Eric Reid Demanding Investigation and Revote on CBA

[Turk71]

1 hour ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

The first two words in the title are "Eric Reid". It's no surprise TBD would immediately turn it into a ***** show.

  To be honest I had completely forgotten that Eric Reid was a controversial figure when I started this. I just saw the article and didn't know if it would impact the cba. 

  The thread about the disabled ex Bills' wife complaining about the cba taking away some of his benefits had me thinking both sides should have left that alone. If this stays too political I assume the mods will quarantine it in the ppp and let the mad dogs go at it.

[DrDawkinstein]

11 minutes ago, Meatloaf63 said:

Nothing could be further from the truth. 
 

“As recently as the 1980s, four of the twenty-four countries involved in the 2019 World Cup had imposed outright bans on women’s soccer. In general, many of the countries involved are still trying to recover from the myopia of past regimes and the sexism of current federations in order to field competitive teams on the pitch, which is part of the reason we see nations who embraced women’s soccer early and invest time and effort into fielding world-class teams succeed at this tournament.

Decades of foolishness are still impeding four countries with recent bans on women’s soccer, to varying degrees.” 
Not many countries have supported their woman’s  teams as much as the US  has until recently. The only thing clear is that you are wrong...

 

 

So your argument here in this CBA thread is "The much celebrated US Women's Soccer team isnt really that good, so eff those uppity bees in their a's"?

[Mr. WEO]

16 minutes ago, Meatloaf63 said:

Nothing could be further from the truth. 
 

“As recently as the 1980s, four of the twenty-four countries involved in the 2019 World Cup had imposed outright bans on women’s soccer. In general, many of the countries involved are still trying to recover from the myopia of past regimes and the sexism of current federations in order to field competitive teams on the pitch, which is part of the reason we see nations who embraced women’s soccer early and invest time and effort into fielding world-class teams succeed at this tournament.

Decades of foolishness are still impeding four countries with recent bans on women’s soccer, to varying degrees.” 
Not many countries have supported their woman’s  teams as much as the US  has until recently. The only thing clear is that you are wrong...

 

 

 

Say what?

 

So up until 40 years ago, a handful of countries banned women's soccer?  How is that "recent"?  As recently as the mid 1980's.....the USWNT didn't even exist!(was it banned?!)

 

Since those bans, the USWNT has dominated the best teams in the world for 30 years.  And that's with "the sexism of current federations".....like US Soccer. 

 

 

Edited April 1, 2020 by Mr. WEO

[DrDawkinstein]

Just now, Turk71 said:

  To be honest I had completely forgotten that Eric Reid was a controversial figure when I started this. I just saw the article and didn't know if it would impact the cba. 

  The thread about the disabled ex Bills' wife complaining about the cba taking away some of his benefits had me thinking both sides should have left that alone. If this stays too political I assume the mods will quarantine it in the ppp and let the mad dogs go at it.

 

It's not your fault that so many folks here are easily triggered by these guys. They missed the entire point of what Reid is doing here, and still somehow equate it with the Anthem stuff. When really, Reid is fighting for the old players these guys all love.

[Meatloaf63]

2 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

So your argument here in this CBA thread is "The much celebrated US Women's Soccer team isnt really that good, so eff those uppity bees in their a's"?

Was speaking to WEO about his comment, can you read? Do you have any reading comprehension skills?

Edited April 1, 2020 by Meatloaf63

[DrDawkinstein]

3 minutes ago, Meatloaf63 said:

Wa speaking to WEO about his comment, can you read? Do you have any reading comprehension skills?

 

Yes, his comment that said the Women's team is actually pretty good as is their competition. And you posted some nonsense stating that their competition is weak from 30+ years ago. So sounds like my comprehension is on point.

 

If that isnt correct, then state your stance in a sentence or two.

 

Believe me, that last thing I like doing is agreeing with WEO on anything. Yet yall are pushing me there with this tangent youre on.

Edited April 1, 2020 by DrDawkinstein

[Mr. WEO]

2 hours ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

Yes, his comment that said the Women's team is actually pretty good as is their competition. And you posted some nonsense stating that their competition is weak from 30+ years ago. So sounds like my comprehension is on point.

 

If that isnt correct, then state your stance in a sentence or two.

 

Believe me, that last thing I like doing is agreeing with WEO on anything. Yet yall are pushing me there with this tangent youre on.

 

DrDawkenstein....I AM YOUR FAAAATHEERRRR!  

 

Give in to the Dark Side.  Rule with me.

[BillsFan17]

20 hours ago, StHustle said:

 

So he shouldnt play in the league again because of what? Try to be honest. Thats all i ask from your type. Be proud of what you believe in and stop masking it. Man up.

Where in my post did I say he shouldn't play in the league? What am I being dishonest about? I pointed out an example of a time he tried to gain social justice points by blatantly being dishonest. You want to prop up those who want to be professional victims, have a day, but in this scenario, I'm the last one here that has to "man up."

 

Moreover, please, elaborate on what "manning up" truly is. Go ahead. Waste more of my time.

[StHustle]

5 minutes ago, BillsFan17 said:

Where in my post did I say he shouldn't play in the league? What am I being dishonest about? I pointed out an example of a time he tried to gain social justice points by blatantly being dishonest. You want to prop up those who want to be professional victims, have a day, but in this scenario, I'm the last one here that has to "man up."

 

Moreover, please, elaborate on what "manning up" truly is. Go ahead. Waste more of my time.

 

You quoted my response in defense of the person I was replying to. If you don't feel how he does then why defend it? Manning up in this context means to stop pussyfooting around your real reason you have a stance on something and get to the real reason. The person I originally replied to, as well as a slew of others support the blackballing of players for protesting, in a way that broke no company rules (dont play that BS "on the employers time" card when no rules were broken). They (and YOU if you agree with them) are the epitome of anti-american values but masquerade around as patriots. Ohhh the hypocrisy of it all...smh.

[BillsFan17]

51 minutes ago, StHustle said:

 

You quoted my response in defense of the person I was replying to. If you don't feel how he does then why defend it? Manning up in this context means to stop pussyfooting around your real reason you have a stance on something and get to the real reason. The person I originally replied to, as well as a slew of others support the blackballing of players for protesting, in a way that broke no company rules (dont play that BS "on the employers time" card when no rules were broken). They (and YOU if you agree with them) are the epitome of anti-american values but masquerade around as patriots. Ohhh the hypocrisy of it all...smh.

There was no defense of the other persons stance, but just pointing out that Reid plays the victim card, and lies. Which have been pointed out, and to act like everyone has this underlying reason to go after Reid is expanding on victimhood. The guy has made him self look bad by lying to get social justice credit at a time when that's the last thing we need.

 

If nothing else, people like Reid and to a further extent Michael Bennett make things far worse than they do help them progress.

Edited April 1, 2020 by BillsFan17

[Keukasmallies]

IF the agreement was still being finalized when the NFLPA held their vote, the NFLPA did not serve the players' interests and should be held responsible by the members.  Would any of us write a check while the bill was still being added up?

[Spiderweb]

On 3/30/2020 at 7:48 PM, Boatdrinks said:

Veiled attempt to get a revote for a CBA he doesn’t like. Maybe he was one of the many who did not vote in the first place ? Anyway, I’m highly skeptical of anything originating with Reid. Don’t trust that guy at all. 

Maybe the facts should be the determining factor and not your personal view of Reid. Like him or not, if verbiage was inserted after the fact then it's wrong, pure and simple. This is why we have laws and courts.

[Boatdrinks]

1 minute ago, Spiderweb said:

Maybe the facts should be the determining factor and not your personal view of Reid. Like him or not, if verbiage was inserted after the fact then it's wrong, pure and simple. This is why we have laws and courts.

Could be a simple error. It can be omitted if that’s the case; not a reason to have another vote. The source makes me highly skeptical, your mileage may vary. 

[Mr. WEO]

To be accurate, Reid had no idea about this alteration to the offset benefits language until he had his own lawyers read through the CBA after it was ratified.  It's his lawyer who is pushing for the revote through Reid, who is happy to write that letter.

 

Also, I bet almost none of the voters read the whole contract before they voted anyway. Whne approached with the issue being the before and after date of SSI filing as it impasct future benefits, most would respond..."huh?'.

 

Also, there is no way NFLPA will allow a revote.  And unless fraud can be reasonably suspected, if not proven, why would a judge order a nullification of the contract?  The change, when you consider the huge breadth of scope of the entire agreement, this change would not likely rise to a material significance of alteration to the contract.

 

But even if by some miracle the contract was nullified in court (not sure they could rule on a "re-vote"), I bet the NFL would not offer this same CBA again......

[Rochesterfan]

As suspected NFLPA calls it a cross reference issue that was corrected.  
 

So it was not a nefarious plan by billionaire owners to sneak something by - just as was stated before - the NFL had nothing to do with this.  This was an NFLPA issue.

 

I think we need to loosen up a few tin foil hats around here.

Edited April 2, 2020 by Rochesterfan

[cba fan]

On 3/30/2020 at 7:47 PM, Tuco said:

Time will tell. It's one thing to be unhappy with a CBA that you voted against but were outnumbered. I've been there a number of times. But if what he says is true - and it seems unlikely he would make it up - this is some serious bull cookies on the part of the NFL. 

 

Of course they will say it was a clerical error and the wrong copy was sent out or some other nonsense.  Then again, they wouldn't really think all 2,000 players and a whole lot of retired players wouldn't notice something like that  . . . . would they?

NFLPA has hired lawyers for a reason.

They should have noticed this immediately and had it corrected. They failed at their job.

 

That Reid had to be the one to call it out is a joke. Reid needs to direct his anger also to the idiots they hired to read this stuff. We all know language on contracts is like braille to most of us.

Edited April 2, 2020 by cba fan

[Rochesterfan]

3 hours ago, cba fan said:

NFLPA has hired lawyers for a reason.

They should have noticed this immediately and had it corrected. They failed at their job.

 

That Reid had to be the one to call it out is a joke. Reid needs to direct his anger also to the idiots they hired to read this stuff. We all know language on contracts is like braille to most of us.

Once again - it was not the NFL doing anything wrong.  The NFL did not try to pull a fast one.  They were not trying to screw the players.

 

This was all under negotiation and it sounds like the NFLPA came to an agreement and THEY cross referenced it incorrectly in their posted material.  The NFL was not involved in the issue at all - it was strictly an issue with the NFLPA.  The NFLPA came out and stated it was a cross reference issue - nothing major and because it is very minor they a have corrected this.  
 

Nothing to see here and it will not get a re-vote or anything.

[Doc]

Good.  That's settled then.  Sorry Eric. 

[4merper4mer]

On April 1, 2020 at 8:13 AM, Keukasmallies said:

IF the agreement was still being finalized when the NFLPA held their vote, the NFLPA did not serve the players' interests and should be held responsible by the members.  Would any of us write a check while the bill was still being added up?

They had to sign it to find out what was in it?

[Keukasmallies]

2 hours ago, 4merper4mer said:

They had to sign it to find out what was in it?

 

 

Edited April 3, 2020 by Keukasmallies