Owners tried to slip things by the players

[Throwback Bills]

I may be off, but here is what I think.

 

The owners voted EARLY on the deal that was to be in front of the players, because they had the time line. Add in the fact that they have the Kraft services to go to.

 

I bet the commissioner said to D Smith We got to go, we can't sit here, we'll be in Boston, we'll open the facilities this weedend and you have till Wednesday to get your vote in order.

 

I also agree that the players are only repeating genernic e-mail etc. There is no way that all the 32 players reps have read the deal cover to cover.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

"There also was a problem with some of the NFLPA’s complaints. For instance, Smith expressed concern that the owners had agreed on a new revenue-sharing plan on how to split money among teams. While Smith can express concern, it’s not the business of the NFLPA how the owners split the money they get among themselves. The NFLPA gets to only negotiate what its share of the overall pie can be." http://sports.yahoo....ans_smith072111

Gotta run so haven't read your link yet but I questioned the linkage between the CBA and supplemental revenue sharing back in 2006.

 

It would seem somewhat intuitive that once they divvy up the revenue that it's the players business on how they disburse their share and the owners biz how they disburse theirs.

 

 

HOWEVER… Bottom line for me (and why I think Cole is ultimately wrong) is that the supplemental revenue sharing provisions WERE included in the last CBA AND from a player's perspective, there are probably some aspects of supplemental revenue sharing (and other ramifications over how the owners divvy their shares) which could adversely affect players salaries.

 

This will all get sorted out soon and I'm a bit surprised by all the wailing and teeth gnashing.

 

 

[K Gun Special]

"There also was a problem with some of the NFLPA’s complaints. For instance, Smith expressed concern that the owners had agreed on a new revenue-sharing plan on how to split money among teams. While Smith can express concern, it’s not the business of the NFLPA how the owners split the money they get among themselves. The NFLPA gets to only negotiate what its share of the overall pie can be." http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=AsjZkVvEdJnwHZbpEDWpJApDubYF?slug=jc-cole_nflpa_cba_goodell_evans_smith072111

 

 

Perhaps but thats one writers opinion on the issue. Even assuming his point is valid, the others concerns, which were NOT negotiated but included in the deal, prevented the players from voting on it right away.

 

In any event the article you cited ends with "Of course, the players could be the type of people who buy a house without getting an inspection.""

Which is exactly my point and thank you for citing same.

 

Again, the PA is looking over the deal, which has NEW stuff in it before voting. I dont see why that causes some people to react so violently against Smith and his team.

 

I imagine if it was reversed, and the PA has voted on a deal with NEW stuff in it, that wasnt bargained, those same people would be outraged and the same targets.

 

Cooler heads will prevail on this deal, the bulk of it has been agreed to.

 

BUT its a ten years deal, there are significant concerns regarding the end of the term language, my understanding is that there is no opt out clause for either side like the old CBA.

[RyanC883]

It's not that they "slipped" things in the agreement that the players never saw. The owners approved their side of the agreement. In their side of the agreement, there are some issues that the players feel are unsettled. Like work mans comp, drug testing, etc. These CAN'T be settled without a union. But in no way, did the owners go "oh hey here are 5 more things we never told you, that we are just gonna stick in there."

 

 

Basically, nothing to see here, move along...

 

 

Well put.

 

The Players need to get their act together. They should fire their lawyer and hire a new one. This guy is not doing them any service by being an obstructionist. Really, players should be drug tested, so what's the hold up. And if you're a clean player, you want others drug tested.

[Buftex]

Amazing how much insight we have here, at TBD...

[GG]

I think you give a reasonable summary which I am sure will provide context for your what happened articles on this. the couple of factoids which I think you might add to your context is:

 

1. Judgments of the actions of both the owners and of the players in this dispute should be base in the fact that the owners were the ones who used their contractual right to renegotiate the deal. The players are not only on record as not asking for this situation which bothers all fans, but also they are on record not demanding anything in this renegotiation but continuing the old deal.

 

It was the owners right to do what they did, but it should not be ignored that they were the sole party that created this situation. The NFLPA also had the right under the contract to renegotiate once the owners opened the door and ask for fair trades for anything that they gave up. They did not and I think any presentation which judges these actions should be based on this factual context.

 

2. One of the central complaints of owners (led by Mr. Ralph actually) last time was that the owners were presented with a complex deal with a incredibly limited time to accept or reject it. Is the claim here that the player reps need to do exactly the same thing as the owners found to produce such a bad result for them. This time for a 10 year deal without the re-opener that the owners used this time.

 

Again, I would think presentation of this fact when giving any judgments about whether either side is being reasonable or unreasonable in this should be presented.

 

Overall, I think that it is clear that there are three sides to this dispute team owners, player partners and us fans.

 

As far as it goes, the NFLPA does not represent my fan interests on this at all. However, the owners bear the lionshare of any blame for fan treatment in this debacle.

 

That's my 1 and a half cents

 

Crying about the owners striking down the last CBA is pointless - they had a contractual right to do it and they exercised it. As a result, the NFLPA decertified. That has no bearing on the new CBA negotiation because they're starting from scratch in redefining the gross revenues, player costs, salary cap & free agency.

 

I've been supportive of players' position in the negotitions, but to frame these developments as owners trying to sneak something by the players, when the NFLPA has been in the negotiating rooms with the owners for weeks, smacks of class A hucksterism.

 

What's not been reported are the details of the supplementary revenues. If these revenues are revenues that were never meant to be part of the CBA discussions then it's an issue for the owners only. But, if these are revenues that players feel they're intitled to get a share, then why didn't NFLPA not care about them until now? Something doesn't add up, and all roads are pointing to De Smith & how he's communicated to his constituents.

 

If last night's move by the owners is seen as a power play, it's probably to expose the duplicity of the NFLPA's negotiating team. Add this to the secret strike insurance that De obtained without anyone else's knowledge, Lucy has a lot of 'slpainin to do.

[Calgary_JG]

When they interviewed Heath Evans on NFL Network a few minutes ago, they asked him specifically what the owners slipped into the new agreement. He hemmed and hawed and generally couldn't offer ANY specifics.

 

He's just parroting the email D Smith sent out. I seriously doubt the vast majority of players have more than a cursory understanding of this supposed 300-400 page document.

 

I call BS on this.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

I saw an interview with Josh Cribbs and it was basically the same thing. Rich Eisen (I'll give him his props) actually questioned him and didn't just coddle him like usual, but Cribbs had no answers. All he did was say "it's a process" a thousand times. I guarantee De Smith and the rest of his crew told the players to fan out and spread the message that any extension to the lockout is not the players' fault so they come up with this "they tried to slip this stuff in at the last minute" garbage.

 

I'm impressed with the comments on here and how they're not all anti-owner like in the past. Smith negotiated this agreement and now the players seem to be trying to save face almost to not make it look like the owners "won".

 

Come on guys, let's get down to football. GO BILLS!!!!!

[Beerball]

I saw an interview with Josh Cribbs and it was basically the same thing. Rich Eisen (I'll give him his props) actually questioned him and didn't just coddle him like usual, but Cribbs had no answers. All he did was say "it's a process" a thousand times. I guarantee De Smith and the rest of his crew told the players to fan out and spread the message that any extension to the lockout is not the players' fault so they come up with this "they tried to slip this stuff in at the last minute" garbage.

 

I'm impressed with the comments on here and how they're not all anti-owner like in the past. Smith negotiated this agreement and now the players seem to be trying to save face almost to not make it look like the owners "won".

 

Come on guys, let's get down to football. GO BILLS!!!!!

I think that there are plenty of people on both sides of the issue (and they've been there all along) and <gasp> there are actually folks who see positives and negatives on both sides.

[Delete This Account]

Before I believe that oh great gazoo (clayton)...provide details of what was slipped in. If supplemental revenue sharing by the clubs is the issue then in my mind it's a non-issue and none of the players business. There is agreement on the overall revenue split between owners and players. There is a salary floor. There is a salary cap. What the owners do with their portion of the revenue is their business.

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

[billnutinphoenix]

My take: The player's union lawyers got in the way and screwed it all up again. The union lawyers don't profit as much unless there is litigation.

 

The owners aren't faultless, but the players deserve a boatload of blame for putting their trust in a bunch of incompetent morons.

 

 

This is how I feel...

[Beerball]

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

Not all that bad, indeed. What I'd like to know (and there may be none on further review) is what were the surprises that bamboozled the players?

[Ramius]

These morons (the players) do realize that if their shenanigans cause the NFL to cancel preseason games, then league loses revenue, and therefore the cap will decrease as well, resulting in less money for them, don't they?

[Delete This Account]

Not all that bad, indeed. What I'd like to know (and there may be none on further review) is what were the surprises that bamboozled the players?

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

[Kelly the Dog]

Not all that bad, indeed. What I'd like to know (and there may be none on further review) is what were the surprises that babboozled the players?

Just speculation, but I think this was like a game of telephone in first grade where one kid whispers to the next and by the end the entire story has changed. The owners put stuff in about revenue sharing, and other things that may not have been agreed upon because there was no need to agree on them -- or they were part of stuff that going to be worked out later. There was no hoodwinking. But the players lawyers while reading it (IIRC 300-400 pages), told Smith, "Wait a second, there is language and stuff here we need to go over. We never talked about this stuff." Smith then told the reps there is no deal yet, the owners slipped stuff in there. If asked what, he didnt give them any answers. Rep by rep and player by player, all of whom are being asked by reporters and everyone else are they going to sign, started saying all kinds of stuff about the owners trying to screw them by adding stuff they never talked about.

[GG]

Just speculation, but I think this was like a game of telephone in first grade where one kid whispers to the next and by the end the entire story has changed. The owners put stuff in about revenue sharing, and other things that may not have been agreed upon because there was no need to agree on them -- or they were part of stuff that going to be worked out later. There was no hoodwinking. But the players lawyers while reading it (IIRC 300-400 pages), told Smith, "Wait a second, there is language and stuff here we need to go over. We never talked about this stuff." Smith then told the reps there is no deal yet, the owners slipped stuff in there. If asked what, he didnt give them any answers. Rep by rep and player by player, all of whom are being asked by reporters and everyone else are they going to sign, started saying all kinds of stuff about the owners trying to screw them by adding stuff they never talked about.

 

In other words, De has done a horrendous job of keeping his side informed and ready for the eventual return to work.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

In other words, De has done a horrendous job of keeping his side informed and ready for the eventual return to work.

Not entirely true.

 

All the media outlets have reported that:

 

1) The players union* had not received the document that the owners had ratified earlier in the day until "late." I still have not been able to find out what "late" means.

 

2) There WAS additional language added that the players had NOT seen before.

 

3) Another unanswered question is the process: there was apparently a handshake agreement/agreement in principle that resulted from the collective bargaining however it HAS NOT BEEN MADE CLEAR who ultimately drafted the document that was ratified by the owners before being forwarded to the players.

 

It's also a consensus view that because the players received the document last, that they are now being painted as the villains and/or inept because of the perception that they are now "holding up" the agreement.

 

There is no point in the players voting on the proposal until they have the time to review and understand the document which is reported to be a bit over 200 pages.

 

The CBA will get done soon and the only casualty so far is the Hall of Fame game which has been canceled.

 

Very interesting how many people are so emotionally invested in this outcome and have lost patience.

 

 

[Kelly the Dog]

In other words, De has done a horrendous job of keeping his side informed and ready for the eventual return to work.

Yup. I don't see anything wrong with waiting one day for your lawyers to go through a 300 page document word for word. But within a few hours they should know all of these alleged hoodwinks, relay that to Smith, who needed to tell the players straight what that was. I havent really trusted Smith from the get-go, but it's so hard to know anything about what's really going on.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

p.s.-- In addition to receiving the document last, it's also much more difficult for De Smith to keep his 1900 person membership apprised than it is for the owners who number 32 plus their 100-120 lieutenants.

[Kelly the Dog]

Not entirely true.

 

All the media outlets have reported that:

 

1) The players union* had not received the document that the owners had ratified earlier in the day until "late." I still have not been able to find out what "late" means.

 

2) There WAS additional language added that the players had NOT seen before.

 

3) Another unanswered question is the process: there was apparently a handshake agreement/agreement in principle that resulted from the collective bargaining however it HAS NOT BEEN MADE CLEAR who ultimately drafted the document that was ratified by the owners before being forwarded to the players.

 

It's also a consensus view that because the players received the document last, that they are now being painted as the villains and/or inept because of the perception that they are now "holding up" the agreement.

 

There is no point in the players voting on the proposal until they have the time to review and understand the document which is reported to be a bit over 200 pages.

 

The CBA will get done soon and the only casualty so far is the Hall of Fame game which has been canceled.

 

Very interesting how many people are so emotionally invested in this outcome and have lost patience.

 

 

I think the point is that Smith allowed the hysteria of players like Heath Evans to make it sound like the owners were screwing them over by not telling the players what the new stuff was. Better communication to them, about the issues that jw just mentioned, would no have inflamed the players and interwebs and message boards.

 

p.s.-- In addition to receiving the document last, it's also much more difficult for De Smith to keep his 1900 person membership apprised than it is for the owners who number 32 plus their 100-120 lieutenants.

Not sure about that. Smith has 32 reps to explain things to, which should be promptly, accurately, and succinctly. Those reps then take that exact info and go to their 80 member teams (or whatever). Goodell has 32 owners to do the same thing with, and they go to their 80 member law firm.

 

While that is somewhat of a joke and exaggeration, both sides have 32 main members, a few of those 32 intricately involved, along with dozens of lawyers on both sides that have to go through all this. It's not much easier or harder for either side. The reps are representing their entire team the way the 32 owners are. There is simply more people asking players for their quotes.

[Mr. WEO]

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

You are correct. Upshaw was the main driving force behind enhanced team revenue sharing as a way for all teams to be able to pay for the "60%" he was demanding. Many have forgotten (or just don't know) what was going on in those negotiations, instead exhibiting a grasp of history that begins and ends with "Ralph was right".