PDA

View Full Version : Football Coaches Join Players In Fighting Lockout


listopencil
05-26-2011, 12:20 AM
NFL Coaches Association has filed an amicus brief (http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d82002f63/article/citing-job-security-coaches-side-with-players-in-labor-dispute) supporting players written and filed by a Duke law professor, Barak D. Richman. The coaches seem to be strongly supporting the players, and claim that the NFL is ‘avoiding’ the Sherman Act.

The coaches - both head and assistant - go on to say that "New coaches especially need time with players, which is why league rules normally permit new coaching staffs to organize two additional minicamps with players over the summer." It goes on to point out that, "This offseason, NFL teams hired an unusually large number of new head coaches with no previous head coaching experience, each of whom-along with their assistants-face a steep learning curve & desperately need this time to prepare their teams." The coaches then cite irreparable harm, and say that: "Damages would not be an adequate remedy for NFL coaches who suffer from the NFL’s illegal group boycott." The coaches' brief also includes charts that show the uptick in coaches fired after two years, and after three years from 2001 to '10.

While this is hardly a major game-changer in the situation, it does show that the head coaches are willing to challenge the statements of the owners in court. Increasingly, fans are turning against both sides, wondering why they can’t split up $9 billion. The coaches are showing a desire for reason and to be given a chance to be permitted to do their jobs, and I fully support that position, and hope that it brings some small level of order to this increasingly pointless circumstance.

Doc Bear May 25, 2011 8:23 PM
http://www.itsalloverfatman.com/broncos/entry/coaches-join-players-in-fighting-lockout

Rausch
05-26-2011, 12:22 AM
While this is hardly a major game-changer in the situation, it does show that the head coaches are willing to challenge the statements of the owners in court.

Uh.........I think it's a pretty big deal.

listopencil
05-26-2011, 12:23 AM
This looks like one of those "the ball's in your court" kind of moves but they make a good point. The quality of play absolutely will degrade given less preparation and Head Coaches don't have a big grace period before success is expected.

listopencil
05-26-2011, 12:24 AM
Uh.........I think it's a pretty big deal.


Just to be clear, the text in the OP is taken from an article on It's All Over Fat Man! None of that is my opinion. I'll edit it to prevent any misunderstanding.

Rausch
05-26-2011, 12:26 AM
Just to be clear, the text in the OP is taken from an article on It's All Over Fat Man! None of that is my opinion. I'll edit it to prevent any misunderstanding.

Yeah, I got that...

listopencil
05-26-2011, 12:32 AM
Yeah, I got that...


I think it's a big deal too. I don't recall the last time that the coaches stood against the owners, as two separate groups, on any important issue. I tend to think of the owner, the GM and the Head Coach as the "Front Office". I know that's it not really that simple but I do tend to think of them as one unit.

Rausch
05-26-2011, 12:34 AM
I think it's a big deal too. I don't recall the last time that the coaches stood against the owners, as two separate groups, on any important issue. I tend to think of the owner, the GM and the Head Coach as the "Front Office". I know that's it not really that simple but I do tend to think of them as one unit.

Exactly.

And HC's are so much more replaceable than players.

Even coaches than win SB's get fired quickly. QB's that win SB's don't...

bevischief
05-26-2011, 06:17 AM
About time. Why did it take this long for them to speak up?

MahiMike
05-26-2011, 06:21 AM
This surprised me. Coaches are on the front line and are already on the hot seat every year. I wouldn't want to tick off the hand that feeds me.

Marcellus
05-26-2011, 06:24 AM
This surprised me. Coaches are on the front line and are already on the hot seat every year. I wouldn't want to tick off the hand that feeds me.

This X100. This is a career ending type move if you are pushing it.

It's likely most coaches aren't involved in this.

chiefzilla1501
05-26-2011, 11:13 AM
On the one hand, surprised that coaches would stand up to their "bosses."

But it's a very valid point. Coaches aren't in a union and can be fired for poor performance. And owners locking out players most certainly affects their performance. Especially new coaches. Another reason why I don't understand how anyone can justify the lockout.

chiefzilla1501
05-26-2011, 11:14 AM
I also tend to think this is going to be huge in the court of public opinion for the players. Players are viewed as selfish and overpaid, and I personally believe that's largely out of jealousy because they get paid to play a game they love. Coaches are a lot more similar to us as workers, and I don't think anyone has ever made the claim that they're overpaid if they do good work.

vailpass
05-26-2011, 11:27 AM
Interesting. I'll wait to hear the whole story, including who is specifically involved, reported by a credible source.

sedated
05-26-2011, 11:39 AM
Interesting. I'll wait to hear the whole story, including who is specifically involved, reported by a credible source.

itsalloverfatman.com isn't credible enough for you?

vailpass
05-26-2011, 11:53 AM
itsalloverfatman.com isn't credible enough for you?

:) I didn't mean to impugn the fatman. Maybe I should have said "confirmed by a second, major source".

MOhillbilly
05-26-2011, 11:53 AM
-rolls eyes-

listopencil
05-26-2011, 01:21 PM
:) I didn't mean to impugn the fatman. Maybe I should have said "confirmed by a second, major source".

You didn't click on the link in the OP. This is a blurb reported on Fat Man, taken from an article written by Albert Breer of the NFL network, posted on NFL.com. Is that credible enough for you?

listopencil
05-26-2011, 01:21 PM
Citing job security, coaches side with players in labor dispute



http://static.nfl.com/static/content/catch_all/nfl_image/albert_breer_10_HS_65.jpg
By Albert Breer NFL Network
NFL Network Reporter
Published: <abbr id="article-time" class="value" title="2011-05-25T14:40:00-0700"> May 25, 2011 at 05:40 p.m. </abbr>
Updated: <abbr id="article-updatedtime" class="value" title="2011-05-26T11:36:13-0700"> May 26, 2011 at 02:36 p.m. </abbr>

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d82002f63/article/citing-job-security-coaches-side-with-players-in-labor-dispute

Mike in SW-MO
05-26-2011, 01:23 PM
Before you start passing out awards for valor, notice that there are no coach's names associated with this article.

Brock
05-26-2011, 01:56 PM
Before you start passing out awards for valor, notice that there are no coach's names associated with this article.

Why would there be?

vailpass
05-26-2011, 01:59 PM
You didn't click on the link in the OP. This is a blurb reported on Fat Man, taken from an article written by Albert Breer of the NFL network, posted on NFL.com. Is that credible enough for you?

Again, I'll wait for a secondary source to confirm this story and to give specific names of the coaches involved.
Until then there is smoke but no fire.

Brock
05-26-2011, 02:05 PM
Again, I'll wait for a secondary source to confirm this story and to give specific names of the coaches involved.
Until then there is smoke but no fire.

Translation: I don't want this to be true!!! Noooooo!

JD10367
05-26-2011, 02:05 PM
The NFLCA represents the coaches. Thus, I doubt they would make this move without the majority of the coaches signing off on it, no? And few coaches have the clout to come out in public and side with the players (Belichick, for example) so there's really no point to naming names.

bowener
05-26-2011, 02:24 PM
BUT WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN!!!?!?

listopencil
05-26-2011, 02:29 PM
Again, I'll wait for a secondary source to confirm this story and to give specific names of the coaches involved.
Until then there is smoke but no fire.


Dude. I like you but you are acting like a ****ing moron:


BRIEF FILED - AMICUS BRIEF filed by National Football League Coaches Association w/service 05/25/2011 , 18 PDF pages, No Addendum. [3791315] [11-1898]

http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/nflUpdates.html



It's an official document and it's part of public record.

listopencil
05-26-2011, 02:58 PM
For what it's worth:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/amicus+curiae

Literally, friend of the court. A person with strong interest in or views on the subject matter of an action, but not a party to the action, may petition the court for permission to file a brief, ostensibly on behalf of a party but actually to suggest a rationale consistent with its own views. Such amicus curiae briefs are commonly filed in appeals concerning matters of a broad public interest; e.g., civil rights cases. They may be filed by private persons or the government. In appeals to the U.S. courts of appeals, an amicus brief may be filed only if accompanied by written consent of all parties, or by leave of court granted on motion or at the request of the court, except that consent or leave shall not be required when the brief is presented by the United States or an officer or agency thereof.


I don't know. I'm not a lawyer. But it looks to me like the National Football League Coaches Association operates with the written consent of NFL coaches, so asking for the names of particular coaches is foolish.

vailpass
05-26-2011, 03:23 PM
Translation: I don't want this to be true!!! Noooooo!

Not in the slightest. Why would this have any impact on me? I want to see what specific coaches are part of this action before commenting. Is it every head coach in the league? Is it a couple of assistant special teams coordinators? Details make a difference.

vailpass
05-26-2011, 03:25 PM
Dude. I like you but you are acting like a ****ing moron:


BRIEF FILED - AMICUS BRIEF filed by National Football League Coaches Association w/service 05/25/2011 , 18 PDF pages, No Addendum. [3791315] [11-1898]

http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/nflUpdates.html



It's an official document and it's part of public record.

If laying back until you have gathered some hard data is wrong I don't want to be right. Forgive me if I look to sources other than a few jack-legged slap dicks on one intraweb message board.

kstater
05-26-2011, 03:28 PM
BUT WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN!!!?!?

Quite literally nothing.

RNR
05-26-2011, 03:32 PM
The NFLCA represents the coaches. Thus, I doubt they would make this move without the majority of the coaches signing off on it, no? And few coaches have the clout to come out in public and side with the players (Belichick, for example) so there's really no point to naming names.
And??? lol~

Brock
05-26-2011, 03:35 PM
Not in the slightest. Why would this have any impact on me? I want to see what specific coaches are part of this action before commenting. Is it every head coach in the league? Is it a couple of assistant special teams coordinators? Details make a difference.

Which coaches are a part of it? Every single member of NFLCA.

listopencil
05-26-2011, 03:39 PM
If laying back until you have gathered some hard data is wrong I don't want to be right. Forgive me if I look to sources other than a few jack-legged slap dicks on one intraweb message board.


Wow, you obviously haven't read anything past the OP, in which you failed to find the link to the original article. Let me lay this out for you:


1) A writer at "It's All Over Fat Man!" posted an opinion piece regarding a recent article... http://www.itsalloverfatman.com/broncos/entry/coaches-join-players-in-fighting-lockout


2)...by Albert Breer, a reporter for the NFL Network, which was posted posted on NFL.com...http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d82002f63/article/citing-job-security-coaches-side-with-players-in-labor-dispute


3)...in which he references a legal document that is available to the public...http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/nflUpdates.html


4)...filed by the National Football League Coaches Association as a "friend of the court"...http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/amicus+curiae




Do you understand what is going on now?

listopencil
05-26-2011, 03:46 PM
Not in the slightest. Why would this have any impact on me? I want to see what specific coaches are part of this action before commenting. Is it every head coach in the league? Is it a couple of assistant special teams coordinators? Details make a difference.


For what it's worth:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/amicus+curiae

Literally, friend of the court. A person with strong interest in or views on the subject matter of an action, but not a party to the action, may petition the court for permission to file a brief, ostensibly on behalf of a party but actually to suggest a rationale consistent with its own views. Such amicus curiae briefs are commonly filed in appeals concerning matters of a broad public interest; e.g., civil rights cases. They may be filed by private persons or the government. In appeals to the U.S. courts of appeals, an amicus brief may be filed only if accompanied by written consent of all parties, or by leave of court granted on motion or at the request of the court, except that consent or leave shall not be required when the brief is presented by the United States or an officer or agency thereof.


I don't know. I'm not a lawyer. But it looks to me like the National Football League Coaches Association operates with the written consent of NFL coaches, so asking for the names of particular coaches is foolish.


As I understand it this shows that the NFLCA has a legal right to represent NFL coaches. I'm sure there may be individual coaches or even entire coaching staffs that decide to distance themselves from this position and/or declare that the NFLCA does not represent them in this situation. That would be the way to go, because otherwise agreement is implied.

listopencil
05-26-2011, 03:49 PM
Here you go:


Skins break ranks on NFLCA appeals brief
http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/22475988/29598721
Posted on: May 26, 2011 4:36 pm
Edited on: May 26, 2011 4:56 pm
Posted by Will Brinson

On Wednesday, the NFL Coaches Association filed an amicus brief in support (http://eye-on-football.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/22475988/29569952) of the players' request to lift the lockout.

On Thursday, the Washington Redskins (http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/teams/page/WAS)' coaching staff issued an interesting statement in which they renounce said brief.

"We stand united with our ownership and the brief does not reflect our thoughts on the matter," the letter reads, per Albert Breer of the NFL Network. "We, like everybody else, are hopeful we can return to playing football. ... Our former representative, Kirk Olivadotti, is no longer with the organization & no member of our ... staff was consulted."

According to Breer, 17 members of the Redskins staff signed the letter, though it did not include the signature of head coach Mike Shanahan, who is apparently considered part of "management."

The basic takeaway from the letter appears to be that the Redskins staff was none too pleased about the NFLCA filing their brief without checking first with the organization's coaches.

But then again, no coaches specifically attached their name to the NFLCA's brief, so perhaps this is just the first of many letters to leak in the media courtesy of coaching staffs.

Mr. Laz
05-26-2011, 03:52 PM
I also tend to think this is going to be huge in the court of public opinion for the players. Players are viewed as selfish and overpaid, and I personally believe that's largely out of jealousy because they get paid to play a game they love. Coaches are a lot more similar to us as workers, and I don't think anyone has ever made the claim that they're overpaid if they do good work.
fuck off and die

bowener
05-26-2011, 04:02 PM
Here you go:


Skins break ranks on NFLCA appeals brief


Dan Snyder wrote that brief himself.

listopencil
05-26-2011, 04:07 PM
Dan Snyder wrote that brief himself.


That would not surprise me.

bowener
05-26-2011, 04:11 PM
That would not surprise me.

He has to approve all Skins related articles before being published, at least I am almost positive I read that and am not making it up.

He makes Al Davis look hands off. And competent!

vailpass
05-26-2011, 04:29 PM
Here you go:


Skins break ranks on NFLCA appeals brief
http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/22475988/29598721
Posted on: May 26, 2011 4:36 pm
Edited on: May 26, 2011 4:56 pm
Posted by Will Brinson

On Wednesday, the NFL Coaches Association filed an amicus brief in support (http://eye-on-football.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/22475988/29569952) of the players' request to lift the lockout.

On Thursday, the Washington Redskins (http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/teams/page/WAS)' coaching staff issued an interesting statement in which they renounce said brief.

"We stand united with our ownership and the brief does not reflect our thoughts on the matter," the letter reads, per Albert Breer of the NFL Network. "We, like everybody else, are hopeful we can return to playing football. ... Our former representative, Kirk Olivadotti, is no longer with the organization & no member of our ... staff was consulted."

According to Breer, 17 members of the Redskins staff signed the letter, though it did not include the signature of head coach Mike Shanahan,
who is apparently considered part of "management."

The basic takeaway from the letter appears to be that the Redskins staff was none too pleased about the NFLCA filing their brief without checking first with the organization's coaches.

But then again, no coaches specifically attached their name to the NFLCA's brief, so perhaps this is just the first of many letters to leak in the media courtesy of coaching staffs.

Exactly why I was waiting. Do you agree this sheds a whole new light on the OP?

kstater
05-26-2011, 04:33 PM
He has to approve all Skins related articles before being published, at least I am almost positive I read that and am not making it up.



Yeah, there's no possible way this is true.

Okie_Apparition
05-26-2011, 05:30 PM
Going that little extra for the coach can be the difference in winning & this should play well with the players. Wouldn't surprise me to see alot of the owners okay with this for that reason. The lockout end is near

The Franchise
05-26-2011, 05:42 PM
fuck off and die

Great response. :spock:

listopencil
05-26-2011, 06:10 PM
Exactly why I was waiting. Do you agree this sheds a whole new light on the OP?

1)This wasn't reported by a few "jack-legged slap dicks" as you said, it was reported by credible sources as I linked.

2) There is no list of names that you were waiting for, it was presented by an organization that had a legal right to do so as I kept telling you.

3) This isn't something to be blown off as you implied, this really is a strong statement. Strong enough that one entire coaching staff (other than the Head Coach) felt the need to clarify their position in disagreement with the original brief.


A whole new light? No, it shows exactly what I've been saying the entire time. Every step of the way I've posted links that show you to be incorrect.

kysirsoze
05-26-2011, 06:17 PM
1)This wasn't reported by a few "jack-legged slap dicks" as you said, it was reported by credible sources as I linked.

2) There is no list of names that you were waiting for, it was presented by an organization that had a legal right to do so as I kept telling you.

3) This isn't something to be blown off as you implied, this really is a strong statement. Strong enough that one entire coaching staff (other than the Head Coach) felt the need to clarify their position in disagreement with the original brief.


A whole new light? No, it shows exactly what I've been saying the entire time. Every step of the way I've posted links that show you to be incorrect.

Plus, I'll believe the Redskins coaching staff is against it when Shanahan makes a statement of his own. This looks like Snyder PR to me.

(unless I missed said statement in which case, withdrawn.)

Brock
05-26-2011, 06:37 PM
I bet Cowboys coaches "release" a similar "statement".

Mr. Laz
05-26-2011, 08:02 PM
Great response. :spock:
as much sense as the stupid shit he was saying.

people are more jealous of the players making millions than they are of the owners making billions? :spock:

How about this ... people siding with the players are just jealous of the owners making billions while sitting behind a desk and not having to get concussions on the field.

How about this ... people siding with the players are just in the habit of cheering for the players on sunday and aren't smart enough to separate the game from the business.

How about this ... people siding with the players aren't rational enough to realize that they are actually siding AGAINST their own best interest.

specific enough?

Okie_Apparition
05-26-2011, 08:23 PM
I would think to other owners, Kraft's rings are far more impressive than Snyder's lastest toy. Billions & power most already have

Dave Lane
05-26-2011, 09:07 PM
Exactly why I was waiting. Do you agree this sheds a whole new light on the OP?

No

Dave Lane
05-26-2011, 09:13 PM
How about this. Laz is so blinded by an almost obscene worry that the players that are asking for precisely nothing, are some how going to raise his ticket prices or ruin the competitive balance in football some how, that he can't be anywhere close to the island of objectivity.

You're a pretty good dude most the time laz but you are way out there on this one. I think it will take both sides to give a little to get a deal done but holy shit you make me want to cheer for the players.

as much sense as the stupid shit he was saying.

people are more jealous of the players making millions than they are of the owners making billions? :spock:

How about this ... people siding with the players are just jealous of the owners making billions while sitting behind a desk and not having to get concussions on the field.

How about this ... people siding with the players are just in the habit of cheering for the players on sunday and aren't smart enough to separate the game from the business.

How about this ... people siding with the players aren't rational enough to realize that they are actually siding AGAINST their own best interest.

specific enough?

ForeverChiefs58
05-26-2011, 09:16 PM
Life in Arena Football League far removed from NFL lockout

Players in the arena league generally make $400 per game.

With sports television saturated with coverage of the NFL lockout, the average fan may not understand that not every professional football player cashes a large paycheck.

Orlando Predators defensive back Kenny McEntyre is a perfect example.

McEntyre is regarded as one of the best players in Arena Football League history and has more interceptions than any professional player. He will receive just a $400 game check, though, when the Predators take on the host Milwaukee Mustangs at 8 Thursday night.

"Most of the guys that are in this league are playing for $400, so it was never trying to get rich for most of the guys that are here," McEntyre said. "Now you gotta love the game, 'cause you know what you're getting into. You know that you're coming in here to make 400 bucks, no questions asked."

Those numbers lend perspective to the NFL lockout, with players and owners arguing over billions of dollars in revenue.

"How are you going to tell a young family that makes $20,000 that you can't manage $10 billion?'' asked McEntyre, who has spent time with three NFL teams. "It's a little sensitive topic for a lot of people, because the country is in the state that it is.''

Total NFL revenue is reported to be about $9 billion. According to reports, the league takes about $1 billion from that, and players receive about 60 percent of what's left over. The NFL and its owners want an additional $1 billion of revenue off the top.

After closing operations in 2009, the Arena Football League adopted a new financial structure beginning with the 2010 season. Six-figure salaries were not uncommon in the previous model, but now a large majority of players make $400 per game. That works out to $7,200 per season with the AFL's 18-game schedule.

Teams can designate up to three "marketing players," who make $1,000 per game, or $18,000 per season. Orlando's three "marketing players" are wide receiver T.T. Tolliver, defensive back Rayshaun Kizer and quarterback Nick Hill.

"When people find out how little we make, most of the reaction is like, 'No way, you've got to be kidding me'," Hill said.

Players receive financial assistance for meals and housing, but in many cases, the pay is not enough for the AFL to be their sole source of income.

Predators coach Pat O'Hara said the league's previous economic model was "broken" and thinks the AFL is an opportunity for players to continue in the game they love or showcase their talent for the NFL.

"There are a lot of football players that are willing to play and have a platform to play to advance their career, and the Arena Football League is that platform," O'Hara said.

Bobby Sippio, a veteran AFL wide receiver who played for the Kansas City Chiefs in 2007, thinks many fans don't have a true appreciation of the level of passion of the players, regardless of their paycheck.

"Money is an issue, but right now guys are playing football because it's what we do, it's what we love to do and it's what we've always done," Sippio said.

"Once upon a time, we weren't getting paid anything to play. It's not always about the money to the players."

milkman
05-26-2011, 09:28 PM
How about this. Laz is so blinded by an almost obscene worry that the players that are asking for precisely nothing, are some how going to raise his ticket prices or ruin the competitive balance in football some how, that he can't be anywhere close to the island of objectivity.

You're a pretty good dude most the time laz but you are way out there on this one. I think it will take both sides to give a little to get a deal done but holy shit you make me want to cheer for the players.

The thing is, had it been up to me, I would have told the players to take the deal that the owners offered before the deadline.

But I understand that the players would have left a ton of money on the table by accepting that offer.

The problem still remians that the owners can't negotiate a solution to their own problems related to revenue sharing, and the players know that the owners are essentially trying to fix that problem by working a deal that removes the necessity for the owners to fix their problems.

listopencil
05-26-2011, 09:34 PM
I need to go get some Sabercats gear.

Ace Gunner
05-26-2011, 10:38 PM
as much sense as the stupid shit he was saying.

people are more jealous of the players making millions than they are of the owners making billions? :spock:

How about this ... people siding with the players are just jealous of the owners making billions while sitting behind a desk and not having to get concussions on the field.

How about this ... people siding with the players are just in the habit of cheering for the players on sunday and aren't smart enough to separate the game from the business.

How about this ... people siding with the players aren't rational enough to realize that they are actually siding AGAINST their own best interest.

specific enough?

I can live with that.......


I think this was brewing since 2002 myself. I think the owners signed on Tag's last deal knowing he'd b gone about now & they could plan for a big $ grab once he left. the problem is, the players knew it too, so they voted a trial lawyer into the rep position - enter 'dbag smith'...

but where this took an unusual twist for the players was when Jerry R & Jerry J ripped peyton & drew a new asshole during negotiations while at the same time tabling a contract that took an extra billion off the top instead of the 50/50 split. that to me is where things got shut down & it wasn't cuz of the jerry's it was cuz of the billion dollar grab...

FAX
05-26-2011, 10:53 PM
ROFL

The Redskins coaches attempt to conceal themselves in their teepees.

FAX

FAX
05-26-2011, 10:55 PM
Not only is Sippio the greatest receiver of all times, but he is also a thoughtful contributor to society.

Pretty awesome, if you ask me.

FAX

listopencil
05-27-2011, 12:14 PM
The NFL teams (LLC) have now filed a brief but I don't have time to go over it. I am on my way to my daughter's graduation ceremony. Here's a link:


http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/nfl/ca8_live.11.cv.1898.3791867.0.pdf

Titty Meat
05-27-2011, 12:29 PM
If it makes anyone feel better some people in the Chiefs organization said they are sure there will be a season.

listopencil
05-27-2011, 04:30 PM
If it makes anyone feel better some people in the Chiefs organization said they are sure there will be a season.

After looking at the brief, it appears to me to be an argument from the owners concerning their right to engage in a lockout. They believe they can do it and they believe the players are full of crap basically. I'm not a lawyer though.

listopencil
05-27-2011, 06:09 PM
Here's a little more background on the situation. It's coming from the NFLCA. It looks to me that the NFLCA may be more for Assistant Coaches than Head Coaches, and that may be why Shanny didn't sign off on the document released by the Redskin coaching staff. Maybe he still feels like this isn't his fight, I don't know. Here's a link:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5188986

It's an article (05/14/11) about the NFLCA's decision to consider forming a union. It has some relevance to the CBA talks going on right now and contains a few interesting bits, you can click on the link to read the whole article:

Assistant coaches eye unionizing


By Mike Sando
<cite class="source">ESPN.com
</cite>

The NFL Coaches Association, upset about benefits changes and the manner in which the league implemented those changes, is considering unionizing.
...

"They took the pension away with no forewarning whatsoever," said NFLCA executive director Larry Kennan, a former assistant coach. "They expect us to like the lockout clauses and not complain when they try to do away with the antitrust laws. We don't understand. All we have said is, 'Treat us with respect and dignity because we treat the game with respect and we want you to treat us the same,' and they haven't in any of us."


Tensions between owners and assistant coaches also rose when the NFLCA filed an amicus brief supporting American Needle in its landmark antitrust case against the NFL. A league victory in the case would establish the NFL as a single entity, not a collection of 32 competing teams. Legal experts say that outcome could prevent players, coaches or anyone else from proving or even levying charges of collusion.


"Several owners have really attacked the coaches on their staff and want to know why we are siding against the NFL in this American Needle case," Kennan said. "It makes no sense for us to do anything else."


The NFLCA letter to coaches says the association needs to "explore the possibility of becoming a union" through education.
...

Okie_Apparition
05-27-2011, 06:16 PM
A rap version of We Are The WOrld is due out next week.

listopencil
05-27-2011, 06:24 PM
A rap version of We Are The WOrld is due out next week.


Have you voted in the "Do my Mom?" thread yet?

JD10367
05-27-2011, 06:27 PM
A rap version of We Are The WOrld is due out next week.

Pales in comparison to "He's Fucking Ben Affleck".

Okie_Apparition
05-27-2011, 06:29 PM
Have you voted in the "Do my Mom?" thread yet?

Already have was not a poll option/joke that still feels wrong

listopencil
05-27-2011, 06:34 PM
Already have was not a poll option/joke that still feels wrong

There's a "Fuck my Dad?" poll too.

Mr. Laz
06-03-2011, 10:33 AM
Curious ties between NFLCA, NFLPA*

Posted by Mike Florio on June 3, 2011, 11:15 AM EDT
http://nbcprofootballtalk.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/larrykennanap-e1307114264832.jpg?w=250
AP

The coaching staffs from 10 teams and counting have publicly said that the brief filed by the NFL Coaches Association in support of the players’ effort to lift the lockout doesn’t speak for them. So on whose behalf is the NFL Coaches Association speaking?

Given the ties between the NFLPA* and the NFLCA, you probably don’t need three guesses.

The “Contact Us (http://www.nflcoaches.com/ContactUs/tabid/57/Default.aspx)” page at the NFLCA website lists Larry Kennan as the group’s executive director. The other staff members listed are all NFLPA* officials, according to the 2009 LM-2 filed (http://davepear.com/blog/2010/06/the-2009-nflpa-lm-2-is-out/) by the pre-asterisk NFLPA with the U.S. Department of Labor.

While there’s nothing inherently wrong with the NFLCA being staffed almost exclusively by NFLPA* employees, the “friend of the court” brief submitted by the NFLCA to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit makes no reference to that fairly important connection. Instead, the NFLCA declares at the outset of its brief that “[t]he National Football League Coaches Association (‘NFLCA’) is a nonunion voluntary association that represents the interests of coaches and assistant coaches currently employed by the thirty-two individual National Football League (‘NFL’) teams, as well as many retired coaches formerly employed by those NFL teams.”

This statement strongly implies (at a minimum) that the NFLCA speaks for every coach employed by every team in the NFL. Clearly, it doesn’t.

The absence of any disclosure that the NFLCA is staffed almost exclusively by employees of the very entity that decertified as a precursor to the very legal claims that the NFLCA is supporting gives the brief zero credibility, at best. At worst, the NFLCA arguably has committed a not-so-subtle fraud on the court.

We’ve got no problem with the NFL coaches having a group that speaks on their behalf on any of the many important issues confronting the league’s coaches. By all appearances, however, that group isn’t the NFL Coaches Association.

vailpass
06-03-2011, 10:35 AM
Curious ties between NFLCA, NFLPA*

Posted by Mike Florio on June 3, 2011, 11:15 AM EDT
http://nbcprofootballtalk.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/larrykennanap-e1307114264832.jpg?w=250
AP

The coaching staffs from 10 teams and counting have publicly said that the brief filed by the NFL Coaches Association in support of the players’ effort to lift the lockout doesn’t speak for them. So on whose behalf is the NFL Coaches Association speaking?

Given the ties between the NFLPA* and the NFLCA, you probably don’t need three guesses.

The “Contact Us (http://www.nflcoaches.com/ContactUs/tabid/57/Default.aspx)” page at the NFLCA website lists Larry Kennan as the group’s executive director. The other staff members listed are all NFLPA* officials, according to the 2009 LM-2 filed (http://davepear.com/blog/2010/06/the-2009-nflpa-lm-2-is-out/) by the pre-asterisk NFLPA with the U.S. Department of Labor.

While there’s nothing inherently wrong with the NFLCA being staffed almost exclusively by NFLPA* employees, the “friend of the court” brief submitted by the NFLCA to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit makes no reference to that fairly important connection. Instead, the NFLCA declares at the outset of its brief that “[t]he National Football League Coaches Association (‘NFLCA’) is a nonunion voluntary association that represents the interests of coaches and assistant coaches currently employed by the thirty-two individual National Football League (‘NFL’) teams, as well as many retired coaches formerly employed by those NFL teams.”

This statement strongly implies (at a minimum) that the NFLCA speaks for every coach employed by every team in the NFL. Clearly, it doesn’t.

The absence of any disclosure that the NFLCA is staffed almost exclusively by employees of the very entity that decertified as a precursor to the very legal claims that the NFLCA is supporting gives the brief zero credibility, at best. At worst, the NFLCA arguably has committed a not-so-subtle fraud on the court.

We’ve got no problem with the NFL coaches having a group that speaks on their behalf on any of the many important issues confronting the league’s coaches. By all appearances, however, that group isn’t the NFL Coaches Association.

This makes a lot more sense than believing that NFL head coaches would ever publicly speak out against their owners, much less take legal action against them. A cleaner path to career suicide there has never been. Not only would that get a coach fired, he'd have a damn hard time ever working in the league again.

listopencil
06-03-2011, 12:11 PM
This makes a lot more sense than believing that NFL head coaches would ever publicly speak out against their owners, much less take legal action against them. A cleaner path to career suicide there has never been. Not only would that get a coach fired, he'd have a damn hard time ever working in the league again.

Yep, the tie between the NFLCA and actual coaches is hard to find. I tried and it is murky at best. The closest I could find was that coaches are expected to pay dues to be part of the NFLCA and one would presume that this implies consent. Still, the article states "ten teams and counting". That's only 30% of staffs around the league. And those staffs did feel the need to clarify because that brief was "a pretty big deal".

vailpass
06-03-2011, 12:39 PM
Yep, the tie between the NFLCA and actual coaches is hard to find. I tried and it is murky at best. The closest I could find was that coaches are expected to pay dues to be part of the NFLCA and one would presume that this implies consent. Still, the article states "ten teams and counting". That's only 30% of staffs around the league. And those staffs did feel the need to clarify because that brief was "a pretty big deal".

Good point. I wonder if there are any in the remaining 70% who are sweating balls fight about now?

listopencil
06-03-2011, 01:05 PM
Good point. I wonder if there are any in the remaining 70% who are sweating balls right about now?

Yeah, no kidding. When the owners meet there is definitely this sense of politics, like they are leaders of nation-states engaged in diplomacy. You have to wonder how each owner is reacting to the NFLCA activity and who they are blaming for it.

Mr. Laz
06-03-2011, 01:54 PM
Vikings, Bills coaches disavow NFLCA brief, too

Posted by Mike Florio on June 3, 2011, 3:48 PM EDT
http://nbcprofootballtalk.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/lesliefrazierjan3.jpg?w=250

APAt some point in the not-too-distant future, it could be easier to list the teams whose coaches haven’t disavowed the “friend of the court” brief filed by the NFL Coaches Association in support of the players’ effort to lift the lockout. At some point, that list could consist of no teams.

The roster of coaching staffs expressing disagreement with the NFLCA brief has grown to 12 teams, with the addition of the Bills and the Vikings.

“Our entire staff had no prior knowledge (http://blogs.buffalonews.com/billboard/2011/06/bills-coaches-disavow-court-brief.html), nor were we consulted that the amicus brief was being filed on behalf of the coaches,” Bills offensive coordinator Curtis Modkins said, per the Buffalo News. “We support Mr. Wilson. Our focus is on our preparation for the 2011 season.”

Ditto for Vikings coach Leslie Frazier. “We weren’t contacted (http://www.1500espn.com/sportswire/Vikings_coaches_werent_consulted_on_NFLCA_brief_Leslie_Frazier_says060311) by the coaches association,” Frazier said, per Tom Pelissero of 1500espn.com. “We’re going to always be supportive of our management. We’ve got great management here in Minnesota. The Wilf family has been terrific for our employees.”

By all appearances, NFLCA executive director Larry Kennan decided it would be easier to seek forgiveness than permission. Based on how things have been going in the wake of the filing, Kennan eventually could be seeking unemployment compensation.

Easy 6
06-04-2011, 08:00 PM
I certainly wont claim to know what this really means/doesnt mean... but for the love of God, i hope its a sign that the dam is about to break.

I want my football, i dont, in the end, really give a damn who gets the stinky end of the stick.

listopencil
06-08-2011, 04:11 PM
The Daily Shoutout

Posted on: June 8, 2011 8:15 am

SUPER, DUPER DOUBLE SECRET MEETING: The NFL owners and trade association members met again on Tuesday night and will attend mediation sessions on Wednesday at an undisclosed, underground bunker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney) otherwise known as a New York City hotel. The not so secret meeting (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agi8PUmlAKU), I'm told, continues along a track I've been reporting for days. A person familiar with the talks said both sides continue to close the gap on significant issues and there remains a slim chance a deal is reached before the 8th circuit rules in July. The feeling I'm getting is that the season is no longer in jeopardy. Clearly, at the very least, the trust has grown between the two sides.

http://mike-freeman.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/6264363/29880415