Another two weeks before the lockout is over?

[ToxSocks]

I'm over this shit now....

http://www.bostonherald.com/blogs/sp...-thats-a-sham/

Herald columnist Ron Borges from Atlanta: The union to recertify in a day? That’s a “sham”
Herald columnist Ron Borges is in Atlanta for the much-ballyhooed owners meetings where so many expect a settlement and a new Collective Bargaining Agreement. Some expect it today.

In Borges’ view? Chill out a bit.

Here is the explanatory report he just filed:

By Ron Borges
ATLANTA – Once again, NFL owners want it both ways.

When the NFLPA tried to decertify the owners’ argument was that it couldn’t be done with by a simple snap of the union’s fingers. Time had to pass, they argued, or it was all “a sham,” a point they somehow won in front of the most conservative Federal appeals court in the country.

Now they are insisting that the NFLPA settle two multi-million dollar lawsuits, approve a new 10-year CBA that cuts their pay by hundreds of millions of dollars and recertify their union in a day.


The NFLPA has basically said they may be able to do the first two but recertification will take at least two weeks. The owners, as they always seem to be except when lining their pockets, are outraged and demanding a “global settlement’’ be completed today.

Now there’s “a sham,” because nearly 1,000 recertification cards have to be signed and returned, approving recertification before the union can re-form. And that takes a lot longer than 24 hours, according to the union.

With that as the latest background in what has become a far longer slog toward a settlement of the 132-day and counting lockout than either side expected, the owners are meeting in Atlanta poised to vote on approval of a deal with the players that they don’t yet have with the players.

“It’s an ongoing thing,’’ Indianapolis Colts’ owner Jimmy Irsay said. “Everyone is pushing in that direction but it’s never done until it’s done. We are hoping to get back to the business of football.

“You can only control what you can control. We’re going to try and do our part today getting something approved.’’

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, NFLPA head DeMaurice Smith is trying to corral angry plaintiffs in the Brady vs. NFL case and his own Executive Committee and team player reps to the point where he can get a majority to approve both the settlement and the 10-year CBA framework presently on the table.

He has yet been unable to do that which is why no vote was taken on Wednesday even though many felt it was some sort of fait accompli. Let me tell you something, at this point there is no fait accom-anything, although at some point there will be an NFL season.

Just not anywhere as quickly as fans hoped and the two sides thought possible. As NFLPA president Kevin Mawea ominously said Wednesday the players are not on a July 21 deadline for anything.

So the owners are expected to approve a deal they don’t yet have sometime today while now arguing that a union is a great thing for their business even though the players don’t have one any more.

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

This bears repeating:



In other words, the players could re-certify, attempt to bargain changes in terms, and the owners could stall, leading to the old CBA terms remaining unchanged for the next 10 years.

That's ****ing huge. No wonder the players are pissed.

That part isn't a huge deal for me. Forget the language where the players have a few days to bargain, that is nonsense. This is a take it or leave it offer. If the players dont like the deal, as written, they shouldn't sign. Once the players reform, the NFL has no reason to bargain further, so evaluate the deal as written.

[Bowser]

Originally Posted by -King-

Why would the owners want the old CBA though?

Yeah, because if memory serves, the owners opted out of the old CBA.

[tk13]

Originally Posted by alnorth

Actually, you know what, I think I'm going to backtrack. This may be more complicated than I thought it was. I think I MIGHT understand what is going on now, based on the 2nd email.

It seems to me that the NFLPA isn't really complaining about being coerced into a union, when, clearly in any deal they want to be in a union. It was always understood they would reform if they got a deal.

It sounds like they are pointing out that the NFL may have stupidly given some random unhappy disgruntled player or group of players a way to complain and void the CBA.

Basically I think they are saying "hey guys, even if 99.9% of the players decide we like this deal and vote to re-form, because of your stupidity and legal technicalities, you have just given some random 2nd-string long-snapper who is destined to get cut next month a legal way to void the deal. We might not be able to agree even if we want to, unless you fix this mess"

I don't know whats required, maybe if the NFL gave no deadline or gave a long deadline or whatever it would all be legal.

I'm not sure if that's what the players as a whole think... but it certainly is a valid concern. You could literally have 99.9% of the players like this deal, and if one single player doesn't, he could sue, and possibly win.

[Marcellus]

Originally Posted by ChiefsandO'sfan

YUP i would be pissed

Would you show it by posting somebody else tweet about being pissed?

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by -King-

Why would the owners want the old CBA though?

They've re-negotiated the financial issues, the old CBA terms would kick in in regards to benefits, discipline, safety, etc.

Which, if I had to guess, the owners were perfectly content with before all this.

[JD10367]

Originally Posted by Bugeater

Well the first thing you need to know about unions is that they don't require an apostrophe unless they are possessing something. Same with dicks.

Friggin' message board spelling Nazi's!

[ShowtimeSBMVP]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

Would you show it by posting somebody else tweet about being pissed?

Grow up bundle of sticks

[Rams Fan]

OWTP58, you probably know more about the 04-05 NHL Lockout, but is this similar to that at all?

[Marcellus]

Originally Posted by ChiefsandO'sfan

Grow up pillowbiter

Awww come on, have a sense of humor.

[tk13]

Originally Posted by -King-

Why would the owners want the old CBA though?

It doesn't say anything about revenues there. Would it be possible that the revenue sharing the players have conceded to the owners would stand... but the benefits and discipline terms the owners conceded in exchange would not? I don't know.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by Rams Fan

OWTP58, you probably know more about the 04-05 NHL Lockout, but is this similar to that at all?

Actually, I was going through a divorce at the time with my batshit-crazy ex-wife, so I checked the **** out.

I have no understanding of the NHL lockout.

Sorry.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by tk13

It doesn't say anything about revenues there. Would it be possible that the revenue sharing the players have conceded to the owners would stand... but the benefits and discipline terms the owners conceded in exchange would not? I don't know.

That's exactly it.

[Al Bundy]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

Awww come on, have a sense of humor.

I have a feeling that won't happen.

[alnorth]

I looked back to see how they handled it last time.

Last time the union decertified and they needed to reform to accept a new CBA, they did it via a court settlement. They already have judges involved trying to get them to settle, why wouldn't they approach one of them and get this wrapped up with another court settlement, to avoid all this labor law complexity?

[Rams Fan]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Actually, I was going through a divorce at the time with my batshit-crazy ex-wife, so I checked the **** out.

I have no understanding of the NHL lockout.

Sorry.

Oh.

From Wikipedia:

The NHL, led by Commissioner Gary Bettman, attempted to convince playersto accept a salary structure linking player salaries to league revenues, guaranteeing the clubs what the league called cost certainty. According to an NHL-commissioned report prepared by former U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission chairman Arthur Levitt, prior to 2004–05, NHL clubs spent about 76 percent of their gross revenues on players' salaries – a figure far higher than those in other North American sports – and collectively lost US$273 million dollars during the 2002–03 season.

I know less shit than anybody about what's wrong with the NFL CBA, but is that at all similar?