the owners did their part :) Lets Play

[vince]

Here's Heath Evans basically saying, "I didn't really mean it last night when I tweeted,

Here's what the "real" fans need to know. The owners tried 2 slip many things N2 the CBA "they" voted on that were never agreed 2!

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-total-access/09000d5d820eaacb/Evans-Deal-close-to-being-done

Now that things have becoming clear, it's a joke.

[Joemailman]

If Lang wins the LG job, they should mic up him and Sitton during a game.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Here's Heath Evans basically saying, "I didn't really mean it last night when I tweeted,

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-total-access/09000d5d820eaacb/Evans-Deal-close-to-being-done

Now that things have becoming clear, it's a joke.

Not sure where you are coming down on this. From what I've been reading, the deal that the owners voted on contained provisions that weren't negotiated with the union. That's a bogus and foolish ploy by the owners.

I don't think the two sides are very far apart, this latest bump is an unfortunate mistep by the owners.

[red]

Not sure where you are coming down on this. From what I've been reading, the deal that the owners voted on contained provisions that weren't negotiated with the union. That's a bogus and foolish ploy by the owners.

I don't think the two sides are very far apart, this latest bump is an unfortunate mistep by the owners.

what i have read and understand is that the owners did sign the proposal that the union agreed to (through d smith). you then had a bunch of moron players shooting their mouths off when they had no clue what was going on

heith evans was saying that the owners were trying to slip shit by the players, at the same time you have players reps saying that they haven't even received the proposal yet. so how in the hell could players like evens even begin to know what was going on in the proposal?

[vince]

Not sure where you are coming down on this. From what I've been reading, the deal that the owners voted on contained provisions that weren't negotiated with the union. That's a bogus and foolish ploy by the owners.

I don't think the two sides are very far apart, this latest bump is an unfortunate mistep by the owners.

That was one of the accusations as to why the players weren't ready to vote. It was false. The only thing that isn't in the agreement is the players' request, (which was made after the point De Smith had agreed in principle to bring the agreement to a vote with the Executive Committee and Player Reps (a step he failed to fulfill) is a 7-year opt-out option, which the owners didn't include in the agreement and likely won't at this point. That was the accusation that Heath Evans made last night via Twitter, and when pressed to cite those issues, Heath backtracked faster than French soldier, saying that it was really the time frame that the owners were wanting to move forward was unacceptable to the NFLPA.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Vince, my head is spinning. My information came from reading columns in today's papers, so maybe that news is old. But I just looked at more recent columns at ESPN.com, and they don't refute the accusation, which is odd. In fact, its clear that the owners did add some "finishing details" that the players now have to consider.

I agree with Skip Bayless, the players got sucker punched.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/6793054/nfl-lockout-nflpa-work-weekend-sources-say

[mraynrand]

That story says virtually nothing. The owners think they had a deal. Either the following is true or false.

Before NFLPA leaders had seen the owners' proposal, NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith wrote in an email to the 32 player representatives: "Issues that need to be collectively bargained remain open; other issues, such as workers' compensation, economic issues and end of deal terms, remain unresolved. There is no agreement between the NFL and the players at this time."

The only way to know if true or not, is checking DeMaurice Smith's claims against everyone else present. What clear is that there were multiple issues left open that were understood to be left open, that wold ultimately be subject for collective bargaining. Both sides agreed to that, but it requires recertification, and presumably DeMaurice Smith agreed to that.

Based on that article, we have absolutely no idea what, if anything, was snuck in past DeMaurice Smith.

[bobblehead]

If Lang wins the LG job, they should mic up him and Sitton during a game.

How would you like to be Wells, caught in the crossfire. "shut up you guys, I can't here the snap count!!"

[MJZiggy]

That story says virtually nothing. The owners think they had a deal. Either the following is true or false.



The only way to know if true or not, is checking DeMaurice Smith's claims against everyone else present. What clear is that there were multiple issues left open that were understood to be left open, that wold ultimately be subject for collective bargaining. Both sides agreed to that, but it requires recertification, and presumably DeMaurice Smith agreed to that.

Based on that article, we have absolutely no idea what, if anything, was snuck in past DeMaurice Smith.

You're right that the article gives us nothing to judge what may have been added, but the question it leaves me with is if D. Smith is telling players that if items are left open for discussion, why would they be included in the proposal? If they aren't in the proposal, then he'd have no reason to say that. And that goes against what the league is saying that the deal is done enough to vote on.

[vince]

That story says virtually nothing. The owners think they had a deal. Either the following is true or false.

The only way to know if true or not, is checking DeMaurice Smith's claims against everyone else present. What clear is that there were multiple issues left open that were understood to be left open, that wold ultimately be subject for collective bargaining. Both sides agreed to that, but it requires recertification, and presumably DeMaurice Smith agreed to that.

Based on that article, we have absolutely no idea what, if anything, was snuck in past DeMaurice Smith.

+1. Harlan, the "finishing details" excuse is a cop-out.
1. ESPN has been spinning for the players since the beginning. With NFLN owned by the NFL (although 45% of revenues derived from it will now go to the players), but far more objective IMO, De Smith has buddied up to the ESPN reporters, giving them his side of the story before anyone else. They're as bad here as they were throughout the Favre fiasco.
2. As Ayn said, some issues such as workers' compensation, discipline, and drug testing CANNOT be bargained until the union recertifies, which the players' attorneys are dragging their feet on so that their decertification doesn't appear to be the sham that it was.
3. The "economic issues" are the class actions (Brady, et al vs. NFL) that have not yet been dropped, but have been previously agreed to be dropped in conjunction with the terms of the CBA.
4. The "end of deal terms" is the 7-year opt-out that the players - not the owners - have added to their demands after the parties came to an agreement on the 10-year term of the agreement.
5. You must not have watched the NFLN interview of Heath Evans linked to above. After immediately accusing the owners of adding things to the agreement via twitter, he could not cite anything to back up that claim when pressed on it the next day. He was full of shit originally. And I'm not sure if this is news to you or not, but so is Skip Bayless.

[pbmax]

Here is a list of the open items as they stood between players and owners before the owners vote, obtained by Howard Balzer of the Sports Xchange and taken here from PFT.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/22/the-open-items-before-the-leagues-approval-of-the-labor-deal/

The open items are set forth below.

First, the minimum team expenditure would be only 89 percent of the salary cap. The term would be coupled with a guaranteed league-wide cash spend of 95 percent of the salary cap. If half of the teams spend 100 percent of the cap, half could spend 90 percent of the cap, preserving as a practical matter a 10-percent spread between the highest-spending and lowest-spending teams. If, alternatively, all teams have a minimum cash spend of 95 percent, the total cash spend would be 97.5 percent or more, assuming at least half of the teams spend 100 percent of their allotment, with the other half spending 95 percent.

Second, those offseason workout bonuses (such as the $750,000 due to Jets tackle D’Brickashaw Ferguson) would be paid if the player reports to training camp and performs the services required of him. Thus, under this term, players who report for work (and then work) would earn all offseason workout bonuses, despite the absence of an offseason workout program.

Third, for rookie pay, an escalator would be available to push the fourth-year salary to the lowest level restricted free agency tender, which is $1.2 million in 2011, but which will increase with the salary cap.

Fourth, players would be guaranteed up to $3 million for the second and third year after a catastrophic injury. Balzer reports that, in the deal approved by the league on Thursday, the number had been cut to $1 million in the second year and $500,000 in the third year.

Fifth, the California loophole for workers’ compensation benefits would continue.

Sixth, the possibility of an opt out was included as an open item. Balzer reports that the final version included no opt out, making it a firm 10-year deal. (It has been reported that the players want a potential opt out after seven years.)

Seventh, payment of $320 million in lost benefits would be made for the 2010 season. In the summary document, the lump sum expressly is linked to the “lockout insurance” case. Basically, the players are proposing the restoration of those lost benefits as the payment of damages for the league’s failure to max out TV money when persuading the networks to pay rights fees during a lockout.

Eighth, a settlement of the Brady antitrust case would need to be made, separate and apart from the labor deal.

Ninth, a player would be subject to the franchise tag only once in his career.

Tenth, short-term injured reserve would be available, along with a possible game-day roster of 47. The deal approved by the owners reportedly limits the game-day roster to 46.

Apparently, Sports Xchange is a premium service, so I cannot go to the source on this. Florio's summary is a little vague in places, but that is all he has got so far.

[pbmax]

Assuming they are open items because there has not been an agreement reached on the terms in the 10 items, the two that stand out are the cash minimum and term. That is a sizable economic issue and a basic framework of the deal still open.

However, neither seems to be a huge obstacle. If the owners did remove/fail to include an opt out when it was still an open issue, they may have contributed to a blow up over not much.

This list also seems to be the options from the player perspective as only on the contract terms are the two possible options (or at least the last proposal from each side) are included. Its been reported decisively that the owners wish to close the California work comp option.

[pbmax]

That story says virtually nothing. The owners think they had a deal. Either the following is true or false.



The only way to know if true or not, is checking DeMaurice Smith's claims against everyone else present. What clear is that there were multiple issues left open that were understood to be left open, that wold ultimately be subject for collective bargaining. Both sides agreed to that, but it requires recertification, and presumably DeMaurice Smith agreed to that.

Based on that article, we have absolutely no idea what, if anything, was snuck in past DeMaurice Smith.

Agreed. But if that was the case, why squeeze the balance of the CBA negotiations into 3 days after 3 days to reconstitute the union?

It almost looks like the owners voted on a mis-prepared document that may have left as little as one item closed that should have been open (term). And by including the timeline, they made it look like they were squeezing the players to agree quickly to terms they weren't familiar with.

If we have accurate reporting about what remains unsolved, the haste to vote may have caused an unnecessary delay.

[pbmax]

2. As Ayn said, some issues such as workers' compensation, discipline, and drug testing CANNOT be bargained until the union recertifies, which the players' attorneys are dragging their feet on so that their decertification doesn't appear to be the sham that it was.

Given that the League has agreed to indemnify the NFLPA* against charges that it is still a union while it negotiates, somehow I doubt the trade association status would really prevent either side from negotiating over these terms. Finalizing them or signing off on them may be a different matter, but I'd be stunned if they had not been discussed. They could be open items because of the status question or from a failure to agree, but I doubt its from a lack of opportunity to negotiate.

[pbmax]

How would you like to be Wells, caught in the crossfire. "shut up you guys, I can't here the snap count!!"

When in doubt, the snap count is always one. You may look dumb, but not as dumb as the one guy on the entire field who waits to move.