Turk71 Posted March 30, 2020 Share Posted March 30, 2020 Eric Reid calls for probe, revote over post-ballot changes to CBA Facebook Twitter Facebook Messenger Email 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaCrispy Posted March 30, 2020 Share Posted March 30, 2020 Yowza!!!! ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatdrinks Posted March 30, 2020 Share Posted March 30, 2020 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. 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Otreply Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 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. 2 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bferra13 Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 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 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Virgil Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 This will get him a new contract...... 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cal Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 He just like the attention and thinks he is some sort of activist 8 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njbuff Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 He is crybaby Colin 2.0 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tuco Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 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? 3 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wppete Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 This guy is a complete headcase. Looking forward to not hearing about him anymore. He’s done in the NFL. 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ethan in Cleveland Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigBillsFan Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 The idea people don't know what they are signing applies to every mortgage, insurance policy, and marriage. 2 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 (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 March 31, 2020 by Koko78 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rochesterfan Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 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 Facebook Twitter Facebook Messenger Email 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJS Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rochesterfan Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 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. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warcodered Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Turk Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 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. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warcodered Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rochesterfan Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 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 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turk71 Posted March 31, 2020 Author Share Posted March 31, 2020 1 hour 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. If you are referring to my comment after the article I wasn't blaming the NFL only, when I said they I meant both sides. The owners and the NFLPA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Florida Bills Fanatic Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 I have negotiated many labor contracts for a large corporation. Language changes that someone decides to add after a ratification vote has taken place are not part of the contract. The original language as signed off by the parties is the only valid and binding contract between the parties. A later version with language added after the ratification vote is not a valid contract but it does NOT invalidate the original contract that was ratified by the NFLPA rank and file vote and accepted by the league owners. The foregoing would also apply to secret documents or agreements made between the parties but not made a direct part of the contract. If people believe that they can enforce post ratification changes or invalidate the original contract language, they are dreaming. If the NFLPA provided inaccurate materials or falsified information to their members for consideration during their vote, the union could be facing future charges for violation of the National Labor Relations Act. Attorneys involved in this type of action will likely have problems with their respective bar associations. Without seeing the exact documents and having all of the details, it is difficult to know how valid any of these claims are. But I can say with certainty, this all reeks of incompetency within the NFLPA. Attorneys will smell blood, drag this into court, prolong the arguments over this, and burn up millions of dollars. Television contracts will not likely be negotiated if this issue is still hanging out there. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 You had a feeling it was a sham when Reid and attorneys didn't provide the fuller context of the alleged changes. Just saying that the benefits language was different isn't enough, but surely generated the headlines. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Otreply Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 1 hour ago, matter2003 said: 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. Well, the US women are putting up a much better product than the men, and have done so for a long time. It’s like any pro athlete wanting to get paid their worth ( Jordan Poyer ) 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augie Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 2 hours ago, BigBillsFan said: The idea people don't know what they are signing applies to every mortgage, insurance policy, and marriage. So far......my wife is sticking by it. I know some folks are wondering what is wrong with her. ?♂️ 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EasternOHBillsFan Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 2 hours ago, njbuff said: He is crybaby Colin 2.0 Colin 2.0? Kaepernick is not a crybaby, he had a valid social justice argument. 6 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Turk Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 35 minutes ago, Don Otreply said: Well, the US women are putting up a much better product than the men, and have done so for a long time. It’s like any pro athlete wanting to get paid their worth ( Jordan Poyer ) Well that's debatable honestly. The US Men face far greater competition on every level than the US Women's team. Have never seen the Men's team lose to a group of high school players which the Women's team does routinely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StHustle Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 2 hours ago, wppete said: This guy is a complete headcase. Looking forward to not hearing about him anymore. He’s done in the NFL. You a blackball supporter huh? Clearly has the talent to start on many rosters. Not a criminal. What's your deal? Oh yeah I think I know. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 53 minutes ago, Don Otreply said: Well, the US women are putting up a much better product than the men, and have done so for a long time. It’s like any pro athlete wanting to get paid their worth ( Jordan Poyer ) I put up a better product than my co-worker, but I agreed to a lesser salary than his because I bring in less money than he does and I didn't want to assume the risk of holding out for more. Then after I signed my employment contract I used back door methods to extort more from my employer than what we agreed to. It's righteous and just because he makes more than I do, so ***** him. I deserve it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mango Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, ALLEN-2-DIGGS-TD!! said: WaaaaaWaaaaaaWaaaaaaa!!!! Shut up and play football!!!! You guys make millions to play a game already. Yeah, I agree. Dance, Monkey, Dance! I definitely side with the guys who look more like me, and make waaaay more money to pay the guys all that money to just play a game....and generate Billions in revenue and profit. SO MUCH ANGER!!! Edited March 31, 2020 by Mango 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watkins101 Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 2 hours ago, matter2003 said: 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. There's some misconception with the whole women's soccer team's demands. I believe that a large part had to do with wanting equal access to facilities, which they did not have. It should also be noted that the women were payed more than the men, as the men have a lower base salary, but large bonuses for winning, which they don't do nearly as much. The women have a higher base salary, but smaller bonuses for winning the world cup. The argument is if the men and the women won the cup, the men would be payed astronomically more- but that did not happen. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mango Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 2 minutes ago, Watkins101 said: There's some misconception with the whole women's soccer team's demands. I believe that a large part had to do with wanting equal access to facilities, which they did not have. It should also be noted that the women were payed more than the men, as the men have a lower base salary, but large bonuses for winning, which they don't do nearly as much. The women have a higher base salary, but smaller bonuses for winning the world cup. The argument is if the men and the women won the cup, the men would be payed astronomically more- but that did not happen. Also almost every America could name a women’s team athlete from the last 20 years. Mia Hamm, Rapino, Abby Wambach, Alex Morgan. Brandy Chastain, Hope Solo, Akers (forgetting first name)Carli Lloyd; Julie Ertz, etc. That’s literally off the top of my head. Literally if it wasn’t for women like that, the men would NEVER even be in a situation where the National Governing Body is basically betting against you with money that the women’s teams has generated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njbuff Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 1 hour ago, EasternOHBillsFan said: Colin 2.0? Kaepernick is not a crybaby, he had a valid social justice argument. What is his valid SJW argument? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo Barbarian Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 I thought former players were getting better benefits?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mountain Man Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 Pointless. If there was a revote it'd be a far bigger yes vote anyway. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malazan Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 Reid is throwing a temper tantrum because he didn't get what he wants and he is invalidating any arguments he had about unfair treatment by trying to use this as a platform for a re-vote. It's deceptive and dishonest. He knows it and while he had some valid points is showing that he was simply using those points for his own self-interest. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poleshifter Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 8 hours ago, Cal said: He just like the attention and thinks he is some sort of activist That was my immediate thought when I saw Reid's name. But look at the change in wording, from "after" to "before" a certain date. That is a significant change. I'm not a lawyer either, but you can not change contract language AFTER it has been approved. Reid appears to be right in this case. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aristocrat Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 This is the guy who said he got drug tested like 30 times and the nfl was like we only did it once so someone else must be testing you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CSBill Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 Really, I don't care. No one is making any NFL player, play. And no one compels an owner to own. Just like I don't care about who owns Apple and who works for them. Just give me a good product; a good game, a great computer. If you don't like working for the NFL, or the computer giant, so work somewhere else. Mr. Reid, you are not going to get much sympathy from the average American worker these days. Your union problems is a top tier first-world problem, which means they are totally irrelevant to 99.999% of the rest of the world. While I certainly am all for any laborer getting all they can--just like I try to do, but at the end of the day, it is your problem, not ours. Does he really think the average fan is going to rise up in solidarity with him and boycott the NFL? The more I think about this, they more ludicrous it is. Go away Ed, go away. . . . Unless, of course, McBeane signs you, then we got your back! ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark80 Posted March 31, 2020 Share Posted March 31, 2020 8 hours ago, Don Otreply said: Well, the US women are putting up a much better product than the men, and have done so for a long time. It’s like any pro athlete wanting to get paid their worth ( Jordan Poyer ) Oh please. The men would destroy them in a game. Absolutely destroy them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts