Owners agree to players new deal..players still need to vote.

[thebluefood]

I call defensive end.

Gonna lay the smack down on some fools.

That or place kicker. Gonna bring back the straight on kick back.

[Hubbs]

I've got dibs on another DB spot. Always liked making an interception 1,000 times more than making a catch.

[MartinC]

Okay, I'll try this again and then I'm giving up. When you negotiate a deal. You agree on the terms. Before signing the contract both parties read over it to make sure the terms are the same as those that were agreed upon. You don't blindly sign it and assume that things are fine.

This is not 1965. You have electronic version control with revision checks. If you - or the Union - are trying to tell me that they don't have the version of the document the owners voted on and can't see any redline changes from that to the version last drafted by both sides lawyers then I call BS.

It's been know for weeks that the owners were going to vote last night. The players were scheduled to vote Wednesday (I.e first) but did not I believe to try to create leverage around some issues to do with the named plaintiffs wanting dollars or extra privileges before they agree a settlement.

Only three things are happening here IMO.

1 The owners really have switched language. If so the Union can explain what's been switched. The silence there is telling.

2. The Union did an awful job in keeping it's members informed of what was in the agreement and need time to get everyone on board.

3. There are issues with some named plaintiffs (Vincent Jackson) for example wanting some sweetners and threatening to sue the NFLPA if they settle in his name without this.

My summary is the Union is stalling to buy time and are on the back foot. They don't like that and some players are lashing out.

It appears billionaire businessman are better at business than football players who dropped out of some communication major at University. Go figure.

[Taylor 36]

Common sense. Owners took a vote on a proposal the NFLPA had not signed off on. Very slimy move. Maybe a smart one. But still a slimy one.

And I called this months ago actually. Will have to look up my old posts. But I said the owners would make it look like a deal was close to put the pressure on the players. It's collective bargaining negotiating 101 and man, folks are falling for it hook, line, and sinker.

LL56 said it best -- PLAYERS HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW WHAT THEY'RE SIGNING.

Maybe you should have taken collective bargaining 101 so you would know that in order for the agreement to be legit and hold up for the duration of the contract, the players have to be unionized. And, in every business transaction of these types, there is always a null date. So, stop whining about the owners forcing the players to unionize; it is a legality that is necessary for this agreement to take place. And, let's not forget that the players only decertified their union in order to try and block the lockout. Now, they have to re-certify in order to end the lockout, so what's the problem?

The NFLPA is just as much responsible for these negotiations taking as long as they have. The players were supposed to vote on this yesterday. It has been known for a week that the owners wanted to and were going to vote on this so long as it was ready for their meeting TODAY. There was nothing surprising, under-handed, sneaky about this, and it is not their fault that the NFLPA and reps did not get this to the players yesterday.

Sure, players have the right to know what they are signing, but how are they supposed to know? By the use of another right they have: the players had the right to vote for their union reps and leaders.

They chose to put those people in the driver's seat.

Those people have been negotiating WITH the 10 member owners committee, the commish, the appointed federal mediator, and lawyers from BOTH sides for three weeks.

So, with their own reps, leadership, and lawyers in the room to write up the document, and a federal mediator witnessing everything, you want to believe that the owners pulled a fast one, not that the majority of the players are either uninformed or strongly misinformed by the people they CHOSE to represent them? If you truly feel it is not the latter, you're either a fool or blind.

Seriously, if what you say were true, that would mean that the lawyers the NFLPA hired are complete morons, and the mediator is brain dead. There is no way that a court-appointed federal mediator who has overseen this entire process would allow this document to be underhanded. The owners are all claiming that they had a "hand-shake deal" in place. If that is false, then the mediator would easily and legally call them out on it. But that's not what has happened. All that has happened is we've had a bunch of players who have not been in any of these negotiations tweeting that it is under-handed and the owners are liars. D. Smith, the scum-bag that he is, is claiming there was no agreement, yet he is the only one out of all that were physically present during these meetings who is saying this. It should make you stop and think, if you weren't so blind with hatred of the owners.

It has been reported on all sporting networks and site what the CBA that the owners ratified has laid out for the next ten years. Almost the entire thing is what the player wanted to begin with. The ball is legitimately in the players court and they must deal with it. This is negotiating and contract agreement 101. This is how it works throughout the entire business world. The players are not getting shafted; they are shafting the fans and the owners if they don't ratify this deal.

[Rocky21]

The owners are trying to make the players look like the bad guys - the ones who are stopping you, the fan, from enjoying NFL football - by publicly announcing a proposal as a deal.

Wish I could say I was surprised but this is one greedy lot.

[justice98]

If they have to take an extra day, take an extra day. There's too much money at stake long term to be hasty.

[DC9]

Okay, I'll try this again and then I'm giving up. When you negotiate a deal. You agree on the terms. Before signing the contract both parties read over it to make sure the terms are the same as those that were agreed upon. You don't blindly sign it and assume that things are fine.

They did talk about it. Their lawyers talked about it. The players talked about it. They've (the players) HAD it for a few days. They were supposed to vote on it on Wednesday night (remember?).

The players (not the owners) moved their conference call to thursday (to posture). The owners voted and ratified. Now it's on the players....and all of a sudden it's like, "We've been bamboozled, hoodwinked," whatever. Really? Bamboozled?.....yeah....

The players are the ones who've planned out this pitty party for the last couple of days. If the players don't accept this, I wouldn't be shocked if the owners completely backed out and took this thing the long way. And I think the courts have pretty much told us how that's going to go.

The owners have come well over halfway.

HAIL!

[Woofer]

Every one is all excited, like the season has practically started!

HA!

The only thing that has happened is the owners have agreed to agree with themselves!

[TaylorPickSix]

Did anyone just catch Takeo Spikes on ESPN? I have severe doubts the players are going to pass this deal from the way he was talking. This thing just keeps getting dragged on and on

[DC9]

Did anyone just catch Takeo Spikes on ESPN? I have severe doubts the players are going to pass this deal from the way he was talking. This thing just keeps getting dragged on and on

I'm listening to him on mike and mike right now.... I turned it off because he was pissing me off. I'll turn it back on if you say it's positive. I hate posturing and that's all he did for about the first 5 minutes.

[Popeman38]

Guys, the owners did not ratify the 500 page version of the CBA. They ratified the high level agreement. All the owners have stated they haven't seen the detailed version. What they agreed to is what was negotiated with the NFLPA* - with the added supplemental revenue sharing between teams. That was added because the NFLPA* wanted no part of it since it doesn't involve the players. Why would the players care how teams reallocate money between clubs if it comes after the revenue split with players?

A whole lotta BS being floated by uninformed players last night/this morning.

[MartinC]

I'm listening to him on mike and mike right now.... I turned it off because he was pissing me off. I'll turn it back on if you say it's positive. I hate posturing and that's all he did for about the first 5 minutes.

Well at one point he said that that one of his concerns was about the affect of inflation on the money the players would be getting. This on a deal which pays them a fixed percentage of the gross - so if there is inflation the gross goes up with it. Good to see the players have a firm grasp on the issues at hand - I sense we are in good hands here.

[aREDSKIN]

Guys, the owners did not ratify the 500 page version of the CBA. They ratified the high level agreement. All the owners have stated they haven't seen the detailed version. What they agreed to is what was negotiated with the NFLPA* - with the added supplemental revenue sharing between teams. That was added because the NFLPA* wanted no part of it since it doesn't involve the players. Why would the players care how teams reallocate money between clubs if it comes after the revenue split with players?

A whole lotta BS being floated by uninformed players last night/this morning.

I agree. From what I can gather as of right now main sticking point are not the CBA, as that has been pretty much all agreed to by all party's. The issue(s) are a agreement of language in the global settlement of all pending litigation & the reconstitution of the NFLPA as a union. The owners will not sign off on a CBA unless the players reconstitute as a union and the players don't want to owners dictating to them whether to re-certify or not. This is going to take some time IMO. IMO it's the players and their representatives that have screwed this up.

[MartinC]

I agree. From what I can gather as of right now main sticking point are not the CBA, as that has been pretty much all agreed to by all party's. The issue(s) are a agreement of language in the global settlement of all pending litigation & the reconstitution of the NFLPA as a union. The owners will not sign off on a CBA unless the players reconstitute as a union and the players don't want to owners dictating to them whether to re-certify or not. This is going to take some time IMO. IMO it's the players and their representatives that have screwed this up.

As I understand it its not the fact of recertification - without recertification everyone has been wasting their time and legal fees negotiating a new CBA - its the timing and method. I would think that would have been something discussed in the last couple of months at some point but there you go. The settlement of the pending litigation is probably a more substantive issue.

[Popeman38]

Well at one point he said that that one of his concerns was about the affect of inflation on the money the players would be getting. This on a deal which pays them a fixed percentage of the gross - so if there is inflation the gross goes up with it. Good to see the players have a firm grasp on the issues at hand - I sense we are in good hands here.

The players have 2, maybe 3 members who understand all of this. The rest are trying to play the part. Our own Vonnie Holliday is all kinda confused. The NFLPA* head negotiated what was approved by the owners - with the exception of supplemental revenue sharing which is outside of the NFLPA* rights anyway. The player reps (ALL veterans by the way) are holding this up. De Smith was hired to do a job. He has done it. There is no union, so the player reps are void anyway (they have zero power). What De Smith negotiated should be presented to the ~1,900 players and a straw poll taken on whether to vote. Then they should vote. If 951 vote YAY, the 949 NAY votes are irrelevant. And you can bet your ass that way more than 951 will vote YAY. The player reps think that fans are on their side. Here is reality:

The majority of the fans that buy season tickets and are identified as fans of a team root for name on the FRONT of the jersey, not the name on the BACK of the jersey. The players can claim till they are blue in the face that without them the owners don't have squat. Guess what? The owners owned these teams before more than 75% of the players entered the league, and some have owned the team since before 100% of the players were born. These players did not build the NFL to what it is now. Their self importance is overblown. The fans are ready to get back to football, and the players will lose the PR war soundly if they do not ratify soon. Every preseason game missed will cost them 48% of ~$200M in revenue, p;us between $3M and $4M towards the salary cap. So the player reps stating that the players are not impacted by missing preseason games are idiots. Nobody wins by missing games. And if regular season games are missed, I hope a band of fans get together and sue the NFL and the NFLPA*. WE are the ones that pay the bills.

EDIT: I am not calling the players dumb. The owners don't understand 100%, but most of them are shrewd businessmen so they understand a large portion of this. The players have not been formally trained in any of this, and not all of the player reps have been involved in the negotiations. As was seen on Twitter and NFLN and ESPN last night, even the player reps are ill informed.

[tomwvr]

All I can say is if the players cannot aprove this - or come back with a very sound response with changes that the owners can look at then I say the league needs to FIRE all the players and never allow them to play in the NFL again. After this bring in all the drafted players and any FA players that they can and start over.

Tom

[Popeman38]

All I can say is if the players cannot aprove this - or come back with a very sound response with changes that the owners can look at then I say the league needs to FIRE all the players and never allow them to play in the NFL again. After this bring in all the drafted players and any FA players that they can and start over.

Tom

That would be collusion, and that would destroy the NFL. The players would end up owning the NFL, and that would destroy whatever survived the collusion trial.

[HTTR F Dallas]

So if the players decide to vote NO, and make changes to the proposed CBA, how much longer do you think this will last? Obviously if this takes another week, we've got to be looking at losing the first pre-season game or possibly the first 2... I've got a bad feeling.. time will tell

[MartinC]

So if the players decide to vote NO, and make changes to the proposed CBA, how much longer do you think this will last? Obviously if this takes another week, we've got to be looking at losing the first pre-season game or possibly the first 2... I've got a bad feeling.. time will tell

For their to be a vote the Unon Exec have to approve and recommend the deal. If that happens the vote will be yes. The question is how long and what will it take for the Union exec to be ready to recommend the deal and will the owners lose paitence and say see you in Court in the meantime.

[pjfootballer]

The players are starting to look really petty. I heard they don't want anyone telling them to recertify. Really? How the hell do the owners sign a deal if there is no union? DeMaurice Smith is the NFLPA leader of a union that doesn't exist. How does he sign it if the union doesn't exist? You have to recertify you morons. Then, vote on it. If there are things you don't agree with at this point (which is ridiculous if you already have a handshake deal) you can vote no and have the owners change it.

[ouvan59]

Well at one point he said that that one of his concerns was about the affect of inflation on the money the players would be getting. This on a deal which pays them a fixed percentage of the gross - so if there is inflation the gross goes up with it. Good to see the players have a firm grasp on the issues at hand - I sense we are in good hands here.

[tomwvr]

And what is wrong with collusion - in all honesty they are playing a GAME and making atleast 400,000 a year to play with many making ALOT more then that. I say fire them and start over. Hell within 2 years the league would be as good as it is now.

The thing they want to change in the agreement are rumored to be a 7 year opt out and to beable to vote for the union at the team facilities.

This is pure crap - they could all vote online for the union and be done in 5 mins.

And if they wanted a 7 year opt out they should have gotten that into the "hand shake agreement" they had with the owners.

I still say fire them all

Tom

[pjfootballer]

Well time tells differently.

And I watched ALL THREE scab games in 1987. They had Redskins jerseys on, the names were just different. I loved when the regulars came back, but it taught the players a lesson.

[MartinC]

And I watched ALL THREE scab games in 1987. They had Redskins jerseys on, the names were just different. I loved when the regulars came back, but it taught the players a lesson.

Especially the ones who got cut after the strike to be replaced by scab players who had impressed.

[SwampEm]

Reading this thread makes me laugh. I do not know why fans get jealous over players salaries. It's not like you have the same skill set. It's supply and demand. Anybody can flip a hamburger and that pays minimum wage, less people can operate a dump truck so it pays better, even fewer can become doctors so they get compensated handsomely, only 1900 people in this country are in the NFL, and there is a ton of demand for them. If your co-worker is making more than you for the same production and experience get jealous at them; not at somebody that you will never meet in a field you will never work in.

As far as the players not ratifying the deal yet; give it a minute. Have none of you taken a day or two to review a contract for employment? Its pretty common unless you are a jealous burger flipper.