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.

[milkman]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

I don't think anyone has shown any evidence the owners changed a thing or that they didn't send them all necessary material in a timely manner.

The players have complained they won't be told by the NFL how to re-ratify the union and they aren't happy they only have 3 days after ratifying to make changes or the CBA goes back to 2006 terms.

I've heard the part about the union recertifcation.

They weren't happy that the NFL was trying to force them to rush that.

I've also heard that there are things that they can't negotiate as a non union group, like health benefits and discipline, and those are the things that would revert to 2006 rules.

[Marcellus]

Originally Posted by milkman

I've heard the part about the union recertifcation.

They weren't happy that the NFL was trying to force them to rush that.

I've also heard that there are things that they can't negotiate as a non union group, like health benefits and discipline, and those are the things that would revert to 2006 rules.

Here is a decent story that sums it up.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/67...nd-sources-say

[philfree]

Originally Posted by milkman

This thread is entirely too far along for me to read through the entire thing.

Let me see if I understand what's happening.

The owners approved a deal in which they made a couple of changes to items agreed upon, and sent it to the players in thier own sweet time for the palyers to ratify, hoping public pressure would sway the players to vote for a deal they didn't agree to.

That about the gist of what's happening?

Off the top of my head.

I don't know that the owners changed anything. I think that might have been BS. I think the players have been kept in the dark as to what was being negotiated so when they looked at it(although some claimed that hadn't recieved yet?) they felt left out of the loop. The pressure is to get this done before we start missing preseason games and both sides start losing huge amounts of revenue and the whole thing becomes more complicated. The owners approved the deal and gave the players a date to agree to it and the players balked at that. The thing is there's not much time for them to hem haw around about it. And last but not least there are things that can't be negotiated until the union recertifies and the owners put a time line on those and the palyers don't trust them to get it done so they're afraid to pull the trigger.

LOL Does that clear it up?

[BossChief]

Originally Posted by milkman

This thread is entirely too far along for me to read through the entire thing.

Let me see if I understand what's happening.

The owners approved a deal in which they made a couple of changes to items agreed upon, and sent it to the players in thier own sweet time for the palyers to ratify, hoping public pressure would sway the players to vote for a deal they didn't agree to.

That about the gist of what's happening?

Pretty much.

Past that, it's hard to understand exactly what has happened because the media has incorrectly reported so much it's hard to make heads or tails on any of it.

Basically, the owners said "sign it and form the union within 48 hours or else". And the players response was something like "if we sign it, it will be on our schedule, not yours"

There is also an issue about the wording of the demand by the owners as a possible colusion case because they are in sense forcing the players to form a union to complete the deal.

Could get ugly...could be done in a couple days.

Time will tell

[ShowtimeSBMVP]

Thus, starting Wednesday or so we can start deducting $96 million a week from the players' revenue pot - unless they're prepared to follow pied piper Kessler into a years long litigation shot at destroying the NFL as we know it. WED is dday for week 1 of preseason

[keg in kc]

Originally Posted by BossChief

Basically, the owners said "sign it and form the union within 48 hours or else". And the players response was something like "if we sign it, it will be on our schedule, not yours"

I think that's something that's actually been misreported. At least it certainly sounded like that during the interview Kietzman had with Niswanger this afternoon. Maybe I misunderstood what he was saying, but I got the impression from his comments that the owners were not leveling deadlines, that the dates they gave were simply laying-out timetables for different things (like certification).

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by ChiefsandO'sfan

Advantage: Players



http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/e...15047/30788649


After scanning the details of the NFL owners' proposal for a new labor deal, I have some advice for DeMaurice Smith.

Race to get that thing approved.

Both sides will claim victory when the CBA is finally completed -- and it will get done since there are only some small issues left, according to a handful of players -- but that's not the way I see it.

The players scored a TKO.

With the exception of opening up the books, which was never going to happen, this deal would include almost everything the players wanted to get.

Smith, for all the criticism he has taken for being as defiant as he's come off, deserves plenty of praise for getting his players this deal.

The owners will spin it their way, but the issues all went the way of the players.

Just look at them:

----The players wanted half the revenue without anything coming off the top while the owners wanted $2 billion off the top, and then would give up half. The owners will take nothing off the top and the players would get 48-percent of all revenues.

Advantage: Players

---The players wanted more time off. They would get a lot more. There will be off-season workout limits. They will limit OTAs. They will get more days off.

---Advantage: Players.

---The players wanted teams to spend close to the cap, and they now would have to do so, spending cash to the cap floor. They wanted free agency after four years, while the owners didn't. Free agency would be after four years.

---Advantage: Players.

---The players would get 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.

---Advantage: Players.

The owners wanted the rookie wage scale, and that would be in play. But they also wanted rookie deals for drafted players to be six years, not four. They would be four with an option for a fifth for some rookies.

----Advantage: Even.

So what exactly did the owners get? A new CBA. They didn't like the last one, so getting a new one is a win of sorts. They also get labor peace in a league that is the unquestioned sports leader for 10 years.

The NFL is an estimated $9-billion-a-year business. But projections are that it can become a $20-billion-a-year business. If that isn't reason to get labor peace, I don't know what could be the reason.

"Yeah, when you look at all the stuff, this is a good deal for us," one player told me. "There are just a few things that have to be tweaked."

Here's a guess that tweaking gets done over the weekend. And this deal will get done.

When it does, Smith should put on the championship belt. He knocked the snot out of the owners with a nasty right hook to the head.

This judge has a decision if this is the deal: Victory, players.

I didn't necessarily want the owners to "win" this thing, but a lot of those changes don't seem like they're going to be that great for the game as a whole, honestly. More free agency and less offseason workouts to keep players in shape especially seem like pretty big negatives from a fan prospective. At least the rookie pay scale's finally there.

[Hammock Parties]

[TimeForWasp]

The top draft pics this year are gonna feel like they got screwed.

[Marcellus]

Mort is reporting that Vincent Jackson has signed off on dropping his individual part of the lawsuit, he was the last of those guys.

Also said that when the players all wigged out after the owners approved the CBA, they didn't even know the terms at the time and blames the reaction on media including himself.

Once they found out the terms they realized, oh this is a good deal.

So as stated several times, the owners didn't do anything shady, the players just acted like babies.

[Rausch]

Originally Posted by ChiefsNow

The top draft pics this year are gonna feel like they got screwed.

They had to know going in that this could happen...

[kstater]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

]

So as stated several times, the owners didn't do anything shady, the players just acted like babies.

Nonsense, the owners were trying to get their slaves to sign an agreement that they'd never seen or negotiated.

[rocknrolla]

Originally Posted by kstater

Nonsense, the owners were trying to get their slaves to sign an agreement that they'd never seen or negotiated.

Are you saying DeMaurice Smith didn't see or have anything to do with this agreement? I find that hard to believe.

[-King-]

Originally Posted by rocknrolla

Are you saying DeMaurice Smith didn't see or have anything to do with this agreement? I find that hard to believe.

Are you saying that you don't understand sarcasm? I find that easy to believe.
Posted via Mobile Device

[rocknrolla]

Originally Posted by -King-

Are you saying that you don't understand sarcasm? I find that easy to believe.
Posted via Mobile Device

My bad. I just woke up and misread it.