GG Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todd Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todd Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete This Account Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 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). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 (edited) 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete This Account Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Cubed Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scrappy Posted July 22, 2011 Author Share Posted July 22, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete This Account Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hplarrm Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 ... 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!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts