Jump to content

Eric Reid Demanding Investigation and Revote on CBA


Turk71

Recommended Posts

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 by Turk71
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Rico said:

Eric Reid = :lol::lol::lol:

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 by Turk71
  • Awesome! (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Thank you (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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..

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by DrDawkinstein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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’? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Mango
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...