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

Recommended Posts

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?

The owners agreed to a specific proposal for a new CBA. It's not a CBA until both sides agree and ratify. The owners terms for the new proposed CBA requires the union to re-form and all litigation to be ended, then the new CBA goes into effect and the owners lift the lockout. There's technically no union for the owners to collectively bargain with at the moment.

Technicalities and all that, but no, the owners haven't lifted the lockout because the CBA hasn't been ratified and gone into effect.

If the players were to ratify the agreement, then the owners lift the lockout, and the players say "wait a minute, you put terms in that we didn't catch, we're not going to work until we fix this," that's a strike.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why? What don't you like about it?

I think the tag in it's current form is unfair to the player being tagged, and it forces him to jeopardize his long-term earning potential by either playing on a one year contract and risking injury or holding out. If the player is important enough to you that you're willing to pay him $15 million for one year, then why isn't he important enough for you to give him a long term contract? If you don't want to make the commitment to him for whatever reason, then either trade him or let him walk. But forcing him to play on a one year deal isn't really what the tag was intended for, and because of the high amount of the tag, it artificially impacts the market.

I would have made it purely a transition tag. Basically the tag becomes a long-term contract at a predetermined amount (use whatever formula makes sense to determine the amount) if the player hasn't been traded by June 1. Gives the team a chance to work the draft and free agency and figure out what the player's actual value is to their team, and if they still want him, then they can negotiate a contract or just let the tag convert into the predetermined long term deal. But if they trade him, there are no cap penalties in future years for doing so, and they have the opportunity to recoup something of value for the player. And upon being traded, the tag converts into the same predetermined long term contract, or whatever has been negotiated prior to the trade.

Making that type of change would reduce player holdouts due to franchise tagging, and it keeps the team in the driver seat because they have all of free agency and the draft, plus several more weeks, to figure out how to deal with the situation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, there were lots of closed door meetings and to say we don't have the details from those would be the week's biggest understatement. Without seeing specifics on this I'm not gonna believe any claims. I could envision a likely scenario being the owners drawing a line in the sand on ______ (fill in the blank) sticking point that was never resolved and saying - here ya go, a CBA that includes this issue..... sign it if you want the start of the season is fast approaching.... this is what we've approved and are prepared to do on our end in order to move forward. A lot of times, having a drafted document in front of you even if it's not the finalized version, is a very effective way to speed up conclusion. This would be completely normal. Right now I'd be more apt to believe DeMaurice Smith is being reactionary and/or confused on a point.....something he's demonstrated before during this dispute.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, there were lots of closed door meetings and to say we don't have the details from those would be the week's biggest understatement. Without seeing specifics on this I'm not gonna believe any claims. I could envision a likely scenario being the owners drawing a line in the sand on ______ (fill in the blank) sticking point that was never resolved and saying - here ya go, a CBA that includes this issue..... sign it if you want the start of the season is fast approaching.... this is what we've approved and are prepared to do on our end in order to move forward. A lot of times, having a drafted document in front of you even if it's not the finalized version, is a very effective way to speed up conclusion. This would be completely normal. Right now I'd be more apt to believe DeMaurice Smith is being reactionary and/or confused on a point.....something he's demonstrated before during this dispute.

I think the owners are much more motivated at this point than the players are, because the owners stand to lose $250 million a week during the preseason (divide that by 32 and we're talking about almost $8 million a piece), whereas the players make about $3,000 a week during the preseason. I think I understand both sides at this point, and I don't blame either for their actions. The owners had a scheduled meeting in Atlanta for 7/21, whether there was a solid framework at that point or not, and they took the opportunity to vote on a proposal. The press conference was over the top, considering, but the vote made perfect sense.

The players want to have the opportunity to actually see the proposal, figure out the legalities of the global settlement in its entirety, go through the process of recertification as appropriate, and get back to work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the owners are much more motivated at this point than the players are, because the owners stand to lose $250 million a week during the preseason (divide that by 32 and we're talking about almost $8 million a piece), whereas the players make about $3,000 a week during the preseason. I think I understand both sides at this point, and I don't blame either for their actions. The owners had a scheduled meeting in Atlanta for 7/21, whether there was a solid framework at that point or not, and they took the opportunity to vote on a proposal. The press conference was over the top, considering, but the vote made perfect sense.

The players want to have the opportunity to actually see the proposal, figure out the legalities of the global settlement in its entirety, go through the process of recertification as appropriate, and get back to work.

Ah yes.....level-headed and reasoned. Uncommon in this mess. Well said, Superman.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah yes.....level-headed and reasoned. Uncommon in this mess. Well said, Superman.

What bugs me about this whole things is that it's crystal clear that the negotiating parties had an agreement and shook on it. The owners had a scheduled meeting coming up and voted to accept the agreement that their team negotiated. They came forward and said that they'd voted to accept it and end the lockout, just as soon as the players get their act together and ratify the agreement as well. Then I see the players (not involved in the negotiations) running around acting like spoilt, entitlement minded children. Whining about the timing, and complaining about being pushed and making baseless claims that they are being railroded or that things are being added that they know nothing about.

I'm sorry players, but you had a negotiating team, that team worked to get an agreement. How disrespectful is it of you to basically second guess your own negotiating team like this? Of course when the owners voted to accept the team, the spotlight naturally turns to the players. Since the players took the step of intentionally de-certifying their 'union' as little more than a legal maneuver, is seems just a bit more than churlish of them to whine about being pushed to reform now. Besides which, reforming the union/PA was absolutely an inevitable element of the end game. After all you can't negotiate collectively and have a collective bargaining agreement if you are not a single, united body. Every one knew that this was a mandatory element of resolving all of this, as is/was the dropping of the court action. Oh, but because the owners voted to accept the agreed deal, agreed with the players negotiating team, the players fell all rushed and don't want to be rushed.

Well, judging from the concessions that the ownership gave in on, perhaps we shouldn't be surprised, that the players feel like that. Seems to me that the players want big pay checks, but want to do as little as possible. They really do sound like entitlement kids.

At this point, I don't care, just get the deal done before your employers decide to fire every last one of your non-union behinds.

Link to post
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?

There is no union, so the players would be in breech of their contracts. All this whining about being forced to reorganize back into the union is really inexcusably fake since it was certain that the NFLPA/union would have to reform in order to ratify the CBA.

Link to post
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.

Exactly, the owners voted to accept the deal they shook hands on with the players negotiating team. That leaves the ball in the players court, and they have to reform their union and vote. It can't be done in any other way, but to hear the players whine about it, you'd think that the owners are forcing them to reform/certify, when it was obvious that they would have to re-certify to continue in any case

Link to post
Share on other sites

What bugs me about this whole things is that it's crystal clear that the negotiating parties had an agreement and shook on it. The owners had a scheduled meeting coming up and voted to accept the agreement that their team negotiated. They came forward and said that they'd voted to accept it and end the lockout, just as soon as the players get their act together and ratify the agreement as well. Then I see the players (not involved in the negotiations) running around acting like spoilt, entitlement minded children. Whining about the timing, and complaining about being pushed and making baseless claims that they are being railroded or that things are being added that they know nothing about.

I'm sorry players, but you had a negotiating team, that team worked to get an agreement. How disrespectful is it of you to basically second guess your own negotiating team like this? Of course when the owners voted to accept the team, the spotlight naturally turns to the players. Since the players took the step of intentionally de-certifying their 'union' as little more than a legal maneuver, is seems just a bit more than churlish of them to whine about being pushed to reform now. Besides which, reforming the union/PA was absolutely an inevitable element of the end game. After all you can't negotiate collectively and have a collective bargaining agreement if you are not a single, united body. Every one knew that this was a mandatory element of resolving all of this, as is/was the dropping of the court action. Oh, but because the owners voted to accept the agreed deal, agreed with the players negotiating team, the players fell all rushed and don't want to be rushed.

Well, judging from the concessions that the ownership gave in on, perhaps we shouldn't be surprised, that the players feel like that. Seems to me that the players want big pay checks, but want to do as little as possible. They really do sound like entitlement kids.

At this point, I don't care, just get the deal done before your employers decide to fire every last one of your non-union behinds.

Good thoughts. Very consistent with other behavior. I still believe this deal gets signed even if it does get tweeked a time or two. All of the talk (noise) from the players side - insignificant. Have at.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fact or Fiction, Todays, new CBA Reports

Supposedly , LETS EMPHASIZE THAT in meetings to day enough progress has SUPPOSEDLY been

made that SMITH will recommend a VOTING TO RATIFY the New CBA, Monday,

SUPPOSEDLY according to local Detroit News

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a nice summary of what issues are still open....another not mentioned is that the players would like an IR designation that doesn't end a season.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/2011/07/23/2011-07-23_six_key_things_the_nfl_players_want_before_they_agree_to_sign_off_on_ending_the_.html

Nos. 1 and 6 are the only ones remotely resonable for consideration as far as I'm concerned. The league's current offerings/non offerings on the other points will probably stay in place. The whole CA WC claim proposal is particularly out-there for a number of reasons.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What bugs me about this whole things is that it's crystal clear that the negotiating parties had an agreement and shook on it. The owners had a scheduled meeting coming up and voted to accept the agreement that their team negotiated. They came forward and said that they'd voted to accept it and end the lockout, just as soon as the players get their act together and ratify the agreement as well. Then I see the players (not involved in the negotiations) running around acting like spoilt, entitlement minded children. Whining about the timing, and complaining about being pushed and making baseless claims that they are being railroded or that things are being added that they know nothing about.

I'm sorry players, but you had a negotiating team, that team worked to get an agreement. How disrespectful is it of you to basically second guess your own negotiating team like this? Of course when the owners voted to accept the team, the spotlight naturally turns to the players. Since the players took the step of intentionally de-certifying their 'union' as little more than a legal maneuver, is seems just a bit more than churlish of them to whine about being pushed to reform now. Besides which, reforming the union/PA was absolutely an inevitable element of the end game. After all you can't negotiate collectively and have a collective bargaining agreement if you are not a single, united body. Every one knew that this was a mandatory element of resolving all of this, as is/was the dropping of the court action. Oh, but because the owners voted to accept the agreed deal, agreed with the players negotiating team, the players fell all rushed and don't want to be rushed.

Well, judging from the concessions that the ownership gave in on, perhaps we shouldn't be surprised, that the players feel like that. Seems to me that the players want big pay checks, but want to do as little as possible. They really do sound like entitlement kids.

At this point, I don't care, just get the deal done before your employers decide to fire every last one of your non-union behinds.

I disagree with this summation. Probably kicking a dead horse at this point, but even if the players' executive committee had a handshake agreement with the owners, and even if both negotiating teams had agreed on terms, there was still no CBA. The players' side hadn't seen the document, they hadn't considered all the terms as written, and they hadn't voted on anything. So when the owners' side and Goodell go on TV and say "we have an agreement, we voted on it, we'll be opening for business tomorrow," it's premature. And the other side decides to pump the brakes and say "we haven't even seen what they voted on yet, we'll be moving forward when we're ready to."

The owners setting out a timeline for the players to agree to a proposal and reform their union is not appropriate, considering the players hadn't seen the document yet. I think it was more ado than necessary, but getting all the little minor issues fixed and ironing out all the details was a necessary evil, and none of that was settled on Thursday when everyone was declaring the lockout over. It wasn't over, and it couldn't be over at that time. All this noise over the players saying "we're going to take the weekend and make sure everything is right, and then we'll have further word on Monday" is just noise. It doesn't make them entitlement kids, it doesn't suggest that they just want checks without doing anything (which is crazy to say, considering they are not just the workers, but are also the product that generates the revenue). It just suggests due diligence.

Had the players made an issue out of the opt-out, or the franchise tag, or anything else, really, you'd have a point, maybe. But they didn't. In reality, they said "let's slow down and make sure this is right," and now we're full steam ahead.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...