Delete This Account

that's funny. jw actually, no. jw

that's like referring to someone as a slightly overweight Kevin James, no? jw

George Wilson last night told me that there was nothing that he knew of being "slipped in," rather it was more of an issue of not seeing the full document -- or the document that the NFL owners had approved a mere 90 minutes or so before the players conference call was set to begin. how, he wondered, can anyone hold a vote on something they hadn't had a chance to see. jw right, i keep forgetting about the Kraft funeral. sorry, little fuzzy (as usual). that said, the Canton Game was already cancelled. why could they not have waited until saturday -- held an impromptu meeting a day after the funeral and then traveled to DC or NYC for a joint announcement. jw

the players didn't have the full deal before them in DC on Wednesday. so after attempting to digest that, the owners turned around and voted to approve "a full deal." timing was terrible, i think. i do truly believe we could all well be talking about the actual start of football right now, had the owners held off on voting until today. then, the players may well have had a chance to digest things, and then the two sides would have had an opportunity to hold a joint press conference late today or perhaps tomorrow. you have to admit, the NFL press conference looked a little odd in celebrating a new 10-year partnership with the players, without the players on hand, no? jw a first, perhaps. thanks. i really mean that. jw

so, you're saying the OP's post was not, in fact, ???? jw

my party? what party? party? i do enjoy parties, but i don't know what you're specifically referring to. but thanks for ignoring my point that i don't think this should be a political issue, while you do. jw

you're cheering your own post? atta boy. jw

there were no surprises. they did not have the deal in front of them that the owners agreed to. and beyond that, there were still three outstanding issues (workers comp, $320 million benefits and salary cap floor) unsettled after they met a day earlier -- which was the reason no vote was taken in DC on Wednesday. and at least one of those issues -- workers comp claims -- remained unsettled as of last night. it was evident from early on in the conference call last night that players weren't going to vote. jw

strange as it sounds, it's been the union, in recent years, that has led the fight in favor of revenue sharing, adding their voice to small-market franchise concerns. and they played a significant role, i'm told behind the revenue sharing deal that was negotiated in the last deal in 2006. (yes, the same one that the NFL wasn't going to entirely commit to on its own until Mr. Wilson met with Pataki). of course, there's a reason why the union favors revenue sharing, as it allows for more spending by all teams, and adding to a competitive market for talent. if part of that fallout means that small-market franchise are provided the opportunity to be competitive, is that all that bad? jw

unsure, is my best answer. jw

essentially, there's blame to be spread to both sides. it was too much to ask the 32 player reps, who had been kept on the fringes for much of the talks, to digest a deal in 8 hours on Wednesday in DC that took 4 months to get done. the player reps should've been kept in the loop. and the union should have been more ready in preparing for the likelihood to recertify. and the owners are to blame given that they failed to read the tea leaves. the fact that the players did not vote on Wednesday should have been a clear sign that this deal still wasn't completed. and yet, they went ahead with their "P.R. machine in full throttle" as Bills safety George Wilson told the AP last night, and voted to approve. the optics of that press conference were just wrong from the players' side. and no, i'm told, the owners unlikely "slipped" things into the deal. though the fact that they voted on a CBA that the players had not had a chance to see certainly could have led some to assume that could happen. jw ADD: as the AP has reported, and the NFLPA ackowledged last night, one of the unresolved issues revolve around worker compensation claims. the NFL is asking the players to give up their rights to make those claims.

i hear you. and i'm glad you didn't take my post the wrong way. thing is, i wouldn't expect a deal to be reached today. in fact, there's some -- stress "some" -- fear this could go on a lot longer. jw

with some due respect, and i can appreciate it's hot, and we're all a little touchy, and this thing has dragged on for quite some time, i think you should have reconsidered much of your post when you got to here. ... jw

recertification is not a sticking point -- or at least not among the issues holding this thing back. jw

no, players weren't presented with an entire deal yesterday. as Mawae has noted, they are not tied to the NFL owners timetable. what happens during the conference call is anybody's guess. and if owners send players a now-or-never ultimatum, well, all bets are off as to what happens. still many issues on the table, and complicated by competing lawsuits. lots of moving parts to be resolved here, yet. jw

i would bet -- heavily -- against that. jw (edited to add the word "heavily")

You're Welcome. jW

interesting point, and worthy of some thought. in today's world, fairness could well be regarded as being completely out of whack, and i think even traditional Republicans might agree as to what was once regarded as "fair" and "equitable." could you not go back and say that this republic was built -- to some degree -- on the ideal of fairness, that a group of disenfranchised people revolted against the unfairness of the imperialist establishment of its day. and was it not out of this ideal for fairness that the Republican Party was founded. in fact, traditional conservatives were regarded as being fair-minded and charitable folk. i'd make a contention that "fairness" and "unfairness" in the case of the issue in this thread has less to do with traditional right versus left ideology, as it might have to do with religious demagoguery and zeal: a product nourished more out of dark-age totalarian fear and ignorance than Christ-minded tolerance. i could be wrong, but you got me thinking there. jw

bub, civil rights isn't "a game." this is not about distraction or wedge issues. any one who characterizes it this way has lost grip with what we're dealing with here: and that's people. this is not a left-right issue, it's an issue of fairness and equality. the Republican Party's roots are based in this issue, so why would anyone want to make it a left-right debate, i don't know. what's troubling is how some have lost the ability to see that through modern-colored lenses. i find it morally repulsive and shameful that anyone would want to debate this on a political level. i haven't, but you, sir, appear to want to push it in that direction. not biting. jw

Extending to you and your family my deepest condolences. jw

uhhh, civil rights is a problem that effects 100 percent of us. actually, you don't agree. try not to confuse the issue here. jw

i would bet, yes, given what the AP is reporting today: Bills on target to open camp in 2 weeks, barring breakdown in talks jw

don't think i said "panic." i said there is cause for concern, as there has always been. jw

that's a good and amusing line. jw

used up my negative quota and my positive quota. what the hell is this, switzerland. guess we're stuck in neutral ... yet again. jw