Mr. WEO Posted April 12, 2010 Posted April 12, 2010 Very interesting. My suspicion is that this notion was endorsed and even planted with this "sports law firm" to disseminate as a message to the players. That message is: "we've covered every contigency and you have no viable options to our proposals". Another example of why other sports owners wished they owned an NFL team instead.
BillsVet Posted April 12, 2010 Posted April 12, 2010 Cornwell looked to become Exec. Director of the NFLPA last summer and had some support from a few player reps. It was a surprise when DeMaurice Smith won the job. As much as the article provides some information, Cornwell is NOT a neutral observer to all of this.
In-A-Gadda-Levitre Posted April 12, 2010 Posted April 12, 2010 Cornwell looked to become Exec. Director of the NFLPA last summer and had some support from a few player reps. It was a surprise when DeMaurice Smith won the job. As much as the article provides some information, Cornwell is NOT a neutral observer to all of this. I could be wrong, but it sounds like your inferring that he was somewhat biased towards the players, which he would have to be if he was even close to becoming Director of the NFLPA. This article sounds like the owners hold most of the cards and the players are going to be forced to agree to the owners post-impasse decision. Not exactly talking tough on behalf of the players...
Lv-Bills Posted April 12, 2010 Author Posted April 12, 2010 Cornwell looked to become Exec. Director of the NFLPA last summer and had some support from a few player reps. It was a surprise when DeMaurice Smith won the job. As much as the article provides some information, Cornwell is NOT a neutral observer to all of this. This article came from a link that was inside of another article. The article pointed out that Cornwell talked about this at length when he was vying to become the NFLPA director, and no one wanted to really hear or grasp what he was saying. When I clicked the link to see what Cornwell's theory was, I thought it was interesting. Cornwell has been saying this all along.
In-A-Gadda-Levitre Posted April 12, 2010 Posted April 12, 2010 This article came from a link that was inside of another article. The article pointed out that Cornwell talked about this at length when he was vying to become the NFLPA director, and no one wanted to really hear or grasp what he was saying. When I clicked the link to see what Cornwell's theory was, I thought it was interesting. Cornwell has been saying this all along. now that is is interesting! no wonder he wasn't elected
Mr. WEO Posted April 12, 2010 Posted April 12, 2010 This article came from a link that was inside of another article. The article pointed out that Cornwell talked about this at length when he was vying to become the NFLPA director, and no one wanted to really hear or grasp what he was saying. When I clicked the link to see what Cornwell's theory was, I thought it was interesting. Cornwell has been saying this all along. The players are being deluded by Smith, who is in over his head and stands to get his d*ck handed to him in the next year.
Peter Posted April 12, 2010 Posted April 12, 2010 The key for us is going to be the revenue sharing piece. As I understand it, under the most recent agreement (the one that Paul T. championed and that Ralph and Brown voted against), the amount of revenue from which a percentage was shared with the players was different from (higher) than the amount of revenue that the teams shared among themselves.
San Jose Bills Fan Posted April 13, 2010 Posted April 13, 2010 Cornwell looked to become Exec. Director of the NFLPA last summer and had some support from a few player reps. It was a surprise when DeMaurice Smith won the job. As much as the article provides some information, Cornwell is NOT a neutral observer to all of this. Good catch, BillsVet. I didn't even notice the author of the article was Cornwell. I wonder if his motivations have changed at all since losing out to D Smith for the NFLPA position.
sfladave Posted April 13, 2010 Posted April 13, 2010 The players are being deluded by Smith, who is in over his head and stands to get his d*ck handed to him in the next year. Scary thing is that bad things usually happen when someone's leader is in over their head and about to get their ass whooped... very bad things! I don't see this turning out well for the players. Does this scenario mean there would be no salary cap in place, as is the case in 2010, in 2011 and going forward unless a CBA is reached with the players?
dollars 2 donuts Posted April 13, 2010 Posted April 13, 2010 Labor Article Lv, that was some good stuff. Thank you my man.
Recommended Posts