Football Another two weeks before the lockout is over? - Page 25

ToxSocks · 07-21-2011, 11:07 AM

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.

chiefqueen · 07-21-2011, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by philfree

I worried about the NFL voting on an agreement before the the Union recertified because I thought it might open them (the NFL) up to another lawsuit. The players side initiated that....so....And here we are.

I really believe the owners welcome it because the more court cases, the longer the lockout lasts.

Today's events leaves me more convinced then ever that the owners really don't want to play football this year and never, ever did.

**Bowser** · 07-21-2011, 08:01 PM

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Does this mean the Raiders did the RIGHT thing by not voting? My brain hurts....

Brock · 07-21-2011, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcellus

This is basically the owners starting the actual process of getting this finished rather than spending days bickering over every little shit detail.

They got the ball rolling.

LOL

"Just trust us"

**OnTheWarpath15** · 07-21-2011, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tk13

Yeah, I'm not a lawyer. I don't know what you want me to do. I'm just saying what the lawyer on the NFL Network is saying. He agreed with your premise, saying many of the things the players will want in this deal will not happen until they re-form a union. But the owners cannot set a specific date for the union to re-form, that is illegal. I agree, the players will re-form a union and sign this if they want to. If they don't like this deal, they can use that information as leverage.

This.

chiefqueen · 07-21-2011, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bowser

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Does this mean the Raiders did the RIGHT thing by not voting? My brain hurts....

I'm beginning to think the old geezer refused to participate in this sham.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 07-21-2011, 08:05 PM

This bears repeating:

Quote:

It also said that the new CBA includes "virtually all provisions of the old CBA" and that after voting on it, by July 26, the players would only have three days to bargain changes in terms. The agreement, it goes on, "would become final on Saturday, July 30. If the NFL does not agree to the players' proposed changes, the old CBA terms on benefits, discipline, safety, etc. will remain unchanged for another 10 years."

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.

keg in kc · 07-21-2011, 08:05 PM

Jeffrey Kessler is being a douche again. That's my guess.

Titty Meat · 07-21-2011, 08:05 PM

Quote:

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.

They just want to play football though!

philfree · 07-21-2011, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiefqueen

I really believe the owners welcome it because the more court cases, the longer the lockout lasts.

Today's events leaves me more convinced then ever that the owners really don't want to play football this year and never, ever did.

Why would the owners not want to play the season? To pass on $9.mill revenue?

At this pont this is nothing more then a power struggle for the control of the NFL.

Both sides should eat the fans shit.

**Bugeater** · 07-21-2011, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rocknrolla

I know nothing about union's. Why wouldn't they want to certify. Didn't they decertify to just to try to stop the lockout? Are they just being dick's?

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.

**alnorth** · 07-21-2011, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tk13

Yeah, I'm not a lawyer. I don't know what you want me to do. I'm just saying what the lawyer on the NFL Network is saying. He agreed with your premise, saying many of the things the players will want in this deal will not happen until they re-form a union. But the owners cannot set a specific date for the union to re-form, that is illegal. I agree, the players will re-form a union and sign this if they want to. If they don't like this deal, they can use that information as leverage.

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.

**OnTheWarpath15** · 07-21-2011, 08:07 PM

Quote:

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.

ShowtimeSBMVP · 07-21-2011, 08:07 PM

Quote:

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.

YUP i would be pissed

Rams Fan · 07-21-2011, 08:08 PM

Isn't this similar to what happened in the NHL Lockout?

-King- · 07-21-2011, 08:08 PM

Quote:

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.

Why would the owners want the old CBA though?

07-21-2011, 11:07 AM
ToxSocks Needs more middle fingers Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: San Diego Casino cash: $2103063	Another two weeks before the lockout is over? 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.
Posts: 65,925

07-21-2011, 08:01 PM	#362
Bowser sorta mod-ish Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: KC North Casino cash: $-98384	Whoa, whoa, whoa. Does this mean the Raiders did the RIGHT thing by not voting? My brain hurts....
Posts: 106,693

07-21-2011, 08:05 PM	#367
keg in kc oxymoron Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: OP/KC/Whatever Casino cash: $9556299	Jeffrey Kessler is being a douche again. That's my guess.
Posts: 58,682

07-21-2011, 08:08 PM	#374
Rams Fan Greatest QB Duo of 2015 Join Date: Mar 2010 Casino cash: $1041023	Isn't this similar to what happened in the NHL Lockout?
Posts: 17,508