Owner-Approved NFL Collective Bargaining Agreement Details
by David Fucillo on Jul 22, 2011 7:01 AM PDT
in NFL Labor Issues
Email
PrintYesterday afternoon things got a bit hectic as the NFL owners voted to ratify a collective bargaining agreement followed by the players questioning the propriety of the agreement and the vote. There is a lot of work to be done in regards to a final global settlement, but in looking over the terms voted on by the owners, much of the deal is actually done. To be more clear, the terms and working conditions affecting the economics of the game over the next ten years are mostly done.
As it currently stands, the two sides are dealing with issues like recertification and a global settlement of the various accompanying lawsuits. There are other issues like drug testing that owners want to deal with after reformation of the union, which would allow time for collective bargaining. This is one of the big issues related to the whole reformation issue because of concerns over how much time there will be to negotiate these new terms before submitting the deal to the court.
Shortly after the NFL owners voted on and announced ratification of the deal, the NFL PR department sent out a press release breaking down the terms of the deal. While some of these might be subject to a bit of change, I think a lot of it won't change since it deals more with the direct economics that were hammered out last week for the most part. However, for now after the jump you can check out owner-approved details awaiting player approval.
Whether there are changes or not to these details, we'll work to breakdown the many aspects of the new CBA.
TERM
1. The fixed term of the agreement covers the 2011 through 2020 seasons and includes the 2021 draft.
PLAYER HEALTH AND SAFETY
1. Immediate implementation of changes to promote player health and safety by:
A. Reducing the off-season program by five weeks, reducing OTAs from 14 to 10;
B. Limiting on-field practice time and contact;
C. Limiting full-contact practices in the preseason and regular season;
D. Increasing number of days off for players.
2. Opportunity for current players to remain in the player medical plan for life.
3. An enhanced injury protection benefit of up to $1 million of a player's salary for the contract year after his injury and up to $500,000 in the second year after his injury.
4. No change to the 16-4 season format until at least 2013; any subsequent increase in the number of regular-season games must be made by agreement with the NFL Players Association.
5. $50 million per year joint fund for medical research, healthcare programs, and NFL Charities, including NFLPA-related charities.
RETIRED PLAYER BENEFITS
1. Over the next 10 years, additional funding for retiree benefits of between $900 million and $1 billion. The largest single amount, $620 million, will be used for a new "Legacy Fund," which will be devoted to increasing pensions for pre-1993 retirees.
2. Other improvements will be made to post-career medical options, the disability plan, the 88 Plan, career transition and degree completion programs, and the Player Care Plan.
DRAFT/FREE AGENCY SYSTEM
1. An annual Draft of seven rounds plus compensatory picks for teams which lose free agents.
2. Unrestricted free agency for players after four accrued seasons; restricted free agency for players with three accrued seasons.
3. Free agency exceptions (franchise and transition players).
ENTRY LEVEL COMPENSATION SYSTEM
1. New entry-level compensation system including the following elements:
A. All drafted players sign four-year contracts.
B. Undrafted free agents sign three-year contracts.
C. Maximum total compensation per draft class.
D. Limited contract terms.
E. Strong anti-holdout rules.
F. Clubs have option to extend the contract of a first-round draftee for a fifth year, based on agreed-upon tender amounts.
2. Creation of new fund to redistribute, beginning in 2012, savings from new rookie pay system to current and retired player benefits and a veteran player performance pool.
ECONOMICS
1. Salary cap plus benefits of $142.4 million per club in 2011 ($120.375 million for salary and bonus) and at least that amount in 2012 and 2013.
2. Beginning in 2012, salary cap to be set based on a combined share of "all revenue," a new model differentiated by revenue source with no expense reductions. Players will receive 55 percent of national media revenue, 45 percent of NFL Ventures revenue, and 40 percent of local club revenue.
3. Beginning in 2012, annual "true up" to reflect revenue increases or decreases versus projections.
4. Clubs receive credit for actual stadium investment and up to 1.5 percent of revenue each year.
5. Player share must average at least 47 percent for the 10-year term of the agreement.
6. League-wide commitment to cash spending of 99 percent of the cap in 2011 and 2012.
7. For the 2013-2016 seasons, and again for the 2017-2020 seasons, the clubs collectively will commit to cash spending of at least 95 percent of the cap.
8. Each club committed to cash spending of 89 percent of the cap from 2013-2016 and 2017-2020.
9. Increases to minimum salaries of 10 percent in Year 1 with continuing increases each year of the agreement.
2011-2012 TRANSITION RULES
1. Special transition rules to protect veteran players in 2011. All teams will have approximately $3.5 million in what would otherwise be performance-based pay available to fund veteran player salaries.
2. Each club may "borrow" up to $3 million in cap room from a future year, which may be used to support veteran player costs.
3. In 2012, each club may "borrow" up to $1.5 million in cap room from a future year. Both these amounts would be repaid in future years.
106 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
are points 7 and 8 contradictions fooch?
Alex Smith 86%+ QB rating with 22+ TDs in 2012, hopefully! :)
not quite
As I read them, #7 says collectively they have to spend 95% of the cap during that stretch. However, #8 would seem to say if one team spends 100%, another team could spend less than the 95%.
by David Fucillo on Jul 22, 2011 7:24 AM PDT up reply actions
7 says collectively the number must be 95%
whereas 8 says each team must spend 89% minimum.
Clicks Ruby Slippers: There's no game like football! There's no game like football!
I just Twitter'd that
Reading it a bit different
Reads to me that the owners/nflpa have scheduled a couple times to talk about the salary floor for those 3 years increments.
perhaps, but I think they're just elaborating on the spending breakdown across all teams vs. indiv. teams
Clicks Ruby Slippers: There's no game like football! There's no game like football!
I just Twitter'd that
I see, thanks
I don’t think that’s a brilliant idea to be honest…
Alex Smith 86%+ QB rating with 22+ TDs in 2012, hopefully! :)
This article explains how I felt
Basically, that it was really confusing to me why the owners decided to sign and announce a proposal that the other side hadn’t seen. It’s a pretty blatant blame-game thing. “We the owners tried to get a deal done, but the players didnt’!”
What’s the point of signing a deal that the other side hasn’t seen? They really do think we’re dumb! (and many of us are!)
http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2011/7/22/2287259/nfl-lockout-2011-owners-players-agreement-cba
If we all knew the owners were going to vote a day before
How did the players not know? Why didn’t Maurice ask roger what the hell they were voting on?
I don’t buy it. ,
2011 season can't come quick enough..
by AzNiner on Jul 22, 2011 8:18 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Maurice: Where are all you guys going now?
Roger (disappearing into oak-pannelled room, looking shifty): Nowhere!
Maurice: What do you mean? Nowhere? All the owners are in there – why are you all holding ballot slips?
Roger: We’re not!
Maurice: You blatantly are! You guys voting on something we haven’t seen?
Roger: No. Er, well, yes. Um, yes and no.
Maurice: Which is it?
Roger: We’re voting on … what to eat tonight. Yes, that’s right. We vote on each night’s restaurant. You guys don’t vote on each night’s restaurant?
Maurice: Whatever.
by LondonNiner on Jul 22, 2011 8:35 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Mobile rec
"Hi my name is Cliff Harris and I am here to lock [site decorum] down" - Cliff Harris introduction at his Freshman Orientation
Reporter : "What do you remember about the BCS title game"
Cliff Harris: "That we lost"
by manraj7 on Jul 22, 2011 9:40 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
rookie wage scale
do we know what the max total compensation for the 2011 draft class is?
not that I've seen
The NFL seems to only have released the basic rundown of the plan for public consumption. No word on specific details of some of these proposed terms.
by David Fucillo on Jul 22, 2011 8:07 AM PDT up reply actions
they should shrink Roger Goodell and DeMaurice Smith down with the "Honey I Shrunk The Kids" ray-gun
then they’d get the job done…
Clicks Ruby Slippers: There's no game like football! There's no game like football!
I just Twitter'd that
Not surprising at all really
given the size of mosquitoes and the size of those doing the circumsizing.
Be nice to know the exact stance the Players had on the issues ...
was it … ( Hey don’t tell us when we have to recertify , we need time to make sure we have full effect on new CBA or this is B.S. you tried to scam us on new issues we didn’t fore see …!!
I'm your " Huckelberry "...it's just my game ...Jimmy Raye your no daisy ...!!
After the twitter barrage last night from RJF and Anthony Dixon
I kinda feel myself siding with the owners, or that the players are just not in the know. They’re spouting off about how they haven’t read this 500 page document, blah blah f’n blah, telling fans to shut up and mind their own business, etc. Isn’t that what De Smith and Co are doing – negotiating this stuff, reading the 500 page document so that every single player doesn’t have to? I guess I don’t understand what the holdup is.
what pissed me off was they were saying it was a bad deal, despite not having seen it
nor did the reps even have it in their hands yet
Clicks Ruby Slippers: There's no game like football! There's no game like football!
I just Twitter'd that
wouldn't both parties lawyers write up this thing together?
2011 season can't come quick enough..
by AzNiner on Jul 22, 2011 8:51 AM PDT via mobile reply actions
In a normal negotiation ...
The owners would have voted and sent the version over to the NFLPA but NOT have had a press conference about it, acting as if it were a done deal. The press conference was just a power-play, and probably does more to piss off the players unnecessarily. This reflects a lack of respect and trust by the owners for the players..
My understanding was that the last time the players were briefed on the CBA, they agreed things were close and had that “vote of confidence” in their Smith et al. to finish the negotiations. The players could have voted to approve a CBA at that time to, but they didn’t, choosing instead to proceed with negotiating in good faith.
I still side with the players here, taking the time necessary to fully examine the owner’s latest proposal. You don’t march 99 yards down the field just to fumble on the 1-yard line.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
You don’t march 99 yards down the field just to fumble on the 1-yard line.
I think we did precisely that against Arizona a few years ago, didn’t we? But I totally take your point ;)
I’ll be content when our concerns are limited to on-field issues like that.
And I’m glad the point still gets across despite the embarrassing number of typos in my post.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
I DVR'd that game. My wife knew the outcome the entire time but she let me suffer through the whole thing.
Top 5 most brutal Niners Loss for me.
Agree. I also have a true story about that game. I too DVR’d it (we say Sky+’d it) as it was a MNF which play out in the middle of the night here. I avoided the result all day Tuesday at work and watched it all the way through on Tuesday evening. Then the recording ended just before that play. Having watched the whole thing, I had to look up the result on the internet after all. Oh, we lost. What? We lost? What the heck happened there?!
wow
Can’t imagine a much worse ending for you. Well, maybe if it was the Super Bowl!
by David Fucillo on Jul 22, 2011 9:29 AM PDT up reply actions
Or throw an interception on the 1 yard line in the Super Bowl just before the end of the first and have the linebacker run it all the way back and can hardly breathe afterwards.
Shot at the cards haha
by h0ckeysk83r on Jul 22, 2011 8:55 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
The presss conference and the posturing that the deal was done was a PR stunt..
…intended to put pressure on the players.
Monte Poole stated it well in a column this morning
http://www.insidebayarea.com/monte-poole
by Mood_Indigo on Jul 22, 2011 10:04 AM PDT up reply actions
I’d love to see a clip if anyone had one.
by LondonNiner on Jul 22, 2011 10:17 AM PDT up reply actions
seriously
It’d be good stuff. He was asking Jason LaCanfora when midnight strikes and they get things figured out.I think he actually thought about swearing but took a breath and didn’t swear.
by David Fucillo on Jul 22, 2011 10:26 AM PDT up reply actions
I would be the same as him.
This is effecting his job quite a bit.
Check out my site!!
The Hometown Fan
Anyway, they must have sent him home 'cause he is gone, haha
Maybe just on a lunch break?
Check out my site!!
The Hometown Fan
he just asked everyone if they were calm, then he said I am but this is a complete front. lol
"You know whats funny? I always thought uhm dogs lay eggs and I learned something new today" Peter Griffin
by HUNGRY HUNTER on Jul 22, 2011 11:57 AM PDT up reply actions
The owners came in with a snakish backdoor proposal, maybe to make the players look bad, buy anyways, I said they were being snakes in the beginning. Still on side with players even if there is no season.
There is no method to the madness of my MOJO!!!
I'm not... the owners are at least trying... throwing proposals out and what not.
What have the players done except for turn their lip up and say, “we need more time”…. How much time do they need? They’ve had like 3 months of discussions. D. Smith is responsible for these guys not being educated on the details.
There was no “snake” about it. Smith was on the phone for 2 hours yesterday finalizing details. This is by far the players fault. I just think they are being a bunch of lazy cry babies.
Check out my site!!
The Hometown Fan
you do not know what the players proposed or even if this is a counter proposoal to what the players proposed. if the owners voted on something that even d smith has not seen, how is he supposed to give it to the players? in essence the owners voted on something said this is the deal when it was actually a proposal. they are still negotiating certain items.
"You know whats funny? I always thought uhm dogs lay eggs and I learned something new today" Peter Griffin
by HUNGRY HUNTER on Jul 22, 2011 12:01 PM PDT up reply actions
What do you mean D. Smith has not seen it?
He’s seen it… he is well aware of what is in there.
Check out my site!!
The Hometown Fan
With all the lawyers involved, both parties are well informed at this point.
It’s been quite enough time to work something out. At this point, it just boils down to greed… on both sides….
My point is that the owners want to move forward and the players feel like they are being treated oh-so-unfairly.
The fans are the only ones being treated unfairly. We are the ones who suffer from their greed.
Check out my site!!
The Hometown Fan
well...
It’s hard to tell what is exactly right, but from what I’ve heard and seen (taken with a grain of salt like everything else about this situation) the owners inserted a timeline for reformation of the union and 72 hours to negotiate the final terms (drug testing, discipline, etc) and it was not what the players had expected. If this is an accurate assessment the players have a right to not be happy they’re being forced into a timeline they didn’t agree to.
Now that may not be an entirely accurate assessment but that’s the way I’m reading it at this point. I actually don’t think it’s about greed.
by David Fucillo on Jul 22, 2011 12:12 PM PDT up reply actions
Yeah,
they feel like they are being pushed and they are competitor’s that don’t want to be ‘pushed’, so I think there is more ego involved rather than real issues.
Check out my site!!
The Hometown Fan
And now the players are playing the "poor us" card.
“Those big meany owners are pushing us in to a corner”… It’s just another PR leveraging for them.
Check out my site!!
The Hometown Fan
Exactly
reformation of the NFLPA is not going to be an issue that’s going to hold up this bargaining agreement. Did the owners jump the gun a little? Not really. The players have known for at least a week that the owners were going to be voting on this issue last night. The players could’ve stolen the thunder from the owners by voting on it Wednesday night like they had originally planned, instead they drug their heels. Now they’re playing catch up.
The notion that it’ll take more than a few days to a week to reconstitute the union is a joke. Not only that, the league is absolutely right—this deal can’t be finalized until the NFLPA is reformed, so they’re simply covering their bases by saying “Contingent on the reformation of the NFLPA”.
I also can’t see how the players can claim that the owners have voted on a substantially different agreement then the one they signed off on. Both sides have had lawyers and player reps in negotiations for weeks now. Were the NFLPA guys sleeping the whole time?
(And no, revenue sharing between the clubs and the issue of padded practices are not “substantial” differences.)
The players have claimed from the beginning that they just want an equitable split of the revenues. They’ve negotiated with the owners a split in revenue that’s agreeable to both sides and now they don’t want to sign off on it.
Were the NFLPA guys sleeping the whole time?
They obviously weren’t paying attention, that’s very clear.
Check out my site!!
The Hometown Fan
Its clear youve chosen the owners side and are mistaken. They gave the voting power to the 10 listed in the suit.
There is no method to the madness of my MOJO!!!
nothing like the owners violating the law by demanding the players to form a union.
The notion that it’ll take more than a few days to a week to reconstitute the union is a joke. Not only that, the league is absolutely right—this deal can’t be finalized until the NFLPA is reformed, so they’re simply covering their bases by saying "Contingent on the reformation of the NFLPA".
Because in your world the owners are above all evil scumbags who carenothing about players andare going to lie, cheat, steal, intimidate and otherwise coerce the players into doing something they don’t want, while the players are all virtuous, upstanding underdogs who are fighting the good fight for the common man.
"You know whats funny? I always thought uhm dogs lay eggs and I learned something new today" Peter Griffin
by HUNGRY HUNTER on Jul 22, 2011 12:56 PM PDT up reply actions
people never have to shut up and deal with it when it comes to civil law violations. the courts always take those cases.
"You know whats funny? I always thought uhm dogs lay eggs and I learned something new today" Peter Griffin
by HUNGRY HUNTER on Jul 22, 2011 1:00 PM PDT up reply actions
They also have the choice to quit their multi-million dollar jobs and go pump my gas if they want too.
If they are being sooooo mistreated.
Check out my site!!
The Hometown Fan
I don’t look at them any differently than the guy who serves my food at a restaurant, or the teller at my bank, or any other job.
They have an employer…. they are employees… sometimes you don’t get to chose how your employer operates. Deal with it.
Check out my site!!
The Hometown Fan
A Union is involved the rules change.
Rightfully so, you sound pretty ridiculous with these rants, at least to me.
There is no method to the madness of my MOJO!!!
You don't have any idea what you're talking about.
Try reading what I blocked out below.. then you may have a better handle on the situation and not be so clouded in your perception.
Check out my site!!
The Hometown Fan
What you bocked out below, is what another individual is speculating. As majority og rreports on this matter has indicated.
There is no method to the madness of my MOJO!!!
It's more than speculation...
He gives plenty of backed and valid examples disproving anything that has been claimed by the NFLPA, the players, and D. Smith.
Check out my site!!
The Hometown Fan
Anybody can file a civil lawsuit... doesn't mean it will fly.
I think it is very apparent that they did it for the sole purpose of leveraging.
Check out my site!!
The Hometown Fan
it seems that employers can not force employees to form a union.
"You know whats funny? I always thought uhm dogs lay eggs and I learned something new today" Peter Griffin
by HUNGRY HUNTER on Jul 22, 2011 3:48 PM PDT up reply actions
How did they "force"?
They made a recommendation. The players have the choice to do it or not…
We all know the “desertification” was a sham anyway. The only reason the players are doing this is so that in the future, it won’t appear as such.
Leveraging.
Check out my site!!
The Hometown Fan
the money has been agreed to awhile ago
so if money=greed that is not the issue. cleary d smith was not under the understanding that this was to be announced as a “deal”. the players could have very announced the day before the owners did that they voted and approved the “deal” when it was actually a proposal just like the owners did.
"You know whats funny? I always thought uhm dogs lay eggs and I learned something new today" Peter Griffin
by HUNGRY HUNTER on Jul 22, 2011 12:22 PM PDT up reply actions
No, this is all about ego.
It has nothing to do with ‘real’ issues. At this point it is just a bunch of garbage.
Check out my site!!
The Hometown Fan
I disagree.
"You know whats funny? I always thought uhm dogs lay eggs and I learned something new today" Peter Griffin
by HUNGRY HUNTER on Jul 22, 2011 12:31 PM PDT up reply actions
Of course you do
Because in your world the owners are all evil scumbags who care nothing about players and are going to lie, cheat, steal, intimidate and otherwise coerce the players into doing something they don’t want, while the players are all virtuous, upstanding underdogs who are fighting the good fight for the common man.
so announcing a deal before the players agreed to a deal and without talking to the players about announcing it as a deal is not intimidation or coercion?
WOW.
"You know whats funny? I always thought uhm dogs lay eggs and I learned something new today" Peter Griffin
by HUNGRY HUNTER on Jul 22, 2011 12:53 PM PDT up reply actions
They voted on their end... what are you talking about?
Do you get to tell your boss how things should or should not be?
These players are a bunch of spoiled little idiots. There is nothing “unfair” about any of the details that have been released or discussed. They need to shut their million dollar traps, and play ball!!
Check out my site!!
The Hometown Fan
Do you get to tell your boss how things should or should not be?
yes I do actually.
Theseplayersowners are a bunch of spoiled little idiots. There is nothing "unfair" about any of the details that have been released or discussed. They need to shut their million dollar traps, and play ball!!
remember the last cba the owners did not even read it before voting on it and they did not like the last cba. so the owners tried and are trying to push this new cba onto the players before they can read it. nice.
"You know whats funny? I always thought uhm dogs lay eggs and I learned something new today" Peter Griffin
by HUNGRY HUNTER on Jul 22, 2011 12:58 PM PDT up reply actions
They didn't announce that a deal was completed
they announced that they had approved their portion of it. There’s a big difference.
If a player is intimidated or coerced by the owners voting on the proposal they were given they probably shouldn’t be playing football.
They didn’t announce that a deal was completed
go read the headlines yesterday.
"You know whats funny? I always thought uhm dogs lay eggs and I learned something new today" Peter Griffin
by HUNGRY HUNTER on Jul 22, 2011 12:59 PM PDT up reply actions
the arguement was over you believing everything you read, not I.
"You know whats funny? I always thought uhm dogs lay eggs and I learned something new today" Peter Griffin
by HUNGRY HUNTER on Jul 22, 2011 3:55 PM PDT up reply actions
You have 0 knowledge of the small additions and whether Smith knew about them or not. Goodell said they approved the agreement and said additions that obviously indicate, only the owners new about it. Then they add timelines, you have no idea what was added to help suffering economic teams, nor did the players. This is on the owners they opted out in the first place. Yeah its their right, but the issues that exist with struggling teams is their own fault. If I were the players I’d ask to add a Jerry Jones clause, show the idiots how to make money. So many teams just getting from season to season without trying to spend money. You can’t make it if you don’t spend it. Only thing wrong before this season was rookie wages divide that and keep moving.
There is no method to the madness of my MOJO!!!
how is the shortened practices going to affect the game?
"You know whats funny? I always thought uhm dogs lay eggs and I learned something new today" Peter Griffin
Where are the fan reps in these meetings? Do we have a say?
Like, “If you guys don’t get your crap together by ‘X’ date, you guys aren’t getting anything from us”.
Check out my site!!
The Hometown Fan
No, fans couldnt lock their wallets, theyre addicts.
There is no method to the madness of my MOJO!!!
The NFL is these players employer.
How many of us get to tell our bosses how things are going to be?
Check out my site!!
The Hometown Fan
well
Union employees have a say in how things are going to be.
by David Fucillo on Jul 22, 2011 1:12 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
Then they can go on strike and not get paid.
Owners will just bring in replacements.
Check out my site!!
The Hometown Fan
They aren't a union
"Hi my name is Cliff Harris and I am here to lock [site decorum] down" - Cliff Harris introduction at his Freshman Orientation
Reporter : "What do you remember about the BCS title game"
Cliff Harris: "That we lost"
by manraj7 on Jul 22, 2011 2:53 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
clarification
I was responding to his direct comment about “How many of us get to tell our bosses how things are going to be?” – I meant to say plenty of people get to have a say. Generally speaking.
by David Fucillo on Jul 22, 2011 2:56 PM PDT up reply actions
Not close to a majority... not even relatively close enough to make the argument.
How many unions still exist? Not very many and certainly not a majority of companies. That was the point I was making.
MOST people do not get a say… So why should these multi-millionares be any different? Specifically because most of them are very privileged to be in the positions they are in.
Check out my site!!
The Hometown Fan
You should stop comparing this to normal owner employee relationships, these players generate 9 billion bucks, deal with it.
Who the hell would want replacements?
There is no method to the madness of my MOJO!!!
It took 50 years, but the UAW killed the American auto industry and made much of Michigan a wasteland ...
At this rate the NFLPA won’t need that long to kill the NFL!
The players’ reps in the negotiations were a party to all proposals, discussions, and decisions just like the owners’ reps were. Just exactly how do Smith and Co. believe that they didn’t know what the owners were going to vote on? It seems pretty clear to me that Smith and Co. are just downright disfunctional.
On another topic, the actual content of the “proposed agreement”, I am actually shocked that the owners (many of whom I consider to be scumbags) agreed to yield as much to the players as they actually have. I find it really irritating that many of the players are actually bitching … the vast majority of U.S. citizens would be overjoyed to receive even a small fraction of what these guys are getting … more pay for much less work. But, I guess that it’s just another example of our screw-you, me-first society.
by 49erFanSince1950 on Jul 22, 2011 1:20 PM PDT reply actions
Did UAW tell Detroit to make crap, gas guzzling cars?
Also management had to the right to disagree or refuse union demands.
sd377 wants to ban me for unleashing the Kaepernick Supernova Gamma Ray
I used to sell dodges years ago. new cars and trucks would come off the delivery truck and right into the service department to get fixed, literally. lol
"You know whats funny? I always thought uhm dogs lay eggs and I learned something new today" Peter Griffin
by HUNGRY HUNTER on Jul 22, 2011 5:13 PM PDT up reply actions
One explanation
Kristi Dosh works as an attorney in Atlanta and provides a variety of sports law analysis under @sportsbizmiss. If we remove all the twitter rhetoric and the phone interviews on NFL Network, this is one possible explanation for the current situation.
http://www.kristidosh.com/2011/07/22/the-nfl-lockout-why-the-players-havent-voted/
I think the response in the comments section sums it up a lot better than the article:
Lawyers from the NFL and NFLPA had several meetings where they crafted the language of the new CBA. Those meetings were designed so when all the details were agreed upon, the CBA would be ready to go. The idea that no one in the NFLPA has seen the CBA is ludicrous. What were their lawyers doing in those meetings? What were they crafting? Did they not retain a copy? If they did not, they are some of the worst lawyers on the face of the planet. Did they not show those deals or appraise Smith of the details? Would he not have to approve? The disconnect appears to be between the legal teams of the NFLPA, DeMaurice Smith, and the players.
… going on to make several valid and key points.
Check out my site!!
The Hometown Fan
by Drew Kerr on Jul 22, 2011 2:59 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Here is the rest for anyone interested in the other side of things:
The owners lifting the lockout and allowing players back into facilities is a huge risk for the owners. If the players then decide to change terms of the CBA, the gate has been opened and the NFL will have huge issues re-instituting a lockout.
While it is easy to see that the "terms of recertification" in the settlement are potential violations of labor law, if the NFLPA has agreed to recertify in a timely manner, even stating it could be done in this time frame, then it would not be coercion to add stated terms into a settlement. I am sure that the NFL lawyers were not found by looking on the back of buses and are fully aware of labor law as they have argued details of it in the NLRB case against the NFLPA’s decertification.
As for your analogy, if there was a distrust with my current company to the point where I felt they were going to hurt me, I would not be looking to stay with them for a better offer anyway. If I trusted them enough to build a partnership, I would have to trust that they would do the right thing. At some point, we all have to take a leap of faith. The owners, by stating they would lift the lockout on the NFLPA’s word they would deal, is a leap of faith.
and…
First, there were various news reports of the lawyers meeting for days to craft the language of the CBA. The owners, players, or their negotiating teams were not present, only the lawyers.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/football/nfl/07/06/NFL-labor-update.ap/index.html
It has happened in this manner several times. Therefore, the NFLPA’s legal team was present while adapting the language of this contract.
In addition, there are certain aspects of the collective bargaining agreement that has to be worked out with the union, not the legal teams representing the plaintiffs. Right now, the NFL has been negotiating with the legal teams of the named plaintiffs. They have to reach a settlement in the legal case and reform as a union before voting on the CBA. The owners will not agree to a deal without a union because it opens them to litigation at a later date. The owners are willing to lift the lockout if they reform the union. Then, they can vote on the CBA and finish the details needed that can only be bargained once a CBA is in place, details such as workplace safety, drug testing, and the conduct policy.
The players are very ill-informed at the moment as evident by some of the statements in the press. Takeo Spike made a statement that he was concerned about inflation and its effects on their 48% in the future years. He is the 49ers player representative. He will be one of the guys selling the other 60 players and is worried about the effect of inflation on a percentage of revenue? In addition, players have made various statements about the owners slipping in details, as you mention in your article. If they lack a copy of the CBA, how does any player know something was slipped in? There is a disconnect between the top of the players organization and the players.
As for the original CBA mirroring the settlement agreement, there were parts that were agreed upon in the settlement, but the CBA was much more comprehensive than that settlement, which also contained a provision that from the date of the settlement, the players had 30 days to reform the union or the settlement was void. I guess their goes the coercion argument.
The players should take this one step at a time. If the settlement has no major issues, you make the call to move forward. If the CBA is not what was agreed upon, you present the evidence to the mediator as an act of failing to act in good faith and move forward from there. The NFL has laid plans to eat this elephant and the plans include doing it one bite at a time with risk to both parties. The NFLPA is trying to eat the whole elephant in one bite.
Check out my site!!
The Hometown Fan
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Former high-school star Brian Banks does serious time on trumped-up charge, now hopes for an NFL shot
- Former ‘idiot kicker’ Mike Vanderjagt in trouble after accosting junior-high heckler
- Adrian Peterson blows teammates away in footraces; appears to be on the mend
- UPDATE: Charlie Sheen didn’t buy Lawrence Taylor’s Super Bowl ring
- Alex Smith gets blown up by Jon Beason over Cam Newton comments
