Packers are telling players to be ready to show up on Saturday

[packers11]

After a few month break from the site (because of the lockout) I am back in action... So here is some good news!

pft.com

Source: Packers are telling players to be ready to show up on Saturday
Posted by Mike Florio on July 18, 2011, 10:16 PM EDT

Though the labor deal still isn’t done and no one knows for sure when and if it will be, the defending world champions are making it known that players should be ready to show up at the team facility on Saturday for a meeting.

Per a source with knowledge of the situation, the Packers are telling players that the doors will open on Friday, and that the team wants the players in town in order to get started on preparations for training camp and the preseason.

This presumes that the remaining issues between the NFL and the NFLPA* will be resolved in time for the players and the owners to separately approve the new agreement. The fact that the Packers are getting the word out shows how widespread that presumption currently is.

Of course, teams aren’t supposed to be talking to players during the lockout. For many teams, however, that ship sailed a long, long time ago.

UPDATE: Jason Wilde of ESPN Milwaukee says via Twitter that the report is “100 percent true,” and that he has confirmed it through two team sources.

[red]

hell yeah, the champs will be in the building on friday

[Partial]

This is awesome! I'm so ready for some football! I'm not a baseball fan so this summer was getting a little long pro sports wise!

[gbgary]

woo hoo!!!

[MJZiggy]

Funny, Barnett said nothing about it. Though he is already in GB right now.

[pbmax]

Several Packers have denied it (including Rodgers, Lang and Bush), but one player source and two team sources have confirmed it with Wilde.

Reminds me of summer camp in football, where the coach would let a captain know that practice could be had starting two weeks ahead of the legal starting date, and somehow, in the days before email, Twitter and text messaging, the entire team found out.

[MadScientist]

There is probably some sort of deniable chain of communications going on here. E.G. Packers tell neutral party X that they expect the deal to be done and want players to show up for meetings on Saturday. Neutral party X tells this to a player friend and word spreads. Wilde finds out and the information is confirmed without saying that they directly contacted players. The reports go out, using the media to inform players that can't be contacted directly.

[bobblehead]

So, is the asterisk next to "NFLPA" because there is no NFLPA...they decertified and are not a union anymore right?

[vince]

http://www.espnmilwaukee.com/corp/page/07%2F18%2F11_Full_speed_ahead%3A_Packers_plan_retu rn_/20?feed=2

One source suggested that teams may have been given permission by the league to begin planning their return to work, including allowing for brief contact with players about logistics.
Wilde said on his radio show that some people at 1265 are "less than thrilled" with him right now for reporting this...

[Joemailman]

So, is the asterisk next to "NFLPA" because there is no NFLPA...they decertified and are not a union anymore right?

My understanding is that the NFLPA still exists as an organization. It's just not a union right now.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I'm not convinced that they'll get it settled this week. The issues remaining are not so big, but they are complicated, especially the stake of retired players. I can see it going into next week. But we'll have a preseason, that's what counts.

[Patler]

This could slow it down:

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d820da4ea/article/report-wr-jackson-g-mankins-demand-to-become-free-agents?module=HP11_headline_stack

Mankins and Jackson want $10 million, or to be declared free agents before settling their suit.

[pbmax]

I'm not convinced that they'll get it settled this week. The issues remaining are not so big, but they are complicated, especially the stake of retired players. I can see it going into next week. But we'll have a preseason, that's what counts.

Carl Eller is on record (PFT had it) that they won't block the deal currently in progress. He says there is still work to do but they can do it with the NFL after the agreement. They also were given a seat at the table Tuesday for the first time. Previously, they had to sit at the retirees table on mats.

[mraynrand]

Carl Eller is on record (PFT had it) that they won't block the deal currently in progress. He says there is still work to do but they can do it with the NFL after the agreement. They also were given a seat at the table Tuesday for the first time. Previously, they had to sit at the retirees table on mats.

http://1000awesomethings.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/kids-table.jpg

[pbmax]

This could slow it down:

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d820da4ea/article/report-wr-jackson-g-mankins-demand-to-become-free-agents?module=HP11_headline_stack

Mankins and Jackson want $10 million, or to be declared free agents before settling their suit.

I think this report is a warning shot by an owner's source. It might also be old and incorrect.

Adam Schefter has reported that Mankins has made no such demand, while he confirmed Jackson's agents did. A reporter from San Diego was just on the radio saying that while Jackson would prefer an exemption from the franchise tag, he will not hold up a deal on it and is willing to return to San Diego under its provisions. Previously, weeks ago actually, PFT had CAA (Creative Artists Agency) making a similar request for Brees and Manning long before the shape of this current deal started to take shape.

As I understand it, and I am not a lawyer, the named plaintiffs in such a suit are entitled to compensation in conjunction with any settlement. So these requests are not entirely unexpected and are not necessarily new. I think this represents a strike back from an owner's side source over the player's request for benefit dollars to be restored from last year. Even that leak had hallmarks of the owner's side (it was couched to PFT as a concern over Kessler).

In either event, these terms are no different than the named plaintiffs received in the Reggie White lawsuit in 1992. White and his compatriots received a blanket exemption from the tags for their careers. It would also make sense that the teams that stand to lose leverage (Patriots, Colts, Saints, Falcons or Chargers) might have an interest in stopping momentum on this issue.

This was just the long form version of me saying it might be much ado about nothing.

[Patler]

No, the demands are not unexpected; but these are additional things that must be settled before the lockout will end. Several weeks ago it was said that players' approval by the vote of each team will also be required. AT some point re-certification of the union will be needed, but I don't know if that could delay the end of the lockout or not.

The update was that Mankins had made no demands.
Here is the update to the update:


The update: "A league source confirmed the demands made by Jackson's agents, but Mankins and his agent, Frank Bauer, have not given their damages or repayment number to the NFL Players Association or its attorneys yet, according to the source."

A key word is "yet", but this adds a new twist to reports.

It was rumored a week ago or more that Mankins is a pretty independent guy, and might be of a mind to push his point at the end. If he and his lawyer are still determining their demands, this could add on a few days to resolve.

[pbmax]

It was rumored a week ago or more that Mankins is a pretty independent guy, and might be of a mind to push his point at the end. If he and his lawyer are still determining their demands, this could add on a few days to resolve.

Yes, and similar to Jackson, Mankins has missed time while holding out protesting the tag last year. But as these requests had to be anticipated (indeed, were known several weeks ago via Manning and Brees), I cannot see how they represent a stumbling block. I also expect that this was a carrot offered to entice well known players to attach themselves to a lawsuit by name when it was initially planned.

Of course a player could blow this up by making an unreasonable (or delayed) demand, but that possibility exists with 9 owners and 50% of voting players as well. I am more concerned with the votes by the players, because the cap number circulating in the media, if accurate ($120 million) is an initial step backward. I think the NFLPA* will have some explaining to do. And as I still believe the driving force behind this squabble has been revenue sharing, the owner's of smaller revenue teams have to be convinced that the savings are substantial enough (and the cash minimum not too high) to place them in jeopardy should supplemental revenue sharing be limited, restricted or terminated.

[Patler]

I'm not saying it is a roadblock, just another turn in the road that might slow things down. If they hope to have this cleared up and the lockout over by the weekend, there is a lot yet to wrap up. If Mankins finally submits his demands sometime on Wednesday, he has added an extra day beyond the others who apparently got them in yesterday or today. Even if it isn't overly contentious, another day or two are wasted on it. Then, if he has an extra twist of some sort in his demands, even if it adds only a half day, this looks more and more like it won't get wrapped up until next week. Documents have to be prepared, submitted to opposing counsel, reviewed, revised and executed. Then, the judge(s) have to approve the settlement and dismiss the case(s). The players have to vote (apparently). The union has to be re-certified (maybe).

[pbmax]

Albert Breer is reporting that the lawyers work on the initial draft is done, with i's crossed and t's dotted. Ready to be presented to players tomorrow. NFLPA* Exec committee and NFL Labor committee get the document first. If approved (or agreement on changes happens) then player reps vote to recommend (or not) to the plaintiffs in the case. Then the NFL goes Thursday. Someone reported all reps are in DC, but I have also read this can be done electronically. Not clear if all 32 reps must vote before plaintiffs get their shot and unclear whether Exec Committee has authority to accept the deal on behalf of players or all 32 reps need to vote.

[pbmax]

SI's Jim Trotter has been told Vincent Jackson is the only named plaintiff not to sign off on proposed settlement of anti-trust lawsuit. And Exec Committee has not yet voted to recommend it to their wider Board.

32 players reps are said to be interested in what concessions they will receive in new CBA after conceding a 3-4% giveback of revenue over the life of the deal. The parsing of that sentence is vital, a 3-4% giveback on revenue is much bigger than a 3-4% giveback of player's salary. Also no way to know whether this is apples to apples yet.

[Patler]

I would think the individual members would have to vote on whether or not to accept the CBA, and the reps vote is to establish a yay or nay recommendation to the membership. I will be surprised if the reps can give final approval.

[vince]

I believe that's correct Patler. It's the 32 reps' responsibility to understand it and interpret it back to their respective team members for voting, and it takes a 50% vote of all the players I believe to pass. If that's the case, I think it's a the actual vote is a no-brainer, slam dunk, lock of the week.

[pbmax]

But there are three separate issues, and current reporting doesn't seem clear whether there would be one up and down vote or three separate tallies.

1. Reconstitute union. Likely it must have all members voting.
2. CBA approval. Usually needs membership wide vote, though the players did take the step of pre-approving the decertification of the NFLPA and putting the final decision in the hands of the player reps.
3. Settlement of anti-trust. What I have read is that this must be passed by player reps then approved by plaintiffs. No mention of a Union wide vote, unless its all one package.

[Lurker64]

1. Reconstitute union. Likely it must have all members voting.

Actually, you don't need all members voting to reconstitute the union. Unionizing NFL players is just like unionizing in any other context, all you need is:

1) A simple majority of employees indicates that they would like to be considered a union.
2) Ownership acknowledges the union. (Historically this has been contentious, with the NLRB getting involved. In this specific case, nobody wants the players to unionize more than ownership.)

So in this case, the number of NFL players we keep hearing is 1900 so all we need is 950 NFL players to send D. Smith an e-mail saying "hey, can we reform the union so we can play the season?" and then it's done.

[pbmax]

Reading the Twitter feeds of Breer and Trotter again, it seems the player reps voted to pass the CBA terms conditioned on the settlement of the lawsuits. And they have approved and forwarded on the settlement of the anti-trust case to the plaintiffs. This would seem to be where Mankins and Jackson could make a stink.

So the CBA got the player rep OK. But the lawsuits aren't settled yet. The reverse of what I thought had happened. And the jockeying over the $10 mil, the benefits from last year, the TV lockout deal and the recertification process (timeline) is all over the terms of the lawsuit settlement.

[pbmax]

Actually, you don't need all members voting to reconstitute the union. Unionizing NFL players is just like unionizing in any other context, all you need is:

1) A simple majority of employees indicates that they would like to be considered a union.
2) Ownership acknowledges the union. (Historically this has been contentious, with the NLRB getting involved. In this specific case, nobody wants the players to unionize more than ownership.)

So in this case, the number of NFL players we keep hearing is 1900 so all we need is 950 NFL players to send D. Smith an e-mail saying "hey, can we reform the union so we can play the season?" and then it's done.

As a legal matter, sure. But as a practical matter, the players (and the leadership) are going to want to give everyone, and all teams, a chance to vote. I should have said likely to give full membership chance to vote.

[Lurker64]

As a legal matter, sure. But as a practical matter, the players (and the leadership) are going to want to give everyone, and all teams, a chance to vote. I should have said likely to give full membership chance to vote.

I think "giving the full membership a chance to vote" will constitute "sending the same e-mail to all 1900 players", but they're not going to wait around for everybody to respond. As soon as they get 951 "Y" or 951 "N" they'll call it.

[pbmax]

Trotter specifies that the official order of decisions to come will be:

1. Settle lawsuits (today's votes)
2. Recertify then formally approve CBA

The player vote to conditionally approve the CBA would seem to be a move meant to telegraph approval will follow settlement. The owners likely think that is wonderful, but want a formal vote after the recerification to occur immediately after settlement, and they might prefer it occur before lockout is lifted. That way, the doors aren't open while negotiating is still happening. In other words, my earlier optimism was possibly unfounded.

While the internal logic is there, that narrative would lead you to think there are still issues to iron out over the CBA. Or at least blanks left to fill in.

[pbmax]

I think "giving the full membership a chance to vote" will constitute "sending the same e-mail to all 1900 players", but they're not going to wait around for everybody to respond. As soon as they get 951 "Y" or 951 "N" they'll call it.

Agreed. Right now there is apparently a debate over electronic versus returning cards. This is all dancing trying to leverage one more concession.

[pbmax]

And that concession is?:

SI Jim Trotter: (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/jim_trotter/07/21/thursday-union-recertification/index.html?sct=nfl_t2_a3)
Sources say the league believes it could be done in the relative blink of an eye. However the players might want a longer, more formal process after NFL attorneys argued that decertification of the Players Association in March was a sham.

There is concern among some players that if they recertify too quickly, it would support the league's claims and might be used against them the next time the sides are stuck in a similar situation during collective bargaining negotiations.

Beyond that, some players believe they're better off as a professional trade association because that would allow them to maintain their antitrust rights and sue the league -- as individuals or a class -- over things like restraint of trade or suppression of wages.

On the other side of the table, NFL officials wants the players to recertify not only because it would take the antitrust issue out of the equation, but also because it would give them the authority to collectively bargain uniform working conditions for each team. Without a players union, individual clubs would establish their own policies and guidelines for things like player discipline and drug testing.

The NFL declined comment about whether it would be a deal-breaker if the players refused to recertify as a union. The expectation is that the players will do so. But when? That answer ultimately could determine how quickly the owners lift the lockout.

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/jim_trotter/07/21/thursday-union-recertification/index.html#ixzz1SlmjStU8

Short version: Language to protect one side versus the other in ten years when the Union decertifies again and the Owners protest it.

[MJZiggy]

Agreed. Right now there is apparently a debate over electronic versus returning cards. This is all dancing trying to leverage one more concession.

For fuck's sake, they could have it done in 10 minutes on Zoomerang.

[pbmax]

Florio has both Goodell and Smith on the phone trying get support to approve the settlement, then lift the lockout. Then let NFLPA* collect the votes to recertify then approve the new CBA officially.

This latest delay brought to you by the respective lawyers, who are trying to preserve the right to decertify (and the right to challenge it) in 10 years.

[wpony]

hey PB I hope its true but yahoo sports is reporting the owners did their part http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl;_ylt=Akb0I5tBM7vBmMCPsAEXwGZ9t7l_

[pbmax]

Well, they did one of three parts. They have agreed to the settlement of the anti-trust case and the TV lockout payment case. Now we get to see if concessions were made sufficient to get the player reps and plaintiffs to agree to the same settlement. Player Rep conference at 8PM Eastern.

Then the lockout will need to be lifted.

Then the Union reforms and both sides vote on an actual CBA.

There is a good piece of news in the latest JSO Blog. Silverstein has the revised NFL offseason/preseason schedule. But there is something in there I haven't seen before in its previous incarnations.


July 27 Training Camps open for all clubs, provided NFLPA has ratified CBA. Day One activities limited to physicals, meetings, and conditioning. No pads permitted on Day Two or Day Three.

This gives the NFLPA* a week to meet and recertify, basically half of their previous estimate. And it follows both agreement on the settlement and the lifting of the lockout. These might be the concessions that solve the entire puzzle, especially the last few days of charges and counter-charges.