Owners tried to slip things by the players

[Throwback Bills]

I may be off, but here is what I think.

 

The owners voted EARLY on the deal that was to be in front of the players, because they had the time line. Add in the fact that they have the Kraft services to go to.

 

I bet the commissioner said to D Smith We got to go, we can't sit here, we'll be in Boston, we'll open the facilities this weedend and you have till Wednesday to get your vote in order.

 

I also agree that the players are only repeating genernic e-mail etc. There is no way that all the 32 players reps have read the deal cover to cover.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

"There also was a problem with some of the NFLPA’s complaints. For instance, Smith expressed concern that the owners had agreed on a new revenue-sharing plan on how to split money among teams. While Smith can express concern, it’s not the business of the NFLPA how the owners split the money they get among themselves. The NFLPA gets to only negotiate what its share of the overall pie can be." http://sports.yahoo....ans_smith072111

Gotta run so haven't read your link yet but I questioned the linkage between the CBA and supplemental revenue sharing back in 2006.

 

It would seem somewhat intuitive that once they divvy up the revenue that it's the players business on how they disburse their share and the owners biz how they disburse theirs.

 

 

HOWEVER… Bottom line for me (and why I think Cole is ultimately wrong) is that the supplemental revenue sharing provisions WERE included in the last CBA AND from a player's perspective, there are probably some aspects of supplemental revenue sharing (and other ramifications over how the owners divvy their shares) which could adversely affect players salaries.

 

This will all get sorted out soon and I'm a bit surprised by all the wailing and teeth gnashing.

 

 

[K Gun Special]

"There also was a problem with some of the NFLPA’s complaints. For instance, Smith expressed concern that the owners had agreed on a new revenue-sharing plan on how to split money among teams. While Smith can express concern, it’s not the business of the NFLPA how the owners split the money they get among themselves. The NFLPA gets to only negotiate what its share of the overall pie can be." http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=AsjZkVvEdJnwHZbpEDWpJApDubYF?slug=jc-cole_nflpa_cba_goodell_evans_smith072111

 

 

Perhaps but thats one writers opinion on the issue. Even assuming his point is valid, the others concerns, which were NOT negotiated but included in the deal, prevented the players from voting on it right away.

 

In any event the article you cited ends with "Of course, the players could be the type of people who buy a house without getting an inspection.""

Which is exactly my point and thank you for citing same.

 

Again, the PA is looking over the deal, which has NEW stuff in it before voting. I dont see why that causes some people to react so violently against Smith and his team.

 

I imagine if it was reversed, and the PA has voted on a deal with NEW stuff in it, that wasnt bargained, those same people would be outraged and the same targets.

 

Cooler heads will prevail on this deal, the bulk of it has been agreed to.

 

BUT its a ten years deal, there are significant concerns regarding the end of the term language, my understanding is that there is no opt out clause for either side like the old CBA.

[RyanC883]

It's not that they "slipped" things in the agreement that the players never saw. The owners approved their side of the agreement. In their side of the agreement, there are some issues that the players feel are unsettled. Like work mans comp, drug testing, etc. These CAN'T be settled without a union. But in no way, did the owners go "oh hey here are 5 more things we never told you, that we are just gonna stick in there."

 

 

Basically, nothing to see here, move along...

 

 

Well put.

 

The Players need to get their act together. They should fire their lawyer and hire a new one. This guy is not doing them any service by being an obstructionist. Really, players should be drug tested, so what's the hold up. And if you're a clean player, you want others drug tested.

[Buftex]

Amazing how much insight we have here, at TBD...

[GG]

I think you give a reasonable summary which I am sure will provide context for your what happened articles on this. the couple of factoids which I think you might add to your context is:

 

1. Judgments of the actions of both the owners and of the players in this dispute should be base in the fact that the owners were the ones who used their contractual right to renegotiate the deal. The players are not only on record as not asking for this situation which bothers all fans, but also they are on record not demanding anything in this renegotiation but continuing the old deal.

 

It was the owners right to do what they did, but it should not be ignored that they were the sole party that created this situation. The NFLPA also had the right under the contract to renegotiate once the owners opened the door and ask for fair trades for anything that they gave up. They did not and I think any presentation which judges these actions should be based on this factual context.

 

2. One of the central complaints of owners (led by Mr. Ralph actually) last time was that the owners were presented with a complex deal with a incredibly limited time to accept or reject it. Is the claim here that the player reps need to do exactly the same thing as the owners found to produce such a bad result for them. This time for a 10 year deal without the re-opener that the owners used this time.

 

Again, I would think presentation of this fact when giving any judgments about whether either side is being reasonable or unreasonable in this should be presented.

 

Overall, I think that it is clear that there are three sides to this dispute team owners, player partners and us fans.

 

As far as it goes, the NFLPA does not represent my fan interests on this at all. However, the owners bear the lionshare of any blame for fan treatment in this debacle.

 

That's my 1 and a half cents

 

Crying about the owners striking down the last CBA is pointless - they had a contractual right to do it and they exercised it. As a result, the NFLPA decertified. That has no bearing on the new CBA negotiation because they're starting from scratch in redefining the gross revenues, player costs, salary cap & free agency.

 

I've been supportive of players' position in the negotitions, but to frame these developments as owners trying to sneak something by the players, when the NFLPA has been in the negotiating rooms with the owners for weeks, smacks of class A hucksterism.

 

What's not been reported are the details of the supplementary revenues. If these revenues are revenues that were never meant to be part of the CBA discussions then it's an issue for the owners only. But, if these are revenues that players feel they're intitled to get a share, then why didn't NFLPA not care about them until now? Something doesn't add up, and all roads are pointing to De Smith & how he's communicated to his constituents.

 

If last night's move by the owners is seen as a power play, it's probably to expose the duplicity of the NFLPA's negotiating team. Add this to the secret strike insurance that De obtained without anyone else's knowledge, Lucy has a lot of 'slpainin to do.

[Calgary_JG]

When they interviewed Heath Evans on NFL Network a few minutes ago, they asked him specifically what the owners slipped into the new agreement. He hemmed and hawed and generally couldn't offer ANY specifics.

 

He's just parroting the email D Smith sent out. I seriously doubt the vast majority of players have more than a cursory understanding of this supposed 300-400 page document.

 

I call BS on this.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

I saw an interview with Josh Cribbs and it was basically the same thing. Rich Eisen (I'll give him his props) actually questioned him and didn't just coddle him like usual, but Cribbs had no answers. All he did was say "it's a process" a thousand times. I guarantee De Smith and the rest of his crew told the players to fan out and spread the message that any extension to the lockout is not the players' fault so they come up with this "they tried to slip this stuff in at the last minute" garbage.

 

I'm impressed with the comments on here and how they're not all anti-owner like in the past. Smith negotiated this agreement and now the players seem to be trying to save face almost to not make it look like the owners "won".

 

Come on guys, let's get down to football. GO BILLS!!!!!

[Beerball]

I saw an interview with Josh Cribbs and it was basically the same thing. Rich Eisen (I'll give him his props) actually questioned him and didn't just coddle him like usual, but Cribbs had no answers. All he did was say "it's a process" a thousand times. I guarantee De Smith and the rest of his crew told the players to fan out and spread the message that any extension to the lockout is not the players' fault so they come up with this "they tried to slip this stuff in at the last minute" garbage.

 

I'm impressed with the comments on here and how they're not all anti-owner like in the past. Smith negotiated this agreement and now the players seem to be trying to save face almost to not make it look like the owners "won".

 

Come on guys, let's get down to football. GO BILLS!!!!!

I think that there are plenty of people on both sides of the issue (and they've been there all along) and <gasp> there are actually folks who see positives and negatives on both sides.

[Delete This Account]

Before I believe that oh great gazoo (clayton)...provide details of what was slipped in. If supplemental revenue sharing by the clubs is the issue then in my mind it's a non-issue and none of the players business. There is agreement on the overall revenue split between owners and players. There is a salary floor. There is a salary cap. What the owners do with their portion of the revenue is their business.

strange as it sounds, it's been the union, in recent years, that has led the fight in favor of revenue sharing, adding their voice to small-market franchise concerns. and they played a significant role, i'm told behind the revenue sharing deal that was negotiated in the last deal in 2006. (yes, the same one that the NFL wasn't going to entirely commit to on its own until Mr. Wilson met with Pataki).

 

of course, there's a reason why the union favors revenue sharing, as it allows for more spending by all teams, and adding to a competitive market for talent. if part of that fallout means that small-market franchise are provided the opportunity to be competitive, is that all that bad?

 

jw

[billnutinphoenix]

My take: The player's union lawyers got in the way and screwed it all up again. The union lawyers don't profit as much unless there is litigation.

 

The owners aren't faultless, but the players deserve a boatload of blame for putting their trust in a bunch of incompetent morons.

 

 

This is how I feel...

[Beerball]

strange as it sounds, it's been the union, in recent years, that has led the fight in favor of revenue sharing, adding their voice to small-market franchise concerns. and they played a significant role, i'm told behind the revenue sharing deal that was negotiated in the last deal in 2006. (yes, the same one that the NFL wasn't going to entirely commit to on its own until Mr. Wilson met with Pataki).

 

of course, there's a reason why the union favors revenue sharing, as it allows for more spending by all teams, and adding to a competitive market for talent. if part of that fallout means that small-market franchise are provided the opportunity to be competitive, is that all that bad?

 

jw

Not all that bad, indeed. What I'd like to know (and there may be none on further review) is what were the surprises that bamboozled the players?

[Ramius]

These morons (the players) do realize that if their shenanigans cause the NFL to cancel preseason games, then league loses revenue, and therefore the cap will decrease as well, resulting in less money for them, don't they?

[Delete This Account]

Not all that bad, indeed. What I'd like to know (and there may be none on further review) is what were the surprises that bamboozled the players?

there were no surprises. they did not have the deal in front of them that the owners agreed to. and beyond that, there were still three outstanding issues (workers comp, $320 million benefits and salary cap floor) unsettled after they met a day earlier -- which was the reason no vote was taken in DC on Wednesday. and at least one of those issues -- workers comp claims -- remained unsettled as of last night.

 

it was evident from early on in the conference call last night that players weren't going to vote.

 

jw

[Kelly the Dog]

Not all that bad, indeed. What I'd like to know (and there may be none on further review) is what were the surprises that babboozled the players?

Just speculation, but I think this was like a game of telephone in first grade where one kid whispers to the next and by the end the entire story has changed. The owners put stuff in about revenue sharing, and other things that may not have been agreed upon because there was no need to agree on them -- or they were part of stuff that going to be worked out later. There was no hoodwinking. But the players lawyers while reading it (IIRC 300-400 pages), told Smith, "Wait a second, there is language and stuff here we need to go over. We never talked about this stuff." Smith then told the reps there is no deal yet, the owners slipped stuff in there. If asked what, he didnt give them any answers. Rep by rep and player by player, all of whom are being asked by reporters and everyone else are they going to sign, started saying all kinds of stuff about the owners trying to screw them by adding stuff they never talked about.

[GG]

Just speculation, but I think this was like a game of telephone in first grade where one kid whispers to the next and by the end the entire story has changed. The owners put stuff in about revenue sharing, and other things that may not have been agreed upon because there was no need to agree on them -- or they were part of stuff that going to be worked out later. There was no hoodwinking. But the players lawyers while reading it (IIRC 300-400 pages), told Smith, "Wait a second, there is language and stuff here we need to go over. We never talked about this stuff." Smith then told the reps there is no deal yet, the owners slipped stuff in there. If asked what, he didnt give them any answers. Rep by rep and player by player, all of whom are being asked by reporters and everyone else are they going to sign, started saying all kinds of stuff about the owners trying to screw them by adding stuff they never talked about.

 

In other words, De has done a horrendous job of keeping his side informed and ready for the eventual return to work.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

In other words, De has done a horrendous job of keeping his side informed and ready for the eventual return to work.

Not entirely true.

 

All the media outlets have reported that:

 

1) The players union* had not received the document that the owners had ratified earlier in the day until "late." I still have not been able to find out what "late" means.

 

2) There WAS additional language added that the players had NOT seen before.

 

3) Another unanswered question is the process: there was apparently a handshake agreement/agreement in principle that resulted from the collective bargaining however it HAS NOT BEEN MADE CLEAR who ultimately drafted the document that was ratified by the owners before being forwarded to the players.

 

It's also a consensus view that because the players received the document last, that they are now being painted as the villains and/or inept because of the perception that they are now "holding up" the agreement.

 

There is no point in the players voting on the proposal until they have the time to review and understand the document which is reported to be a bit over 200 pages.

 

The CBA will get done soon and the only casualty so far is the Hall of Fame game which has been canceled.

 

Very interesting how many people are so emotionally invested in this outcome and have lost patience.

 

 

[Kelly the Dog]

In other words, De has done a horrendous job of keeping his side informed and ready for the eventual return to work.

Yup. I don't see anything wrong with waiting one day for your lawyers to go through a 300 page document word for word. But within a few hours they should know all of these alleged hoodwinks, relay that to Smith, who needed to tell the players straight what that was. I havent really trusted Smith from the get-go, but it's so hard to know anything about what's really going on.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

p.s.-- In addition to receiving the document last, it's also much more difficult for De Smith to keep his 1900 person membership apprised than it is for the owners who number 32 plus their 100-120 lieutenants.

[Kelly the Dog]

Not entirely true.

 

All the media outlets have reported that:

 

1) The players union* had not received the document that the owners had ratified earlier in the day until "late." I still have not been able to find out what "late" means.

 

2) There WAS additional language added that the players had NOT seen before.

 

3) Another unanswered question is the process: there was apparently a handshake agreement/agreement in principle that resulted from the collective bargaining however it HAS NOT BEEN MADE CLEAR who ultimately drafted the document that was ratified by the owners before being forwarded to the players.

 

It's also a consensus view that because the players received the document last, that they are now being painted as the villains and/or inept because of the perception that they are now "holding up" the agreement.

 

There is no point in the players voting on the proposal until they have the time to review and understand the document which is reported to be a bit over 200 pages.

 

The CBA will get done soon and the only casualty so far is the Hall of Fame game which has been canceled.

 

Very interesting how many people are so emotionally invested in this outcome and have lost patience.

 

 

I think the point is that Smith allowed the hysteria of players like Heath Evans to make it sound like the owners were screwing them over by not telling the players what the new stuff was. Better communication to them, about the issues that jw just mentioned, would no have inflamed the players and interwebs and message boards.

 

p.s.-- In addition to receiving the document last, it's also much more difficult for De Smith to keep his 1900 person membership apprised than it is for the owners who number 32 plus their 100-120 lieutenants.

Not sure about that. Smith has 32 reps to explain things to, which should be promptly, accurately, and succinctly. Those reps then take that exact info and go to their 80 member teams (or whatever). Goodell has 32 owners to do the same thing with, and they go to their 80 member law firm.

 

While that is somewhat of a joke and exaggeration, both sides have 32 main members, a few of those 32 intricately involved, along with dozens of lawyers on both sides that have to go through all this. It's not much easier or harder for either side. The reps are representing their entire team the way the 32 owners are. There is simply more people asking players for their quotes.

[Mr. WEO]

strange as it sounds, it's been the union, in recent years, that has led the fight in favor of revenue sharing, adding their voice to small-market franchise concerns. and they played a significant role, i'm told behind the revenue sharing deal that was negotiated in the last deal in 2006. (yes, the same one that the NFL wasn't going to entirely commit to on its own until Mr. Wilson met with Pataki).

 

of course, there's a reason why the union favors revenue sharing, as it allows for more spending by all teams, and adding to a competitive market for talent. if part of that fallout means that small-market franchise are provided the opportunity to be competitive, is that all that bad?

 

jw

You are correct. Upshaw was the main driving force behind enhanced team revenue sharing as a way for all teams to be able to pay for the "60%" he was demanding. Many have forgotten (or just don't know) what was going on in those negotiations, instead exhibiting a grasp of history that begins and ends with "Ralph was right".

[GG]

p.s.-- In addition to receiving the document last, it's also much more difficult for De Smith to keep his 1900 person membership apprised than it is for the owners who number 32 plus their 100-120 lieutenants.

 

The owners gave players until Tuesday to ratify it. I don't think they realistically expected the players to ratify last night.

 

How can the players claim that there was something snuck into the CBA when they said that they didn't read the CBA? Players' reaction were directly as a result of Smith screaming that the owners tried to sneak something in the document. But why would he say that when he's been involved in the discussions, and I can't imagine that the owners would put something to vote without getting the ok from the NFLPA*'s negotiating team?

 

Sorry, but this really smells.

[Rob's House]

Let's see... People who made billions vs people who make money being athletes.

 

 

I'd say there is probably a very large intelligence gap between the two. Hell, Cromartie can't even remember the names of his own children.

I wouldn't feel the need to defend the argument. Anyone to who this is not self evident is naturally inclined to relate to the players, if you catch my drift.

[todd]

Here's what I said: "The owners aren't faultless, but the players deserve a boatload of blame for putting their trust in a bunch of incompetent morons."

 

I stand by that. Has anyone here actually negotiated a contract before? That is the way it works. Why would the owners add bad stuff to a contract knowing the players would read it, spaz out, crap their pants, and whine like babies? They wouldn't. What was added was most likely stuff that is insignificant in terms of the agreed deal but required minutiae, but the players probably don't understand that and freak out because there's stuff in there they haven't seen.

 

Here's what should have happened: The NFLPA lawyers read the stuff, and calmly explain to the players what it is and the impact. Instead, the lawyers have a knee-jerk reaction saying the agreement isn't legal. That causes players to freak out because they likely haven't read it. Remember, these are the same lawyers that Smith ordered to "Stand down" because how destructive they were to the process.

 

So yeah, believe what you want.

 

Its a deal worth Billions of dollars with some of the best lawyers in the country working on both sides.

 

 

Has anyone on here read the reasons why the players havent voted yet? ? Like the owners including supp revenue sharing, a topic not discussed at the table, amongst others.

 

 

Would you sign a contract that big right away knowing there is language you hadnt negotiated?

 

This board is amazing in its reactionary tone..... everyone so quick to blame the players, Smith, or lawyers.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

strange as it sounds, it's been the union, in recent years, that has led the fight in favor of revenue sharing, adding their voice to small-market franchise concerns. and they played a significant role, i'm told behind the revenue sharing deal that was negotiated in the last deal in 2006. (yes, the same one that the NFL wasn't going to entirely commit to on its own until Mr. Wilson met with Pataki).

 

of course, there's a reason why the union favors revenue sharing, as it allows for more spending by all teams, and adding to a competitive market for talent. if part of that fallout means that small-market franchise are provided the opportunity to be competitive, is that all that bad?

 

jw

True… making it ironic that the players initial reaction to the inclusion of changes in the supplemental revenue sharing was negative… as Kelly and others have said, I think it was more the element of surprise than the actual substance of the language which they were reacting to.

 

The fact that both Buffalo and Cinci voted for the agreement (Oakland abstained) pretty much indicates that the SRS is more fair and equitable than it was before… without knowing the details.

 

 

This also invalidates the belief that SRS is "none of the players' business."

 

It seems like the players association's foibles over the last 16-18 hours has to do with the challenge of communicating with the rank and file in a pressure-packed and hurried environment.

 

I do think that De Smith could probably have spread a message of calm assuredness rather than the anger and mistrust that seemed to have trickled from him to the player reps.

 

 

 

 

 

[todd]

Hear Hear!

 

Well put.

 

The Players need to get their act together. They should fire their lawyer and hire a new one. This guy is not doing them any service by being an obstructionist. Really, players should be drug tested, so what's the hold up. And if you're a clean player, you want others drug tested.

 

Excellent post. It is clear who the obstructionist has been in this process, and it is the NFLPA lawyers. They should have fired them, because it is clear their interest is misplaced along with their judgement.

[Beerball]

there were no surprises. they did not have the deal in front of them that the owners agreed to.

jw

So no surprises in what the owners voted on, but the player reps did not have a copy of the deal?

 

Because the league didn't supply them one? This has been what they have been working on for months, how different was yesterday's deal to what they have previously seen?

 

I'm cornfused.

[Delete This Account]

So no surprises in what the owners voted on, but the player reps did not have a copy of the deal?

 

Because the league didn't supply them one? This has been what they have been working on for months, how different was yesterday's deal to what they have previously seen?

 

I'm cornfused.

the players didn't have the full deal before them in DC on Wednesday. so after attempting to digest that, the owners turned around and voted to approve "a full deal." timing was terrible, i think.

i do truly believe we could all well be talking about the actual start of football right now, had the owners held off on voting until today. then, the players may well have had a chance to digest things, and then the two sides would have had an opportunity to hold a joint press conference late today or perhaps tomorrow.

 

you have to admit, the NFL press conference looked a little odd in celebrating a new 10-year partnership with the players, without the players on hand, no?

 

jw

 

You are correct. Upshaw was the main driving force behind enhanced team revenue sharing as a way for all teams to be able to pay for the "60%" he was demanding. Many have forgotten (or just don't know) what was going on in those negotiations, instead exhibiting a grasp of history that begins and ends with "Ralph was right".

a first, perhaps. thanks. i really mean that.

 

jw

[Nanker]

I think they gave the players till Tuesday to vote to give them enough time to have someone read the text of the agreement to them while they all follow along mouthing the words.

Then they'll listen to their leaders tell them how to vote and promptly do so.

[John from Riverside]

John thanks for weighing in

 

From a fans perspective I would just like to know what things the owners were "trying to slip by" in the fine print of the contact or at least this is how I take the players point of view to be right now.....

 

but

 

Everytime an interview is done asking the players exactly what those items are....they cant give a straight answer. I really would like to be fair as a fan and give the players the benefit of the doubt but its hard when they sound like they dont even know what "is trying to get slip past them"

 

I would like some examples as a fan.....and its not my contract and my money and my job....but it is my dollars that support the league so I feel as a fan I have the right to know how the players feel they are being bamboozled.

[Beerball]

the players didn't have the full deal before them in DC on Wednesday. so after attempting to digest that, the owners turned around and voted to approve "a full deal." timing was terrible, i think.

i do truly believe we could all well be talking about the actual start of football right now, had the owners held off on voting until today. then, the players may well have had a chance to digest things, and then the two sides would have had an opportunity to hold a joint press conference late today or perhaps tomorrow.

 

you have to admit, the NFL press conference looked a little odd in celebrating a new 10-year partnership with the players, without the players on hand, no?

 

jw

 

Gotcha, yes, possibly avoided if the leage had delayed...but perhaps unavoidable with the Kraft funeral (if not unavoidable then it would have been delayed at least until tomorrow).

[Ramius]

Hear Hear!

 

 

 

Excellent post. It is clear who the obstructionist has been in this process, and it is the NFLPA lawyers. They should have fired them, because it is clear their interest is misplaced along with their judgement.

 

de smith has been the problem all along. He's been more bent on getting his name out there and putting his "stamp" on this negotiations as opposed to simply negotiating the best deal for the players. He's made this CBA about him, not about the NFLPA.

 

If smith wasn't involved, this process would have ended much sooner, and the players probably wouldn't have been so quick to go to litigation.

Edited July 22, 2011 by Ramius

[Delete This Account]

John thanks for weighing in

 

From a fans perspective I would just like to know what things the owners were "trying to slip by" in the fine print of the contact or at least this is how I take the players point of view to be right now.....

 

but

 

Everytime an interview is done asking the players exactly what those items are....they cant give a straight answer. I really would like to be fair as a fan and give the players the benefit of the doubt but its hard when they sound like they dont even know what "is trying to get slip past them"

 

I would like some examples as a fan.....and its not my contract and my money and my job....but it is my dollars that support the league so I feel as a fan I have the right to know how the players feel they are being bamboozled.

George Wilson last night told me that there was nothing that he knew of being "slipped in," rather it was more of an issue of not seeing the full document -- or the document that the NFL owners had approved a mere 90 minutes or so before the players conference call was set to begin.

 

how, he wondered, can anyone hold a vote on something they hadn't had a chance to see.

 

jw

 

Gotcha, yes, possibly avoided if the leage had delayed...but perhaps unavoidable with the Kraft funeral (if not unavoidable then it would have been delayed at least until tomorrow).

right, i keep forgetting about the Kraft funeral. sorry, little fuzzy (as usual). that said, the Canton Game was already cancelled. why could they not have waited until saturday -- held an impromptu meeting a day after the funeral and then traveled to DC or NYC for a joint announcement.

 

jw

[Doc]

George Wilson last night told me that there was nothing that he knew of being "slipped in," rather it was more of an issue of not seeing the full document -- or the document that the NFL owners had approved a mere 90 minutes or so before the players conference call was set to begin.

 

how, he wondered, can anyone hold a vote on something they hadn't had a chance to see.

Oh, the irony!

 

And from what I heard, Wilson said that a major problem was that the players didn't vote on it first and get the good PR from that and now look like the bad guys. Even though they had the chance to vote on it on Wednesday.

[Ramius]

George Wilson last night told me that there was nothing that he knew of being "slipped in," rather it was more of an issue of not seeing the full document -- or the document that the NFL owners had approved a mere 90 minutes or so before the players conference call was set to begin.

 

how, he wondered, can anyone hold a vote on something they hadn't had a chance to see.

 

jw

 

As GG said, how exactly can the players accuse the owners of slipping things in, and then turn around and claim they hadn't seen it?

 

As Doc said, they are butt hurt because the owners passed the CBA first, thus making the players look bad. The owners made a nice and smart PR move, and the players are simply mad about it.

[John from Riverside]

George Wilson last night told me that there was nothing that he knew of being "slipped in," rather it was more of an issue of not seeing the full document -- or the document that the NFL owners had approved a mere 90 minutes or so before the players conference call was set to begin.

 

how, he wondered, can anyone hold a vote on something they hadn't had a chance to see.

 

jw

 

 

right, i keep forgetting about the Kraft funeral. sorry, little fuzzy (as usual). that said, the Canton Game was already cancelled. why could they not have waited until saturday -- held an impromptu meeting a day after the funeral and then traveled to DC or NYC for a joint announcement.

 

jw

 

 

I feel much better about the whole thing if it is just a matter of the players not having a chance to see the whole document.....if I was voting on something that affected my future I would want to see the whole thing to.....this just looks like its being poorly handled

[Wayne Cubed]

I believe technically, the rest of the issues, CAN'T be settled without a union in place. Technically a new CBA can't be agreed to without a union.

[Scrappy]

I believe technically, the rest of the issues, CAN'T be settled without a union in place. Technically a new CBA can't be agreed to without a union.

 

Catch 22 there, they need better lawyers.

[Delete This Account]

I feel much better about the whole thing if it is just a matter of the players not having a chance to see the whole document.....if I was voting on something that affected my future I would want to see the whole thing to.....this just looks like its being poorly handled

keep in mind, too. this is a proposed 10-year deal WITHOUT an opt out. some marriages don't last that long. and there's no chance of a prenupt here. i'd read every line.

 

jw

[Hplarrm]

I feel much better about the whole thing if it is just a matter of the players not having a chance to see the whole document.....if I was voting on something that affected my future I would want to see the whole thing to.....this just looks like its being poorly handled

I agree that it is contradictory for the players to claim both that they have not read what the owners voted on but they detected things slipped in.

 

However, it seems just as silly to have the owners demanding that the players vote to ratify a CBA now when one of their prime complaints about the last one was folks like Mr. Ealph claiming he did not have the time to read it. If these complex issues demand a re-opener that the owners had to exercise because the previous non-read agreement was so bad that now the new agreement must be ratified by 32 guys who were not in on the actual negotiation.

 

The players are giving silly reasons for not signing the deal. Yet, the first move was that it was silly for the NFL to call for ratification last night when the NFL made a deal they consider so bad for the specifically stated reason from Ralph that there was no time to understand the document.

 

This also is stupid.

 

As a fan I blame both sides. In terms of solutions, I wish the players had shown the same level of cajones they showed when they first threatened to decert. In the big picture, the team owners really provide little to the game that can not be replaced from other sources.

 

I think the owners simply add a 39.5% drag on the game. Its too bad that the fan interest was not really served by getting in replacement owners and the players divide up the team owner share between giving them what they want (more $) and lowering ticket prices.

[K-9]

... I think the owners simply add a 39.5% drag on the game. Its too bad that the fan interest was not really served by getting in replacement owners and the players divide up the team owner share between giving them what they want (more $) and lowering ticket prices.

 

With all due respect, WTF are you talking about? Seriously. I have absolutely no idea.

 

GO BILLS!!!