Jump to content
Turk71

Eric Reid Demanding Investigation and Revote on CBA

Recommended Posts

Eric Reid calls for probe, revote over post-ballot changes to CBA

2:00 PM PT
  • ESPN News Services

Free-agent safety Eric Reid wants the NFL's new collective bargaining agreement invalidated over language added after ratification of the pact earlier this month.

He is calling for an investigation and a revote.

In a letter to the NFLPA on Monday, Reid's lawyers said language posted on the players' association's website after passage of the agreement by a 1,019-959 vote on March 15 contains language different from the one that the players signed off on.

The new CBA is set to begin with the upcoming 2020 season and extend through 2030.

The letter from attorneys Ben Meiselas and Ray Genco highlights a difference in wording in the section about the league's disability plan that affects hundreds, and potentially thousands, of ex-players who applied for Social Security disability insurance payments before Jan. 1, 2015. In the version the players received and approved, those offsets applied only to players who applied after Jan. 1, 2015.

In a series of tweets Monday, Reid, a vocal opponent of the agreement, provided screenshots of the CBA agreement that showed the language added after players approved the deal.

The NFL declined comment and the NFLPA told ESPN it is withholding comment until its attorneys have had a chance to review the pertinent information.

Meiselas told The Associated Press by phone Monday that the discrepancy was discovered when lawyers were "working with families of disabled players to guide them through the process."

"We've been obviously critical of the CBA from the outset because it takes from disabled players. And so in advising them, we were looking at it and pointing out where they had issues and where they were going to be likely getting less money," Meiselas said. "And then we saw it, and we go, 'I don't remember seeing this in Paragraph B.'"

Meiselas questioned why the language was added and why the NFL and players' union weren't transparent about the change.

"And so Eric's letter demands the invalidation and an investigation and a revote because how do you stick in language that players didn't know they were voting for?" Meiselas said. "It's perplexing and concerning even if the changes were minor that there was no transparency and no explanation. But here, the changes are major and drastically and dramatically impact disability benefits to players."

He said a revote seems like "the only logical answer."

"When there's a potential manipulation of the language to an agreement, what's the alternative?" Meiselas said, adding, "We're waiting on an explanation at this point."

-------------------------------------'---------------------------------

  I'm not a lawyer but adding things to an agreement after it is signed does not seem lawful to me. Personally I found it disgusting that they agreed to take away a large portion of disability benefits from former players in the first place. The owners stand to save only 10 mil by diminishing these benefits, a drop in the bucket compared to NFL revenue. Pretty sure this has not been posted already, if it has please delete.

  • Haha (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Veiled attempt to get a revote for a CBA he doesn’t like. Maybe he was one of the many who did not vote in the first place ? Anyway, I’m highly skeptical of anything originating with Reid. Don’t trust that guy at all. 

  • Like (+1) 8
  • Meh 1
  • Skeptical 1
  • Confused 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the language change happened after the vote ( which it appears to be the case) it violates the CBA and a re-vote is now a must, just shows you cannot trust billionaires to keep their word, not that that is shocking by any means...the slip shod health care for retired players is shameful, being that it is of no consequential financial burden for the owners to not revoke their previous funding.  This shines a bad light on the NFL as a whole.  GREED is an ugly trait that many people are afflicted with.

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Meh 1
  • Skeptical 1
  • Awesome! (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Don Otreply said:

If the language change happened after the vote ( which it appears to be the case) it violates the CBA and a re-vote is now a must, just shows you cannot trust billionaires to keep their word, not that that is shocking by any means...the slip shod health care for retired players is shameful, being that it is of no consequential financial burden for the owners to not revoke their previous funding.  This shines a bad light on the NFL as a whole.  GREED is an ugly trait that many people are afflicted with.

Haha yes, because the millionaires are so much better. Let's see what happens here before making accusations 

  • Like (+1) 3
  • Awesome! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This will get him a new contract......

  • Haha (+1) 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He just like the attention and thinks he is some sort of activist 

  • Like (+1) 8
  • Meh 2
  • Confused 1
  • Thanks! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Time will tell. It's one thing to be unhappy with a CBA that you voted against but were outnumbered. I've been there a number of times. But if what he says is true - and it seems unlikely he would make it up - this is some serious bull cookies on the part of the NFL. 

 

Of course they will say it was a clerical error and the wrong copy was sent out or some other nonsense.  Then again, they wouldn't really think all 2,000 players and a whole lot of retired players wouldn't notice something like that  . . . . would they?

  • Like (+1) 3
  • Awesome! (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This guy is a complete headcase. Looking forward to not hearing about him anymore. He’s done in the NFL. 

  • Like (+1) 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The players voted on the framework of the contract.

The official deal was still being written.  The NFL can not just change the wording without the consent of the NFLPA.  Both sets of lawyers will be crafting the final wording of the document.  

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea people don't know what they are signing applies to every mortgage, insurance policy, and marriage.

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Thanks! (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Turk71 said:
I'm not a lawyer but adding things to an agreement after it is signed does not seem lawful to me.

 

It's not.

 

Though if it was a minor edit (like fixing typos, etc.) that did not change the meaning of the section, his complaints are going nowhere.

Edited by Koko78
  • Like (+1) 2
  • Thanks! (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Don Otreply said:

If the language change happened after the vote ( which it appears to be the case) it violates the CBA and a re-vote is now a must, just shows you cannot trust billionaires to keep their word, not that that is shocking by any means...the slip shod health care for retired players is shameful, being that it is of no consequential financial burden for the owners to not revoke their previous funding.  This shines a bad light on the NFL as a whole.  GREED is an ugly trait that many people are afflicted with.

 

1 hour ago, Turk71 said:

Eric Reid calls for probe, revote over post-ballot changes to CBA

2:00 PM PT
  • ESPN News Services

Free-agent safety Eric Reid wants the NFL's new collective bargaining agreement invalidated over language added after ratification of the pact earlier this month.

He is calling for an investigation and a revote.

In a letter to the NFLPA on Monday, Reid's lawyers said language posted on the players' association's website after passage of the agreement by a 1,019-959 vote on March 15 contains language different from the one that the players signed off on.

The new CBA is set to begin with the upcoming 2020 season and extend through 2030.

The letter from attorneys Ben Meiselas and Ray Genco highlights a difference in wording in the section about the league's disability plan that affects hundreds, and potentially thousands, of ex-players who applied for Social Security disability insurance payments before Jan. 1, 2015. In the version the players received and approved, those offsets applied only to players who applied after Jan. 1, 2015.

In a series of tweets Monday, Reid, a vocal opponent of the agreement, provided screenshots of the CBA agreement that showed the language added after players approved the deal.

The NFL declined comment and the NFLPA told ESPN it is withholding comment until its attorneys have had a chance to review the pertinent information.

Meiselas told The Associated Press by phone Monday that the discrepancy was discovered when lawyers were "working with families of disabled players to guide them through the process."

"We've been obviously critical of the CBA from the outset because it takes from disabled players. And so in advising them, we were looking at it and pointing out where they had issues and where they were going to be likely getting less money," Meiselas said. "And then we saw it, and we go, 'I don't remember seeing this in Paragraph B.'"

Meiselas questioned why the language was added and why the NFL and players' union weren't transparent about the change.

"And so Eric's letter demands the invalidation and an investigation and a revote because how do you stick in language that players didn't know they were voting for?" Meiselas said. "It's perplexing and concerning even if the changes were minor that there was no transparency and no explanation. But here, the changes are major and drastically and dramatically impact disability benefits to players."

He said a revote seems like "the only logical answer."

"When there's a potential manipulation of the language to an agreement, what's the alternative?" Meiselas said, adding, "We're waiting on an explanation at this point."

-------------------------------------'---------------------------------

  I'm not a lawyer but adding things to an agreement after it is signed does not seem lawful to me. Personally I found it disgusting that they agreed to take away a large portion of disability benefits from former players in the first place. The owners stand to save only 10 mil by diminishing these benefits, a drop in the bucket compared to NFL revenue. Pretty sure this has not been posted already, if it has please delete.


 

I do not understand at all the blame to the NFL above.  The NFLPA would of had to agree to the changes and they were a big part of cutting the benefits to get more money for active members.

 

The NFL in the last agreement wanted to work with the players to set up a large fund for former players, but the NFLPA rejected the matching dollars - it was more important to DeMaurice Smith to increase the money to the individual players.  My guess would be this is part of that again.  More money away from non-due paying former players and more money to current members.

 

The players and owners were still negotiating as the vote went on - I put a huge blame on the NFLPA for this and little blame on the NFL.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Tuco said:

Time will tell. It's one thing to be unhappy with a CBA that you voted against but were outnumbered. I've been there a number of times. But if what he says is true - and it seems unlikely he would make it up - this is some serious bull cookies on the part of the NFL. 

 

Of course they will say it was a clerical error and the wrong copy was sent out or some other nonsense.  Then again, they wouldn't really think all 2,000 players and a whole lot of retired players wouldn't notice something like that  . . . . would they?

That seems logical to me. Mistakes happen all the time. All it takes is an intern to send what he thought was the final draft but actually wasn't.

 

If the language was voted on, all they have to do is look at the discrepancy and change it to be in compliance with what was voted on. Not hard at all.

6 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:

 


 

I do not understand at all the blame to the NFL above.  The NFLPA would of had to agree to the changes and they were a big part of cutting the benefits to get more money for active members.

 

The NFL in the last agreement wanted to work with the players to set up a large fund for former players, but the NFLPA rejected the matching dollars - it was more important to DeMaurice Smith to increase the money to the individual players.  My guess would be this is part of that again.  More money away from non-due paying former players and more money to current members.

 

The players and owners were still negotiating as the vote went on - I put a huge blame on the NFLPA for this and little blame on the NFL.  

Not to mention the language was posted on the NFLPA website. The NFL doesn't control what the player's association puts in their website...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Don Otreply said:

If the language change happened after the vote ( which it appears to be the case) it violates the CBA and a re-vote is now a must, just shows you cannot trust billionaires to keep their word, not that that is shocking by any means...the slip shod health care for retired players is shameful, being that it is of no consequential financial burden for the owners to not revoke their previous funding.  This shines a bad light on the NFL as a whole.  GREED is an ugly trait that many people are afflicted with.


 

The NFL does seem to care, but they are not going to fund things for former players solely out of their money and they shouldn’t.  They expect the players to provide funds back also to keep the revenue split the same, but the NFLPA refused.

 

The NFL even offered in the previous negotiations if they would remove the money from the shared revenue- they would fund most of the benefits, but the NFLPA did not want the overall revenue to shrink - which lessens the amount the players get.

 

 

  • Thanks! (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Tuco said:

Time will tell. It's one thing to be unhappy with a CBA that you voted against but were outnumbered. I've been there a number of times. But if what he says is true - and it seems unlikely he would make it up - this is some serious bull cookies on the part of the NFL. 

 

Of course they will say it was a clerical error and the wrong copy was sent out or some other nonsense.  Then again, they wouldn't really think all 2,000 players and a whole lot of retired players wouldn't notice something like that  . . . . would they?

 

Just do what the US woman's soccer team does...complain about how unfair it is that they agreed to the contract and then try and force the governing body to redo it because of media pressure. They get the best of both worlds. They don't have to risk losing their guaranteed money by holding out and collectively bargained contracts mean nothing anymore in court apparently.

  • Like (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe rather than complain the highly principled Reid should quit.  
 

You are not happy - there is nothing in the CBA saying you have to play.  
 

Quit or Shut-up 

  • Like (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...