some leverage on this point, and realizes that Smith is up against the wall on this one. jw

with all due respect Gordio, the only way the union will go for 50 percent is if all money (licensing fees, marketing fees) counts in the forumla. i don't see Smith as having the losing hand. it's the owners who have all come out and said they blew it during contract talks so they're the ones who will have to figure out how to establish a new one. while, yes, players won't be getting checks, don't disregard the amounts of money owners will be losing during a lockout. no TV contract, no suites, no hot-dog/beer money. and threat of having the union decertify, which would open the door to the introduction of anti-trust laws, which would lead to the potential of congressional oversight of football. ... there's a lot at stake on both sides. jw

Upshaw would've never settled. don't discount the connection between the retired players and CBA. if Smith can get the retired players on board, then he gathers far more leverage and a far larger/louder voice in taking his case to the NFL, and something Upshaw didn't have. this is becoming a very intriguing chess game and so far Smith is making all the right moves. and he had to, because the union had been in such disarray following Gene's death. there was a lot of political manouvering going on in the background with numerous people attempting to fill the power vacuum and also attempting to get "their" man in the seat. though Smith was regarded as the outsider, there was also a perception that the old guard (Upshaw's proteges) wanted Smith because they could then maintain control while Smith was learning the ropes. they thought wrong. for the good of pro football, i'm hoping that the league's front-office didn't underestimate Smith either. there was a perception, also, that the NFL was going to walk all over a union that seemed divided during the election process. that, currently, is not the case. jw

don't know if they'll push on it too far. i think this is more of a cosmetic argument that works to the NFLPA's advantage in two ways: it's a good topic the union can use to stir up the troops and get them on board, and also a good thrust at the owners and their claim they're losing money. "losing money? how can that be when you got these government incentives, etc., benefits, which we don't see a penny of." i don't see this as a make-or-break argument, just part of the back-and-forth. what's more intriguing, and one that scares the NFL, is Smith's Beltway connections, particularly his work with Pres. Obama. if the union ever goes to decertify again, that brings in the specter of anti-trust laws being introduced against the NFL ... and the owners certainly don't want that. again, these are some of the tools in the union's toolbox. not sure how willing they are to use them, but they're there. jw

sorry, i think there would be consensus among the owners today to describe it as not a poor deal but "a terrible deal." oh, that Ralph. ... jw

personally, i think it's the wrong play to draw the media into this, because once we reporters start taking sides (and we'll take sides if players stop talking to us), then the union loses its momentum. that's not to say that i won't quote a player about stadium funding, etc. i'm sure that will be one of the union's more significant "talking points" going forward. yet i don't want the topic of stadium funding to come up in an interview that has nothing to do with the CBA. jw

true, there are numerous retired players who are still skeptical. Joe D, for one. by reaching the deal, though, Smith at least was able to offer an olive branch rather than a kick in the face. the move also de-emphasized the role union attorney's Jeffrey Kessler and Richard Berthelsen have had. both were held in very low regard by the retired players, and both were intent on proceeding with the lawsuit as Upshaw would've wanted. Smith has at the very least gained some credibility, and Herb Adderley's comments commending Smith were a clear sign that a thaw might be in the making. Smith, like Troy Vincent and David Cornwell (two of the three people he ran against for the Executive Director job), all stressed that resolving the dispute with retired players was just as important as the CBA talks. as Adderley's lawyer put it, Smith has begun putting his money where his mouth is. jw

GG: not a bad analysis, however, don't underestimate DeMaurice Smith. though he has little football background, he's a pitbull-type lawyer and has already rocked the boat at the NFLPA offices by shaking up the old-guard bargaining committee and bringing his own people in -- those he can count on to get his views across. Smith also took the smart route by visiting with players with all 32 teams in May, and assessing the players' concerns, their needs and thoughts moving forward. i see his reign as a departure from the Gene Upshaw my way or the highway days. an indication of that is Smith ending the appeal on the EA Sports lawsuit and freeing up the money to the retired players. that was a key move as he, unlike Upshaw, now has earned some cache with the retired players, and could use their influence to help out in CBA talks. the one thing that's undetermined -- and one issue i think the talks will hinge on -- is how he and Roger Goodell get along and whether they can establish a relationship of respect. Smith, so far, has also said the right things in an attempt to bring the fans on board by noting in these tough economic times this isn't just about the players, but also about the people who work in secondary NFL service industries, who would be affected by a potential lockout, which Smith of course says, no one wants. Smith, i also believe, understands that the union has leverage because it's the NFL owners who realize they negotiated a poor deal. and you're right, GG, i think the quid pro quo will be guaranteed contracts for rookie salary cap. the question is whether the NFL can get some givebacks on the salary percentage by offering an expanded schedule and the potential for all to make more money. jw

wanna talk about pollution, you should see Uranus ... sorry, couldn't resist. jw

Vet: since you kinda asked, and i was just reading through Tim's "mailbag" Thread, i agree with Tim to a large extent in that this team needs to show something before anyone can start taking it seriously. last year proved to be a big tease after the 5-1 start, especially when few envisioned they'd go 0-6 against the East. it didn't help that some (many, including myself) thought this team was ready for a breakout year after two 7-9 seasons and coming back with a relatively intact group of starters. as a result, count me skeptical going in. 4th in the East might be low (though remember this is June 30th). i'd currently say they have a shot at 8-8 -- and a lot has to go right for that to happen -- but i'll reserve my best prediction for Sept. 13, when i have a full training camp, preseason slate of games and, just as important, a depth chart and injury report to go by. jw

and anyone who'd pretend to be me would certainly have issues, i think, particularly self-esteem. wait, did i just knock myself or ... well, i'm me. i just double-checked my birth certificate, which clearly states who i am. jw

and how do i know you're you SAB?

i wonder that myself sometimes, but most people here are ok -- stress most.

without going into too much detail, bailing out the raiders was considered key to preserving the reputation of the upstart AFL, which didn't need to have a team fold at such an early stage. shrewd move, which certainly paid off. jw

test drove a 2006 Mazda3 last summer and was on the verge of buying it but, dealer wouldn't budge off asking price enough. i so much liked the car that i went up from $11,500 to $12,000, and he went down from $12,500 to $12,400, which i interpreted as being a slap in the face. it was a newer car but already had 60,000 miles on it. and yet i really liked the power and feel of the car, so i'd recommend one ... for the right price. "settled" for an Accura and absolutely love it. jw