Why are people against the players on this?

[JimboDaMan]

Why? Very simple actually. Fans want their football back ASAP. Day before yesterday if they could. The players delaying puts that off a bit.

*

Frankly,I could wait a few days more. One because I've waited this long I certainly can wait a bit while everyone makes sure the i's are dotted and t's are crossed. Two,and most importantly,gives the mods a chance to get ready for the inevitable 5,000 threads dealing with the brief free agency period among other things.

I agree. With the open lawsuits, I'm guessing that there's still somewhere between half a billion to $1B still on the table that the owner's vote requires to be settled. How that is supposed to happen hasn't been disclosed as far as I can tell.

[MartinC]

Frankly,I could wait a few days more. One because I've waited this long I certainly can wait a bit while everyone makes sure the i's are dotted and t's are crossed. Two,and most importantly,gives the mods a chance to get ready for the inevitable 5,000 threads dealing with the brief free agency period among other things.

Its me, me, me with you Mods. Just typical

[ouvan59]

Then yesterday, there was so much inconsistency. They didn't have the document to receive but at the same time were saying the owners changed the deal. .

It actually sounds more like the players are the ones that are trying to change the deal. The problem is the players aren't unified like the owners are. They are still battling amongst themselves about whether they will recertify as a union, something that the agreement calls for. Also the players want to add an opt-out provision after 7 years. But from reading a couple of articles nothing that I have seen supports what was being claimed last night about the owners adding new items.

[jivelikenice]

Another reason to be on the owner's side- The players are too damn busy on twitter or speaking to the media. Holliday was saying they were hoodwinked and the deal was changed, but the clown was tweeting during the NFLPA conference call. If you don't know all deal points and think the deal is being pushed on you, shouldn't you be paying attention during the conference call?

Ant now look at Takeo Spikes. He said they need a "fair deal" this morning and instead of participating in reviewing the deal, he's going to be doing a chat on ESPN this afternoon. The players immaturity and inconsistency is ridiculous.

[PCS]

Its me, me, me with you Mods. Just typical

Yeah? And?

(Reading all you guys stuff on here as rubbed off on us I guess).

*

[MartinC]

Yeah? And?

(Reading all you guys stuff on here as rubbed off on us I guess).

*

20 years ago I might have caught you - now you can settle for a brisk jog

[KCClybun]

I'm 100% pro owners here. They negotiated with the NFLPA* negotiating team and came to a agreement on all major points. Full negotiations teams have not been meeting daily and the lawyers have been drafting the language which leads me to believe that the major deal points were agreed upon. Over the last week, the players have continuously tried to bring up issue after issue (plantiffs, re-certification) and are trying to find anyway to drag the process along. If the deal truly isn't done, they should have been meeting daily. For them to act as if a timeline isn't a factor here is beyond ignorant.

Then yesterday, there was so much inconsistency. They didn't have the document to receive but at the same time were saying the owners changed the deal. How the hell would you know that if you didn't see the agreement? Now that they have the agreement, its not fair. Have these player reps been keeping up at all with union reps over the past 2 months?????? Why are the acting like the owners pulled an agreement out of their butts and blindsided the players with it.

What I want to know is this:

1. what were the plantiffs promised?

2. what about the agreement is actually unfair. if its what Holliday referred to back in March as low-hanging fruit then why is it so critical now, but wasn't back then?

3. What is going on with communication on the players side. union reps acted like they had no idea what was going on. There's no way D Smith didn't know what was being voted on yesterday

Somebody had to vote. The owners did. The players have been at the goal line for weeks but didn't know how to finish the drive.

Bingo. Everyone knew that the owners were going to be voting on Thursday. That had been reported on for two weeks as the talks seemed to be winding down and working towards a deal. Clearly the owners had a deadline in mind, and a lot of them seem legitimately baffled that the players are upset. You KNEW they were going to voting on SOMETHING on Thursday, especially with the death of Mrs. Craft and lots of owners attending her funeral.

This isn't something that was dropped on the player's lap. Everyone who is anyone knew that this would be around the time the owners would be voting on it. Even us lowly frakkers knew the owners would be voting Thursday. The claim that they were blind-sided somehow and the subsequent flurry of not knowing what the message was supposed to be bugs me. I can't be on the player's side on this. They all knew.

The fact that De Smith has continued to downplay any progress to his players has been aggravating as all hell, but the fact that he seems to not have his players on the same page is even more maddening.

[tshile]

Another reason to be on the owner's side- The players are too damn busy on twitter or speaking to the media. Holliday was saying they were hoodwinked and the deal was changed, but the clown was tweeting during the NFLPA conference call. If you don't know all deal points and think the deal is being pushed on you, shouldn't you be paying attention during the conference call?

Ant now look at Takeo Spikes. He said they need a "fair deal" this morning and instead of participating in reviewing the deal, he's going to be doing a chat on ESPN this afternoon. The players immaturity and inconsistency is ridiculous.

this bothers me as well.

the players have no leg to stand on, in my opinion, when it comes to appealing to the public.

the owners aren't much better. the only thing i'll say positive about them in this ordeal is that they took the biggest risk, and have the most to lose; so in my opinion they should make more than the players. but outside of that, they're not much better. there are a ton of things they could do to not be so greedy, but they wont.

[skinsfansince1988]

the players do not want training camp or preseason so they want to delay, delay, delay. Now they are using the death of Myrna Kraft as an excuse. Sorry I can not be on the players' side, they make millions for playing a game when most of us work long hours and paycheck to paycheck and then the players want us fans to feel sorry for them?

[HTTR F Dallas]

The only thing that irritates me is how both sides keep bringing up the fans. As if they're trying to do whats best for us. It's a bunch of bull****, and anyone who doesn't see right through it is naive at best.

They don't give a **** about us, other than that we watch their game and buy their merchandise. That's fine and I accept it, but there's no reason to treat us like we're stupid.

I'm for whatever causes both sides to get a reality check, which is probably losing a few weeks of the regular season. The fans will not be hurt by this - life goes on. Any idea that we will is ridiculous/stupid. So i'd love both sides to lose a little money, and be brought back down to earth and realize they'd be lucky to make 1/5 what they do now playing a sport that, other than entertainment (and i guess the minimum wage jobs obtained by people who work at the stadiums), provides no real utility to the country.

I agree... it's all about GREED... 95% of the players could give two ****s about their fans... they need a reality check and maybe they'll come to appreciate who is paying their bills... becuase it's not the owners.. if this does get stretched out to cause loss of regular season games, I might be looking at my first and last season as a Redskins STH... hate to say it

[tomwvr]

Yeah, but without those guys, the owners wouldn't be billionaires.

That is not true most if not all of the owners were billionaires before the bought the teams - and if not billionaires many hundred millionaires. They would just be making money some place else.

Tom

[pjfootballer]

This is pathetic - i say if the players refuse this CBA agreement and the NFL opens the doors for business on saturday then the players should be considered to be on strike and the teams could then look to bring in non union players to be able to go about their business - bring on the replacements .

I'm not sure you can do that if there is no union. If there is no union, there is no strike, hence, the might not be able to bring in replacement players.

Reading through the comments has shown me that 9/10 people have absolutely no idea of what's going on with these talks and have a limited grasp on reality. Aside from that, comprehension is at an all-time low. It's really hilarious.

Thank god one of our own ES brothers are at the bargaining table. This gives us great insight on the negotiations. You know, for us dumbasses that don't know whats going on.

[PCS]

20 years ago I might have caught you - now you can settle for a brisk jog

I'm up nearly 4 years. I'm not sure I could manage brisk.

[jflow78]

According to most reports this morning, the players were assuming the owners had put stuff into the deal that wasn't there when the NFLPA was bargaining, now that they've looked it over it was WAY overblown last night and the deal is actually "pretty good".

More than anything, it sounds like the players were angry that the league was trying to tell them how to reconstitute their union, so they're taking their time. That's ******* stupid, but it doesn't really matter that much, as long as they get a vote sometime in the next 2-3 days it sounds like things will be good.

[pjfootballer]

Well, good for u. I'm a lawyer that is hired to detail, cross T's and dot I's by people who negotiate and sign multi-million dollar contracts for a living.... lol

Are you a lawyer??

No. I'm not a lawyer. But I guess people who sign multi-million dollar contracts can't detect sarcasm. What do I do for a living? It's a moot point. What you do for a living is a moot point. Anyone with a level head and a realistic grasp on life can see that both sides have their issues. And that in regards to yesterday events, the players were not in the wrong at THAT moment. So in the case of you bringing up your job, that just came off as typical internet BS. I work some really smart dummies, just because you're smart doesn't mean you have common sense.

Or aren't you a lawyer??

Which is it?

[ouvan59]

Thank god one of our own ES brothers are at the bargaining table. This gives us great insite on the negotiations. You know, for us dumbasses that don't know whats going on.

Looks like he has gone into hiding since pretty much everything he said is turning out completely wrong.

[chaught76]

I have a question. During this lockout period, the players were restricted/locked out from their respective organizations; effectively without a team right. So here's my question, besides media articles based on a players past efforts with the team, how can any organization/team related media outlet report anything about a player during the lockout regarding the coming season? I mean does the lockout work both ways? Could a player make a legal case against the organization for associating their name with the organization?

In short, I guess I am interested in knowing if the "lockout" is a door that swings both ways or was it just a tool for the organizations/owners?

[Big Will]

I think the majority of fans (myself included) know so very little about the details of the agreement they are working towards. ESPN and the NFL Network aren't exactly know for their investigative reporting and their reports on the details of this whole situation has been laughable. I don't think I can share an opinion on who I am "for" or "against" because I don't know all of the details. The only thing I'm confident of is that this whole debacle is not going to benefit the fans wallets or fan experience. Everything in business flows down stream. If the owners are required to pay more money to player's contracts, retiree funds, injury settlements, healthcare programs, etc. etc. then the owners are going to attempt to make up that money somewhere. I would predict higher ticket prices, concessions, apparel, and TV blackouts. I think that is why fans feel bitter through this process. We are the unrepresented base that keeps this ship afloat and we will probably be screwed one way or another.

I don't know if this has been posted yet. If approved by the players, the new collective bargaining agreement will include the following key terms:

TERM:

» The fixed term of the agreement covers the 2011 through 2020 seasons and includes the 2021 draft.

PLAYER HEALTH AND SAFETY:

» Immediate implementation of changes to promote player health and safety by:

» Reducing the off-season program by five weeks, reducing OTAs from 14 to 10;

» Limiting on-field practice time and contact;

» Limiting full-contact practices in the preseason and regular season;

» Increasing number of days off for players.

» Opportunity for current players to remain in the player medical plan for life.

» 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.

» No change to the 16-4 season format until at least 2013; any subsequent increase in the number of regular-season games must be made by agreement with the NFL Players Association.

» $50 million per year joint fund for medical research, healthcare programs, and NFL Charities, including NFLPA-related charities.

RETIRED PLAYER BENEFITS:

» Over the next 10 years, additional funding for retiree benefits of between $900 million and $1 billion. The largest single amount, $620 million, will be used for a new "Legacy Fund," which will be devoted to increasing pensions for pre-1993 retirees.

» Other improvements will be made to post-career medical options, the disability plan, the 88 Plan, career transition and degree completion programs, and the Player Care Plan.

DRAFT/FREE AGENCY SYSTEM:

» An annual Draft of seven rounds plus compensatory picks for teams which lose free agents.

» Unrestricted free agency for players after four accrued seasons;

» Restricted free agency for players with three accrued seasons.

» Free agency exceptions (franchise and transition players).

ENTRY LEVEL COMPENSATION SYSTEM:

New entry-level compensation system including the following elements:

» All drafted players sign four-year contracts.

» Undrafted free agents sign three-year contracts.

» Maximum total compensation per draft class.

» Limited contract terms.

» Strong anti-holdout rules.

» Clubs have option to extend the contract of a first-round draftee for a fifth year, based on agreed-upon tender amounts.

» Creation of new fund to redistribute, beginning in 2012, savings from new rookie pay system to current and retired player benefits and a veteran player performance pool.

ECONOMICS:

» Salary cap plus benefits of $142.4 million per club in 2011 ($120.375 million for salary and bonus) and at least that amount in 2012 and 2013.

» Beginning in 2012, salary cap to be set based on a combined share of "all revenue," a new model differentiated by revenue source with no expense reductions. Players will receive 55 percent of national media revenue, 45 percent of NFL Ventures revenue, and 40 percent of local club revenue.

» Beginning in 2012, annual "true up" to reflect revenue increases or decreases versus projections.

» Clubs receive credit for actual stadium investment and up to 1.5 percent of revenue each year.

» Player share must average at least 47 percent for the 10-year term of the agreement.

» League-wide commitment to cash spending of 99 percent of the cap in 2011 and 2012.

» For the 2013-2016 seasons, and again for the 2017-2020 seasons, the clubs collectively will commit to cash spending of at least 95 percent of the cap.

» Each club committed to cash spending of 89 percent of the cap from 2013-2016 and 2017-2020.

» Increases to minimum salaries of 10 percent in Year 1 with continuing increases each year of the agreement.

2011-2012 TRANSITION RULES:

» Special transition rules to protect veteran players in 2011. All teams will have approximately $3.5 million in what would otherwise be performance-based pay available to fund veteran player salaries.

» Each club may "borrow" up to $3 million in cap room from a future year, which may be used to support veteran player costs.

» In 2012, each club may "borrow" up to $1.5 million in cap room from a future year. Both these amounts would be repaid in future years.

OTHER:

» No judicial oversight of the agreement. Neutral arbitrators jointly appointed by the NFL and NFLPA will resolve disputes as appropriate.

» Settlement of all pending litigation.

[ouvan59]

I have a question. During this lockout period, the players were restricted/locked out from their respective organizations; effectively without a team right. So here's my question, besides media articles based on a players past efforts with the team, how can any organization/team related media outlet report anything about a player during the lockout regarding the coming season? I mean does the lockout work both ways? Could a player make a legal case against the organization for associating their name with the organization?

In short, I guess I am interested in knowing if the "lockout" is a door that swings both ways or was it just a tool for the organizations/owners?

Do you have a specific case in mind?

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I have a question. During this lockout period, the players were restricted/locked out from their respective organizations; effectively without a team right. So here's my question, besides media articles based on a players past efforts with the team, how can any organization/team related media outlet report anything about a player during the lockout regarding the coming season? I mean does the lockout work both ways? Could a player make a legal case against the organization for associating their name with the organization?

In short, I guess I am interested in knowing if the "lockout" is a door that swings both ways or was it just a tool for the organizations/owners?

What do you mean? Can the organization or a team-related outlet report news? Sure, it's a free country. Plus, anything that happened in the past during the time that [insert player name here] was a Redskin is all still valid and real. I guess the only grey area I could see is if a team could "promote" its players during that time. I'm not sure if they are allowed to use Santana Moss images on a publication, but maybe they are as long as it is from a time he played on the team?

---------- Post added July-22nd-2011 at 01:18 PM ----------

According to most reports this morning, the players were assuming the owners had put stuff into the deal that wasn't there when the NFLPA was bargaining, now that they've looked it over it was WAY overblown last night and the deal is actually "pretty good".

More than anything, it sounds like the players were angry that the league was trying to tell them how to reconstitute their union, so they're taking their time. That's ******* stupid, but it doesn't really matter that much, as long as they get a vote sometime in the next 2-3 days it sounds like things will be good.

Exactly how I understand everything.

[ouvan59]

» For the 2013-2016 seasons, and again for the 2017-2020 seasons, the clubs collectively will commit to cash spending of at least 95 percent of the cap.

» Each club committed to cash spending of 89 percent of the cap from 2013-2016 and 2017-2020.

.

Anyone have any idea why they break up the years like this? And aren't they contradictory?

[Hooper]

Whitlock -- who I usually hate -- nailed it today.

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/Jason-Whitlock-NFL-lockout-players-should-let-owners-twist-in-wind-072111

The lockout has been one long, poorly executed bluff.

Most important from a negotiating standpoint, it’s clear now the owners are more desperate for a new collective bargaining agreement than the players. Peter King wrote the NFL’s boring-as-televised-poker exhibition season is worth $800 million.

Now, I must admit I was wrong, too. I made the same mistake the owners did. I underestimated DeMaurice Smith and the players. I figured they’d fold and allow ownership to dictate the terms of a new deal.

I’m glad Smith and the players stayed together. I wish they’d hold out a little longer. Yes, they would run the risk of getting attacked by the media lapdogs who are as desperate for a deal as the owners. It would be worth the risks.

[pjfootballer]

Thanks for the insight Chaught76.

[ILikeBilly]

The simple reason people side with the owners or should side with the owners is simple. This is America. The owners have all the financial risk. For the players, it is a job, just like most of us have. If they don't like their job, they can go work somewhere else. Few if any will make the same amount of money, but too bad. If you want the money, then play by the rules set by the employer.

The players can work for 4 years and retire if they want (see Fat Albert) and the owner and team are the ones hurt. The players get plenty and will continue to get plenty with the new deal. The player's union needs to help with the responsibility of caring for retired players with continuing health issues.

[chaught76]

Do you have a specific case in mind?

Ouvan, no specific case in mind. I was just curious about the conditions of "lockout". Players are locked out (not associated) from their clubs. To what extent is the reverse true? For example, would a club be in violation of the lockout conditions if one of its media outlets wrote an article about a player subjected to lockout status? I know the coaching staff, trainers, and such are not permitted to have contact with the players. What about other club associated groups such as media, marketing, etc?