Eric Reid Demanding Investigation and Revote on CBA

[WideRightRevenge]

This guy just needs to get out of the league

 

 

[wppete]

7 hours ago, StHustle said:

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.

Complete Nonsense. 

[BillsFan17]

7 hours ago, StHustle said:

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.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2019/01/09/investigation-basically-calls-eric-reid-liar-over-drug-test-complaint/amp/

 

He is a fake, cry wolf, wanna be social justice warrior. The dude is a clown.

[Watkins101]

37 minutes ago, Mark80 said:

 

Oh please.  The men would destroy them in a game.  Absolutely destroy them.

Yes they would. But relative to their leagues, the women are leagues above the men.

[aristocrat]

15 minutes ago, Watkins101 said:

Yes they would. But relative to their leagues, the women are leagues above the men.

 

it's like saying the uconn women's team should be getting more money than the men;s team cause of all the titles they won. fact is the women's basketball doesn't bring in the ratings the mens team does.(yes i'm aware ncaa dont get paid just using a rough comparison).  The us women's teams didnt start to make money until only like 8 years ago and the mens team supported the women's team before that. I don't think you ever saw the men complain?  The women are obviously more successful on the field but the men's team will earn more just because worldwide the mens game makes so much more money.  Provided the men make the world cup this time.  I have no problem with the women going after more money but it just saying they should be paid equal to men isn't a fair argument they should be paid the same percentage of profits the mens team gets.

[Watkins101]

7 minutes ago, aristocrat said:

 

it's like saying the uconn women's team should be getting more money than the men;s team cause of all the titles they won. fact is the women's basketball doesn't bring in the ratings the mens team does.(yes i'm aware ncaa dont get paid just using a rough comparison).  The us women's teams didnt start to make money until only like 8 years ago and the mens team supported the women's team before that. I don't think you ever saw the men complain?  The women are obviously more successful on the field but the men's team will earn more just because worldwide the mens game makes so much more money.  Provided the men make the world cup this time.  I have no problem with the women going after more money but it just saying they should be paid equal to men isn't a fair argument they should be paid the same percentage of profits the mens team gets.

From 2016-2018 the women outearned the men. 

[Don Otreply]

1 hour ago, Mark80 said:

 

Oh please.  The men would destroy them in a game.  Absolutely destroy them.

Hardly the point, and you know that,  the men don’t win anything substantial, the women win world championships, who is representing our country better, and for a longer time period? It sure ain’t the mens soccer team. Comparatively the women’s team is the Patriots, and men’s team is the Cleveland Browns. 
Results speak for themselves. 

[mjt328]

11 hours 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.

 

If Reid is correct (and the contract language was changed after the vote), that is a ridiculously shady move by the NFL owners and should absolutely invalidate the CBA.

 

However, you shouldn't use something like this to make blanket statements about anyone.  Being rich and successful does not make someone evil, greedy or untrustworthy.  Many billionaires are extremely generous and giving.

 

[Don Otreply]

Just now, mjt328 said:

 

If Reid is correct (and the contract language was changed after the vote), that is a ridiculously shady move by the NFL owners and should absolutely invalidate the CBA.

 

However, you shouldn't use something like this to make blanket statements about anyone.  Being rich and successful does not make someone evil, greedy or untrustworthy.  Many billionaires are extremely generous and giving.

 

I said “ many” not all. 

[aristocrat]

11 minutes ago, Watkins101 said:

From 2016-2018 the women outearned the men. 

 

i know. first time and a big reason was women had the cup and men didn't .  that's why i mentioned as long as the men make the cup. but like i said the women should get the same percentage of profits as the men.   what happens when the men make the next cup and get a huge bonus because they made it?  do the women get a cut of that? no

[Rochesterfan]

9 minutes ago, mjt328 said:

 

If Reid is correct (and the contract language was changed after the vote), that is a ridiculously shady move by the NFL owners and should absolutely invalidate the CBA.

 

However, you shouldn't use something like this to make blanket statements about anyone.  Being rich and successful does not make someone evil, greedy or untrustworthy.  Many billionaires are extremely generous and giving.

 

 

Once again - why are you calling it a Shady move by the owners?  The NFL and the NFLPA were in negotiations.  The suit is against the NFLPA assuming they did not provide the info to the voters.  The NFL did nothing wrong at all.

 

Nothing at all suggests the NFL did anything at all.  The suit alleges the NFLPA provided incorrect information to the players to vote - not the NFL.  
 

It should not invalidate the CBA if the NFL did nothing wrong.  They negotiated in good faith and it is up to the NFLPA to provide the information for their members.  If anything it should not impact the CBA, but it should create an opportunity for the players to remove the NFLPA executives and get a new negotiation team for 2030.  
 

Overall from what I have read - you are talking about a very minor point that impacts offsets against SSDI - this will be handled and if they re-vote - I can see the owners actually working to take back more funds and the players get an even worse deal that they will accept.

[Big Turk]

8 hours 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.

 

The chances of the men winning the world cup with the state of men's soccer competition are slim to none. The women face far far less competition as many countries women's sports programs are in their infancy and there are far fewer entrants into the World Cup of which half are a joke.

[Mr. WEO]

44 minutes ago, matter2003 said:

 

The chances of the men winning the world cup with the state of men's soccer competition are slim to none. The women face far far less competition as many countries women's sports programs are in their infancy and there are far fewer entrants into the World Cup of which half are a joke.

 

In the last 4 USWNT World Cup wins, which semi-finals and finals opponents that they faced were from countries where soccer is in it's infancy?

 

In the last 30 years:  

 

8 World Cups: won 4, finished 2nd once and 3rd 3 times

 

6 Olympics: 4 Golds, 1 Silver

 

That's 30 years of sustained excellence.  Your argument therefore, that they play many countries where soccer is in its "infancy" makes no sense whatsoever.

[Buffalo Boy]

Easy to hold out now?

[Big Turk]

26 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

In the last 4 USWNT World Cup wins, which semi-finals and finals opponents that they faced were from countries where soccer is in it's infancy?

 

In the last 30 years:  

 

8 World Cups: won 4, finished 2nd once and 3rd 3 times

 

6 Olympics: 4 Golds, 1 Silver

 

That's 30 years of sustained excellence.  Your argument therefore, that they play many countries where soccer is in its "infancy" makes no sense whatsoever.

 

How many teams in the Women's World Cup have legit chances to win the World Cup? Maybe 3 or 4? A lot more Men's teams can legit win the world cup.  In addition there are only 24 entrants in the Women's World Cup versus 32 in the Men's which is soon to be 48.

 

In the women's qualifying group for CONCACAF, basically only 2 teams had any chance whatsoever to win the region, US and Canada. The US won their group outscoring teams 18-0 and Canada won theirs outscoring teams 17-1. In the semi-finals the US beat Jamaica 6-0 and Canada beat Panama 7-0.  Great competition huh?  Then the US beat Canada 2-0 in the final. Compare this to US Men's CONCACAF Qualifying.

 

The Women's team routinely loses to high school boys teams.  How good can they really be?

Edited March 31, 2020 by matter2003

[Mark80]

1 hour ago, Don Otreply said:

Hardly the point, and you know that,  the men don’t win anything substantial, the women win world championships, who is representing our country better, and for a longer time period? It sure ain’t the mens soccer team. Comparatively the women’s team is the Patriots, and men’s team is the Cleveland Browns. 
Results speak for themselves. 

 

The point is, its not comparing apples to apples.  They want the same play to dominate a significantly lesser sport.  Guess what, if the mens team was in that sport it would dominate the womens team as well as all the others.  If they want to be paid the same then they should be playing with the men in one league.  But claiming the same pay, same resources, same opportunities etc., for a totally distinct league is craziness.  Then they make a huge deal about it, but don't have the guts to boycott the World Cup or anything meaningful at all really.  Please.

Edited March 31, 2020 by Mark80

[mikemac2001]

19 minutes ago, Mark80 said:

 

The point is, its not comparing apples to apples.  They want the same play to dominate a significantly lesser sport.  Guess what, if the mens team was in that sport it would dominate the womens team as well as all the others.  If they want to be paid the same then they should be playing with the men in one league.  But claiming the same pay, same resources, same opportunities etc., for a totally distinct league is craziness.  Then they make a huge deal about it, but don't have the guts to boycott the World Cup or anything meaningful at all really.  Please.

And they lost to a u15 team so ya they deserve it

[Don Otreply]

31 minutes ago, Mark80 said:

 

The point is, its not comparing apples to apples.  They want the same play to dominate a significantly lesser sport.  Guess what, if the mens team was in that sport it would dominate the womens team as well as all the others.  If they want to be paid the same then they should be playing with the men in one league.  But claiming the same pay, same resources, same opportunities etc., for a totally distinct league is craziness.  Then they make a huge deal about it, but don't have the guts to boycott the World Cup or anything meaningful at all really.  Please.

Nothin but luv for ya, but you’re a bit confused comparing apples to apples is how one compares things. Oh and buy the way women’s soccer is already a totally different league, and they are dominant in that league, on the other hand, the US men’s team is not very good, and is considered an afterthought by world soccer. 

Edited March 31, 2020 by Don Otreply

[StHustle]

3 hours ago, BillsFan17 said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2019/01/09/investigation-basically-calls-eric-reid-liar-over-drug-test-complaint/amp/

 

He is a fake, cry wolf, wanna be social justice warrior. The dude is a clown.

 

So he shouldnt play in the league again because of what? Try to be honest. Thats all i ask from your type. Be proud of what you believe in and stop masking it. Man up.

[Richard Noggin]

11 hours ago, EasternOHBillsFan said:

 

Colin 2.0? Kaepernick is not a crybaby, he had a valid social justice argument.

Don't rile them up. Social justice as a valid and important subset of American civic life triggers some people who don't wish to hear complaints from historically marginalized peoples. Let's just stick to the NFL. 

[Turk71]

Here is a link for those who don't know why many players were unhappy with this deal. Current players benefit greatly while older disabled players benefits are slashed. The changes made after signing made it even worse evidently.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8117425/amp/NFL-players-union-Tom-Brady-SLAMMED-new-collective-bargaining-deal.html&ved=2ahUKEwjS_PSu-cToAhWJr54KHZxiA3gQFjAAegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw1wE27UkiWHRxeF2C0WJXyx&ampcf=1

@Rico just curious what you found so amusing? 

 

Edited March 31, 2020 by Turk71

[H2o]

Eric Reid demanding....... 

[Rico]

3 minutes ago, Turk71 said:

@Rico just curious what you found so amusing? 

 

Eric Reid =

[DrDawkinstein]

Classic TBD. Somehow turning a bash-Eric-Reid thread into a bash-womens-team thread while they're at it. Almost like there is a theme there.

 

Anyways...

 

Good for Eric Reid for being willing to stand up for former players.

[Turk71]

7 minutes ago, Rico said:

Eric Reid =

I get that. Football players are only supposed to play football, not stand up (or kneel down) for social causes. Hilarious.

 He's right to stand up for the disabled players.

Edited March 31, 2020 by Turk71

[GG]

45 minutes ago, Turk71 said:

I get that. Football players are only supposed to play football, not stand up (or kneel down) for social causes. Hilarious.

 He's right to stand up for the disabled players.

 

The discussion may have eluded you in the past, but the point is that the players were pushing their personal social causes on their employer's time and using their employer's platform to send a message.  Then they got indignant when the employer asked them to stop.  The players are perfectly free to pursue their causes on their own time, using their own resources.

[RyanC883]

16 hours 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.

 

you cannot add language to a CBA after the vote.  In that case, the remedy is NOT a re-vote on the CBA, but rather, no arbitrator would abide by the language when the union files a grievance.  it's very difficult to have a re-vote on a CBA.  

 

Also, the language implying that this was done nefariously is ridiculous.  Typos often happen before the final CBA is distributed.  The Union would be all over a typo and it would be fixed.  

7 hours ago, Poleshifter said:

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.

 

 

 

Reid is WRONG.  it's true you cannot change contract language after approval.  But the remedy that Reid wants (assuming the language was changed) is not appropriate.  Reid is clearly trying to get what he wants, which is the agreed upon CBA nullified.  

[Don Otreply]

1 minute ago, RyanC883 said:

 

you cannot add language to a CBA after the vote.  In that case, the remedy is NOT a re-vote on the CBA, but rather, no arbitrator would abide by the language when the union files a grievance.  it's very difficult to have a re-vote on a CBA.  

 

Also, the language implying that this was done nefariously is ridiculous.  Typos often happen before the final CBA is distributed.  The Union would be all over a typo and it would be fixed.  

Maybe, maybe not..

 

 

[DrDawkinstein]

7 minutes ago, RyanC883 said:

 

 

Reid is WRONG.  it's true you cannot change contract language after approval.  But the remedy that Reid wants (assuming the language was changed) is not appropriate.  Reid is clearly trying to get what he wants, which is the agreed upon CBA nullified.  

 

What is the right remedy then? Simply change the wording back to how it was supposed to be? (Seriously asking)

 

And I dont think any of us know what "Reid wants" as if it is all about him.

 

From the OP, it sounds to me that Reid had hired independent lawyers, on his own, to digest and translate the terms of the CBA to former players who are now disabled. And he is providing that assistance to former players out of his pocket.

 

And thanks to their work, they determined language had changed from what the players were last shown, to what was signed.

 

Seems like he is working hard to protect guys like Darryl Talley, and Jim Richter. I'm sure Kent Hull could have used some help too. Even Joe DeLamielleure has spoken out against this agreement. So it isnt just Eric Reid.

Edited March 31, 2020 by DrDawkinstein

[RyanC883]

1 minute ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

What is the right remedy then? Simply change the wording back to how it was supposed to be? (Seriously asking)

 

correct.  If there is a debate over the allegedly added language, it would not be considered legally binding.  Instead of a redo over the entire contract, an arbitrator likely strikes this language should it ever go to arbitration. 

 

It's similar to you buy something, then add language to the purchase contract.  The purchase and the underlying contract are not now void, only the additional language is void.  

[DrDawkinstein]

3 minutes ago, RyanC883 said:

 

correct.  If there is a debate over the allegedly added language, it would not be considered legally binding.  Instead of a redo over the entire contract, an arbitrator likely strikes this language should it ever go to arbitration. 

 

It's similar to you buy something, then add language to the purchase contract.  The purchase and the underlying contract are not now void, only the additional language is void.  

 

Fair enough. Let's see if they are willing to change it back, and how Reid reacts to that before we think it's "all about him". Which so far, I dont see, considering who he is fighting for.

[GoBills808]

1 hour ago, GG said:

 

The discussion may have eluded you in the past, but the point is that the players were pushing their personal social causes on their employer's time and using their employer's platform to send a message.  Then they got indignant when the employer asked them to stop.  The players are perfectly free to pursue their causes on their own time, using their own resources.

‘Personal social causes’? 

[GG]

2 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

‘Personal social causes’? 

 

Whether you agree with it or not, they are personal grievances by the individual players.

[GoBills808]

Just now, GG said:

 

Whether you agree with it or not, they are personal grievances by the individual players.

Interesting. I suppose in your mind Frederick Douglas’s was also a personal grievance.

 

Your attempt to marginalize legitimate means of expression is transparent. And noted.

[Mango]

3 hours ago, Mark80 said:

 

The point is, its not comparing apples to apples.  They want the same play to dominate a significantly lesser sport.  Guess what, if the mens team was in that sport it would dominate the womens team as well as all the others.  If they want to be paid the same then they should be playing with the men in one league.  But claiming the same pay, same resources, same opportunities etc., for a totally distinct league is craziness.  Then they make a huge deal about it, but don't have the guts to boycott the World Cup or anything meaningful at all really.  Please.

 

Who drives more revenue to USA Soccer? The mens team or the womens team? 

 

You can only compete against who shows up. Your point that if the women want the same pay as men, they should play in the mens league is absurd. But I bet you already knew that....

 

They also don;t play in "totally distinct leagues" They are governed domestically by their NGB, USA Soccer, who manages the entire budget for both teams. USA Soccer then rolls up to FIFA, who manages international competition for both women and men. There is nothing distinct about these leagues.

Edited March 31, 2020 by Mango

[GG]

2 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

Interesting. I suppose in your mind Frederick Douglas’s was also a personal grievance.

 

Your attempt to marginalize legitimate means of expression is transparent. And noted.

 

Did you just compare slavery to free men who sign $100 million contracts?

 

Again, they have the full freedom of expression.   On their own time and on their own dime.

[GoBills808]

4 minutes ago, GG said:

 

Did you just compare slavery to free men who sign $100 million contracts?

 

Again, they have the full freedom of expression.   On their own time and on their own dime.

‘Personal social grievance’ were your words. Now you want to run away from them.

 

Explain how a grievance that affects society can ever be objectively construed as ‘personal. 

[GG]

1 minute ago, GoBills808 said:

‘Personal social grievance’ were your words. Now you want to run away from them.

 

Explain how a grievance that affects society can ever be objectively construed as ‘personal. 

 

Every grievance starts off on a personal basis.  You seem to make the immediate jump that Kaep's and Reid's grievances with the system are scocietal and institutionalized.  Many people disagree.  The two had an opportunity to mobilize more players, but couldn't even get consensus within the NFLPA, let alone the public at large.  But thanks to favorable press coverage, we're supposed to accept their personal opinions as a matter of fact.  

 

They are not. Reid & Kaepernick are still free to voice their opinion and organize more people to their cause in the way countless others have done in centuries that have preceded them.  Yet, they aren't making any progress.  Why is that?

[Mango]

13 minutes ago, GG said:

 

Did you just compare slavery to free men who sign $100 million contracts?

 

Again, they have the full freedom of expression.   On their own time and on their own dime.

 

Being treated differently because of the color of your skin has nothing to do with income. 

 

Also Frederick Douglas ended up being pretty wealthy. So were his complaints and views no longer valid? 

[DrDawkinstein]

6 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

‘Personal social grievance’ were your words. Now you want to run away from them.

 

Explain how a grievance that affects society can ever be objectively construed as ‘personal. 

 

Keep in mind, youre commenting in a thread where it was just argued that since the Womens team couldnt beat the Mens team head to head they dont deserve to be paid as much.

 

That said, I agree with GG that players are free to do what they need/want to do on their own time.

 

However, I dont think the National Anthem should be played before sporting events as it is, let alone force the players to be our there for it (new as of 2009), let alone be forced to stand for it.