Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

NFL Owners voted & PASSED it!/Players Voting On New CBA Today, Lockout Expected To End Soon


bayone
 Share

Recommended Posts

The NFLPA is currently meeting today in New York to debate and vote on the proposed CBA. All the language is finalized and the documents met with lawyer approval. The debate today is to provide players with a forum to discuss issues they have with the new deal. NFLPA president Kevin Mawae said the players are not bound to the July 21st timeline, but that is just Mawae talking. The deal will get approved today or tomorrow by the players, as expected.

.

The NFL owners are gathering in Atlanta, GA for tomorrow's owners meeting. All 32 owners will be there along with several NFL executives, including (it's rumored) Bill Polian. At the meeting tomorrow, the owners are expected to vote on and approve the new CBA

..

When the owners agree to the CBA, the lockout will end and players will be allowed to contact their teams and re-enter team facilities to receive medical treatment. Friday is the day several players, includingSaints tight end Jeremy Shockey, expect to report.

.

According to The Sports Journal, teams and agents will get three days to familiarize themselves with new rules.

.

Teams will also receive three days to sign their own free agents along with rookie free agents.

Full free agency will begin 'about a week' after CBA is ratified. This remains consistent with the expected schedule.

On July 25th,

teams can try to re-sign their own free agents and rookie free agents.

On Thursday, July 28th, full free agency will begin. July 28th will be 'about a week' after CBA is expected to be ratified.

.

Colts training camp is expected to open August 1st and run through the 18th. Nothing in this timeline affects that.

My link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just get it done with already, they keep toying with fans like "We have a new CBA in place and will vote on the 20th"..."Earlier reports were incorrect, players have not agreed on a date"..."CBA is getting sorted out"..."Lots of talking left in CBA issues"

Just get it done with already and stop messing with the fans

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just get it done with already, they keep toying with fans like "We have a new CBA in place and will vote on the 20th"..."Earlier reports were incorrect, players have not agreed on a date"..."CBA is getting sorted out"..."Lots of talking left in CBA issues"

Just get it done with already and stop messing with the fans

On ESPN they just said that the law suit is being dissolved,so that's good. They also said that the players couldn't vote today because the final document was not ready. But, the reps did give the executive committee permission to work out the final issues. So, it still sounds good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They figure A once a decade shock is ok

Hopefully in 10 years both sides will feel the deal has been beneficial enough for both sides they'll simply agree to extend it.

I honestly feel like that was the goal of the owners this time around... They signed a bad deal in haste in 2006 leading to this opt-out so it would only make sense that they made sure the deal was more thorough and beneficial for both sides equally that it will just make sense to extend once it's up again.

I'd be surprised to see the players sign today as well. Something tells me this isn't as close to "over" as it appears to be... The deal is done and the owners are ready to sign off on it, but the hesitation by the players to do so is worrisome. Whichever side signs first gets all the leverage on their side.

"We negotiated the deal, we agreed to the deal, we drew up the deal, and our side has signed. The only thing standing in the way of the deal being done is you not signing the deal you agreed to."

It should almost be a race to ratify a new CBA by both sides....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So it seems the players aren't happy and can choose to make this lockout last longer. Grrrrrrr! But from the talk on the ESPN,the owners placed the blame in the players' lap if the lockout continues.... :FBshocked: :FBundecided:

Yes. In the court of public opinion, yes.

And the league vote tally was 31-0 with crazy Al abstaining.....because they want to appear undivided on this even though it's no secret DAL, HOU, NE would've been completely cool with the NFLPA prevailing on all counts (which would have never happened anyway).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. In the court of public opinion, yes.

And the league vote tally was 31-0 with crazy Al abstaining.....because they want to appear undivided on this even though it's no secret DAL, HOU, NE would've been completely cool with the NFLPA prevailing on all counts (which would have never happened anyway).

Based on what D. Smith said, the owners voted on some sort of supplemental revenue that the players weren't part of the discussion on. Not sure what that means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. In the court of public opinion, yes.

And the league vote tally was 31-0 with crazy Al abstaining.....because they want to appear undivided on this even though it's no secret DAL, HOU, NE would've been completely cool with the NFLPA prevailing on all counts (which would have never happened anyway).

It boils down once again to money--this revenue. Like the players n owners don't already make enough. :wacko:

As for reducing pregames--the less amount of pregames equals less money made. But wouldn't less pregames mean less injuries for players? And therefore,they can be healthier for the regular season? Ain't that better than having all the preseason games as b4? :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on what D. Smith said, the owners voted on some sort of supplemental revenue that the players weren't part of the discussion on. Not sure what that means.

I didn't see that. I'll have to go read for some news.

It boils down once again to money--this revenue. Like the players n owners don't already make enough. :wacko:

As for reducing pregames--the less amount of pregames equals less money made. But wouldn't less pregames mean less injuries for players? And therefore,they can be healthier for the regular season? Ain't that better than having all the preseason games as b4? :blink:

As long as the owners got what they needed to maintain the league we know years into the future, all of this was correct and worthwhile. The 46-47% players share is reasonable and they'll still have a fine way to earn if they choose to assign pro football career risk/reward to their lives. I'm in the less preseason games is better - camp. I realize that's when some players have earned their way onto a team, but decisions will have to be made though the view of a more narrow window. Every team will be in the same boat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't see that. I'll have to go read for some news.

As long as the owners got what they needed to maintain the league we know years into the future, all of this was correct and worthwhile. The 46-47% players share is reasonable and they'll still have a fine way to earn if they choose to assign pro football career risk/reward to their lives. I'm in the less preseason games is better - camp. I realize that's when some players have earned their way onto a team, but decisions will have to be made though the view of a more narrow window. Every team will be in the same boat.

There's a whole lot of players tweeting that the owners slid a bunch of things in that hadn't been agreed on or in some cases discussed. I don't know what though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a whole lot of players tweeting that the owners slid a bunch of things in that hadn't been agreed on or in some cases discussed. I don't know what though.

If it is true that the owners slipped stuff on not discussed and agreed upon then the players should be freaking out. It is one thing to be tough during the negotiations, but to slip things in after is just under handed. Hopefully this is not true and the player will approve it tomorrow.

If it is true then I have no problems with the players fighting back. If it is true then if we miss games it is all the fault of the owners.

You do not try to slip crap in after the fact.

Let's just hope it is not true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Owners CBA a trick not a treat says players

apparently all issues needing resolvement weren't in the agreement they voted on and players say they tried to slip something in that wasnt talked about at all these last 2 weeks according to Saints fullback, but said he couldnt be specific on what, that was on NFL network

------------------------------------------------------------------

then read this - EXCERPT

& also see second link for another enlightening article

FINALLY

( THERE ARE LINKS IN THIS 1st ARTICLE THAT CAN BE ACCESEED BY GOING TO ORIGINAL ARTICLE USING MY LINK BELOW

According to multiple sources, players are saying the owners slipped in new elements to a deal that were never agreed to at the ....

Players have taken to Twitter to voice their extreme displeasure with the owners voting tonight, with Vonnie Holliday of the Redskins provided the most telling tweet of them all:

No reason to lie! Truth of the matter is we got tricked, duped, hoodwinked, bamboozled!

Basically, what it seems the owners have done is agree on a CBA the players have not seen. Then, once agreed, the owners announced that the agreement is approved with the intention to use the media to pressure the players to signing a ten year CBA which has added elements. Meanwhile, the owners hope is that fans, like you and me, will get angry and impatient with the players for not approving a deal as the days drag on.

According to DeMaurice Smith NFLPA general counsel Richard Berthelsen in an email to the players, via Dan Kaplan,

the new agreement ( owners voted on I presume ) might even violate federal labor law.

My link

# 2 article

My link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

to be honest this whole lockout is a joke and a punch in the face of every hard working man/woman who earns a few thousand bucks a year (many with two or more jobs). shame on both greedy sides!

AGREE< LET ALONE THOSE THAT ARE OUT OF WORK OR EVEN HOMELESS, esp some poor Vets coming back and cant find a job after fighting for our rights, one of which is to watch football if we chose

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems to be a miscommunication rather than a trick. Players are calming down today. Hopefully still a vote.

hope u correct, but Smith did the conference call and then should have explained the proposal better, dont know who to believe and media loves too spin things

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have not been following things as closely as some. Since it was a lock-out by the owners and the owners have now agreed to a CBA, they have ended the lock-out, correct? So now if the players don't like the CBA then it will become a player strike rather than an owner lock-out correct?

So it's possible we could have football but with replacement players now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have not been following things as closely as some. Since it was a lock-out by the owners and the owners have now agreed to a CBA, they have ended the lock-out, correct? So now if the players don't like the CBA then it will become a player strike rather than an owner lock-out correct?

So it's possible we could have football but with replacement players now.

A CBA can't be agreed to by one side. It's not a CBA until the players reform as a union and vote to ratify the agreement. Until then, the lockout continues, per the owners terms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A CBA can't be agreed to by one side. It's not a CBA until the players reform as a union and vote to ratify the agreement. Until then, the lockout continues, per the owners terms.

I don't think you understood my question. The owners instituted the lock-out. The owners have now lifted the lock-out based on the CBA of which they agree. And they have stated the facilities are open. If the players don't like the CBA and therefore do not report to the facility, isn't that a player strike rather than an owner lock-out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think you understood my question. The owners instituted the lock-out. The owners have now lifted the lock-out based on the CBA of which they agree. And they have stated the facilities are open. If the players don't like the CBA and therefore do not report to the facility, isn't that a player strike rather than an owner lock-out?

you make a good point. if the players' union votes it down, it could be construed as a strike

although with the courts involved (sigh), it probably would be ruled illegal or some such crap

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...