Ursa Majoris Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 i'm kind of wondering that about his whole post Indeed. I just selected that as an example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scooby Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 have they ever considered what scooby wants--last 10 yrs scooby was knee deep in drafting at this point in the season, salary cap, splitting $$ blah blah blah, I want a FF season, also to watch the cowboys back in action:) j/k (well not about the cowboys & ff)....luv yall Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUMbotron Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 mortreport Chris Mortensen Good news. Players wrapped call, then leadership received final details. Vote can come tomorrow if they can satisfy a finishing detail or 2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 The players are BSing the world and ESPN is accepting it since they are too stupid to understand how this process works. Â Â And you know better, despite all the combined connections all the combined employees at ESPN have at their disposal right now? Â It frankly wouldn't be a sretch in my mind that the owners did this for PR, and the players aren't aware of the details. In fact, unless this was a proposal put forth by both sides then this is highly unusual to say the least. Â But acting like you know more than people who ARE in the know is just dumb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditkaless Wonders Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 (edited) How do you know? Â Â Because I am a lawyer and I have negotiated complex contracts with a public employee union. It is inconcievable that lawyers for the players did not have an electronic copy of the agreement. One they could have instantly compared with the owners copy before finishing their negotiation. It is the very nature of computer files that they are instantly comparable word for word, space for space, indent for indent, puncuation for punctuation. The electronic file itself would have a creation date appended to it. That matter would be readily uncoverable by any forensic computer specialist. Hell, it could be uncovered by most seventh graders nowadays. It would be malpractice for them to have emerged from the negotiations without a copy. The players stance at this point is inconcievable. Â Lets look at it this way. Negotiations had concluded. The owners announced they were going to take a vote on the proposal. Had there been none, the players representatives, not shy thus far in putting forth their case directly or indirectly as they posture they are maintaining negotiation confidentiality, would have raised in the ample time available, that there was no proposal. They did not do so. They would have howled about the bad faith about what was about to occur. They did not do so. The players story at this time does not comport with reality of labor negotiations as they have been known for 20 years, and as they themselves have conducted matters in the present instance. Â No, the players reps knew exactly what the owners had. they had a copy which means they have all the copies they want. They knew a vote was going to occur on the matter and they sat back and watched the vote without a word. They allowed this to happen. They wanted it to happen. Upon seeing the unified front of the owners they had second thoughts about whether that indicated they did not push hard enough. They got cold feet. They concocted this cock and bull story about needing to see the one and only copy. Edited July 22, 2011 by Ditkaless Wonders Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Because I am a lawyer and I have negotiated complex contracts with a public employee union. It is inconcievable that lawyers for the players did not have an electronic copy of the agreement. One they could have instantly compared with the owners copy before finishing their negotiation. It is the very nature of computer files that they are instantly comparable word for word, space for space, indent for indent, puncuation for punctuation. The electronic file itself would have a creation date appended to it. That matter would be readily uncoverable by any forensic computer specialist. Hell, it could be uncovered by most seventh graders nowadays. It would be malpractice for them to have emerged from the negotiations without a copy. The players stance at this point is inconcievable. Lets look at it this way. Negotiations had concluded. The owners announced they were going to take a vote on the proposal. Had there been none, the players representatives, not shy thus far in putting forth their case directly or indirectly as they posture they are maintaining negotiation confidentiality, would have raised in the ample time available, that there was no proposal. They did not do so. They would have howled about the bad faith about what was about to occur. They did not do so. The players story at this time does not comport with reality of labor negotiations as they have been known for 20 years, and as they themselves have conducted matters in the present instance.  No, the players reps knew exactly what the owners had. they had a copy which means they have all the copies they want. They knew a vote was going to occur on the matter and they sat back and watched the vote without a word. They allowed this to happen. They wanted it to happen. Upon seeing the unified front of the owners they had second thoughts about whether that indicated they did not push hard enough. They got cold feet. They concocted this cock and bull story about needing to see the one and only copy.   Assumptions, most of this post. And LMAO that the owners weren't unified before tonight. They've been unified this whole time or are you just now paying attention? Because judging by your post the answer appears yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditkaless Wonders Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Assumptions, sure, I suppose so. Much like I assume the law of gravity will hold in my home overnight, and that tomorrow the sun will rise in the east. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitpdub Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Here's an opinion: Â The players are individuals and they all don't necessarily trust their player reps, and they all don't unilaterally trust D. Smith. They want to flex their individual opinions and be heard. The player reps job is/was to detail all the issues that were negotiated and there's always going to be a dissenter and someone who will cries foul. The owners came out of their meeting grinning that it was a done deal, they praised Roger D and D. Smith like they got it done themselves and left the players and their individual ego's out. It's really hard to believe the players don't know all the details of the contract, and its hard to believe their hired attorneys would withhold information. Â I don't think its the contents of the negotiations and concessions, its just how the message was relayed to them and visual body language they saw from the owners that made them think that they went down too softly. They're saving a little face by stalling and playing a game back with the owners. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolverines Fan Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 mortreport Chris MortensenGood news. Players wrapped call, then leadership received final details. Vote can come tomorrow if they can satisfy a finishing detail or 2. Â Not to argue, but they had the union rep from the Bills, I forget his name, on ESPN. He said no vote was scheduled for Friday. They pressed him on it, and he stuck to his guns. I hope Mort is right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Watching ESPN. They are reporting that the players have not even seen the proposal. They are then backing the players saying it is outrageous that the owners have not sent them the proposal, as if there is only one and the players lawyers don't have copies of the agreed upon document. The players are BSing the world and ESPN is accepting it since they are too stupid to understand how this process works. There are hundreds of copies of the document. The players knew the owners were goin into a ratifying vote and said nothing until the vote was taken. If there was no deal, or if they did not have a copy they would have said something knowing a vote was pending. This BS posutring is the players seeking a bite at the apple after the deal has been done. Had they not had a deal, and a copy thereof they would have said something. No, they wanted to see the vote and then restart negotiations.  At this point, were I an owner, I would seek to dump any of their remaining SHAM WOW! at my facility into the street. I would begin hiring not scabs, or temporary replacement players, but rather my new team. Thee players, their reps, and their lawyers have pulled some unconscionable SHAM WOW! here. Seems like a rather bold conclusion. I see this could be one of a number of things:  One, like you said. The players tricked the owners into thinking that everything was cool and got them to vote on an agreement they had no intention of agreeing upon. Mind you, I don't exactly what there is to gain. Sure, you get a barometer of where the owners stand, but at what price? Now you've just pissed them off.  Orrrr. The owners just decided to go ahead and vote on something they knew the players hadn't approved just to inspire the sort of knee-jerk reaction you had above. To make it look like the players are changing the game at the last minute.  Or, hell, maybe the owners are just saying, "What the hell. We're all on board with this. What say you? We can end this right here and now." Perhaps trying to seize the moment in light of the bickering between players.  Do any of us really know which? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WJW Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Not to argue, but they had the union rep from the Bills, I forget his name, on ESPN. He said no vote was scheduled for Friday. They pressed him on it, and he stuck to his guns. I hope Mort is right. Â Yeah, the players seemed like such an informed bunch last night. I believe they will indeed vote to ratify the deal by the end of the day today. Now recertification of the union is a whole other matter. For some strange reason the D.Smith team seems to want a paper ballot vote by the players. Paper votes would be turned in to their team reps when they show up for camp. What is this, the 80's? Ever heard of digital ballots? E-mail? Get the vote done and get back to work. Isn't that what you all keep telling us fans you want? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WJW Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 And another thing... (Sorry to vent, but last night was the last straw for me) The players kept saying they haven't seen the deal, then in the next breath they'd say the owners put things in that weren't agreed on. Well which is it??? And when pressed couldn't name a single thing they felt was put in but not agreed on. Â And do you really expect us to believe that you (the player rep that was in DC for a meeting the day before to specifically brief you on the deal) haven't seen the deal? Come on! If after all these months of negotiation (negotiations that key members of your rep team participated in) if you truly haven't seen the deal (a completely inconceivable notion) then your beef is with the D.Smith team, not the owners. Â And if the owners can review the deal and vote on it the same day, why is it so hard for you to do the same. Aren't you guys business men on par with the owners? Don't you guys believe you are "equal business partners"? Well then let's see it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Double Agent Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 And LMAO that the owners weren't unified before tonight. They've been unified this whole time or are you just now paying attention? Â Were they? I thought there was disagreement on revenue sharing between teams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 (edited) And if the owners can review the deal and vote on it the same day, why is it so hard for you to do the same. Aren't you guys business men on par with the owners? Don't you guys believe you are "equal business partners"? Well then let's see it. Â This definitely irks me. The players keep saying that they'll only certify on their own watch, and that "this is not our deadline"... No, this isn't YOUR deadline, it's THE deadline. You're all about to start losing $250 million a week if preseason games get lost (not to mention increasing the frustration and alienation of fans and everyone), so it doesn't seem too unreasonable for the owners to say "we agree to this deal if you guys get your butts in gear and meet these necessary steps before we all start losing money"... Â I don't buy that their forcing to do the union to do anything, other than expressing their sense of urgency (which is very real) to get this resolved ASAP. Edited July 22, 2011 by delusions of granduer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WJW Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Update: Looks like I'm wrong in my thinking there will be a vote today by the players. It appears that the CBA is not what's at issue here. It appears the players are not comfortable with the language of the global settlement (the rolling up of all the outstanding legal cases) and the union recertification process/time frame. It also appears a portion of the players are balking at some post-recertification issues like player discipline and drug testing. Â Looks like we will continue to be in a waiting pattern going into the weekend and we'll see if teams actually open their facilities to players on Saturday and if any will show up. SIGH... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 I heard that the owners will lose that money. The players will lose $750 per pre-season game. If true, the players do have some leverage cuz even the minimum wage guys won't miss $750-1500. But would carry over to their regular salaries, since revenue sharing would be reduced by the loss of preseason games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WJW Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 I heard that the owners will lose that money. The players will lose $750 per pre-season game. If true, the players do have some leverage cuz even the minimum wage guys won't miss $750-1500. Â That's true for this year. The major impact is next year. Every dollar of lost revenue in 2011 means a reduced salary cap for 2012. So if $250M in 2011 revenue is lost per pre-season game, the players in effect will be losing $120M in total 2012 cap. That's about $4M of lost cap per team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
montster Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 An interesting summary of what has to happen next and why this isn't a simple yes/no vote for the players:  http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_...?urn=nfl-wp3725  In any case, here's what actually has to happen before a new CBA can be ratified and a new league year can begin. First, all the final deal points and language must be agreed to by the NFLPA board members (player reps), and then, there has to be a vote to recommend the agreement to the Brady plaintiffs. If the Brady plaintiffs approve the settlement, and the court of Judge Susan Richard Nelson approves it as well, the process of recertification must then begin. First, the board members have to agree to re-form as a union — that's the easy part, though there are some players who would prefer to leave the antitrust avenues open as a trade organization. Then, the legal process of recertification must begin; a process that involves several federal entities. And finally, a 51 percent majority of the players must vote via paper union cards to recertify. The players would like to do this at their team facilities, but that's still being worked out.  And THEN (yes, God help us, there's more…), the union can negotiate the things that only a union can — various grievances, benefits, rules regarding discipline, drug policy and drug testing. This could get complicated in that the players want a voice from their side when player discipline is brought down, as opposed to the unilateral nature of rulings that has marked the Roger Goodell era.  It's only after all that happens that the players, as a union, can actually vote to approve an agreement that is fully representative and collectively bargained. A lot of these steps can take place very quickly, and they might not hold up the process too much, but it's important to realize that the "on/off switch" nature of the remaining negotiations that the owners have portrayed are not accurate. Simply green-lighting what the owners have already proposed isn't going to happen — and from a legal perspective, it can't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 (edited) There is no way the owner's team took a deal to them to vote on that was NOT agreed on by D.Smith and his team. No way! There will be a bunch of public posturing by some players so they can try to come across as the injured party here, but they will have a vote once they "review" the deal details. They have until Tuesday to hold a ratification vote.  This is a great response. The ownerss didn't vote 31-0 for a CBA that the players weren't bought into already. And there's no way the owner-approved CBA wasn't crafted with lawyers from both sides working the language simultaneously.  The players have decided to play more head games and I don't think it will go over well with the fans as far as generating sympathy for them. Fans have long past grown tired of this #### that is coming out of their pockets. I know I'm owner oriented, but this seems like an incredibly stupid move by D Smith and the players that ought to bring some serious animosity.  ETA - I'm also significaantly disturbed that the players have elected to interject the passing of Myra Kraft as part of their excuse for not getting around to meeting to go over this until Monday. Edited July 23, 2011 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 (edited) How do you know? Â He's a freakin' lawyer and deals with two+ party bargaining as part of his normal routine (amazingly, despite that he is also one of those few lawyers that you won't qualify with terms like blood sucker, pond scum, or scourge of all humanity). As an addendum, if he isn't the smartest person I've ever met in my life, he's definitely in the top 3. Â This is one of the few people to whom I'll ask a question and then shut up and listen to the answer without rebutting, interjecting, or arguing - because I know I'll learn something valuable every time. Edited July 23, 2011 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 Owners are violating union laws, they can't force the players to recertify and by doing this vote and demanding they recertify by Tuesday, It kinda seems like their almost forcing them to recertify which is against the law.http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d820e...-to-player-reps  Does that really surprise you? That the owners would want the sham of the decertification undone as part of the agreement, so that the anti-trust lawsuits are nullified? They don't want a signed CBA and then have to go back into court and spend more tens of millions defending themselves in anti-trust actions when both sides as well as 99% of the fans know full well what a farce the decertification was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 He's a freakin' lawyer and deals with two+ party bargaining as part of his normal routine (amazingly, despite that he is also one of those few lawyers that you won't qualify with terms like blood sucker, pond scum, or scourge of all humanity). As an addendum, if he isn't the smartest person I've ever met in my life, he's definitely in the top 3. This is one of the few people to whom I'll ask a question and then shut up and listen to the answer without rebutting, interjecting, or arguing - because I know I'll learn something valuable every time. And in no way is your response colored by the fact that he negotiates on behalf of employers. As with everyone else on this board, all you learn from his posts are his opinions, nothing more or less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditkaless Wonders Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 (edited) This is a great response. The ownerss didn't vote 31-0 for a CBA that the players weren't bought into already. And there's no way the owner-approved CBA wasn't crafted with lawyers from both sides working the language simultaneously. The players have decided to play more head games and I don't think it will go over well with the fans as far as generating sympathy for them. Fans have long past grown tired of this #### that is coming out of their pockets. I know I'm owner oriented, but this seems like an incredibly stupid move by D Smith and the players that ought to bring some serious animosity.  ETA - I'm also significaantly disturbed that the players have elected to interject the passing of Myra Kraft as part of their excuse for not getting around to meeting to go over this until Monday.   Trying to trade on the death of a respected owners spouse is beyond the pale. Edited July 23, 2011 by Ditkaless Wonders Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 And in no way is your response colored by the fact that he negotiates on behalf of employers. As with everyone else on this board, all you learn from his posts are his opinions, nothing more or less. Â Opinions based upon substantial expertise in a field that one has worked in for decades weigh a lot more than those of someone who discounts that experience completely on a FF MB. Â IMO, of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditkaless Wonders Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 And in no way is your response colored by the fact that he negotiates on behalf of employers. As with everyone else on this board, all you learn from his posts are his opinions, nothing more or less. Â Â The union contract is only a small part of my current obligation. In that negotiation I do represent the employer, but not owners or capitalists. The employer I represent is the taxpayer. Â I also have a unique relationship with the employees against whom I negotiate. In many matters I represent their group interest and in others their individual interests. Â I also draft numerous complex intergovernmental agreements when I am not in court, which is where the narrow majority of my time is spent. Â Â Â I get your epistemological point that I do not absolutely know the position I put forth. Thank you for making the point that no one here misunderstands and which I never tried to sell. My point was that in the real world, a world in which the players had professional representation from experienced, extremely qualified lawyers, a world in which they had player reps literally in every negotiation, a world in which documents will be submitted for current court review and which will certainly be examined by lawyers, the courts, the press, bloodsucking agents and their lawyers as well as by informed fans over the coming months and years, a world in which the negotiating documents are held simultaneously by both sides thanks to computer generated documents, that in that real world, the one in which we live and make decisions to moral certainties, life and death decisions, life direction decisions; in that world there was no way the player's story made any sense. Â It seems important to you to make the epistemological point. Having made it do you now care to share with us what you actually think. Are you in any way buying the b.s. the players are selling? Can you tell us how their position, a position I notice they are now backing away from as they reposition their argument, makes any sense? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.