Rift Among Players: Breakaway Group

[Gee!]

Some players are close to signing with law firm to have own seat in mediation sessions.. Unhappy with the way negotiations broke down first time..

 

[JeffGollin]

Some players are close to signing with law firm to have own seat in mediation sessions.. Unhappy with the way negotiations broke down first time..

I recognize the danger involved in not presenting a unified front, but I also believe that 2nd and 3rd-echelon players have different interests than elite players; vested vets have different interests than rookies and rookies have their own set of interests as well.

Who among us doesn't think it whacky that high priced rookies who never played a down in the NFL get whopping guaranteed contracts worth many times more than a more deserved veteran.

And, the least as I see it - why aren't all contracts guaranteed but at the same time no longer inflated and therefore more realistic? And can't there be a fairer, more common-sense approach (than guaranteed money) to account for injury-risk?

Is anyone on either side even talking about these basic things?

Talks are only just that: various sides talking. (It's not as if a rookie sitting next to a veteran is going to give the dude "rookie disease"). It's just different guys airing their interests. Every group should have a seat at the table.

The danger, of course, is that the League may try to play "divide & conquer", but it could be that the reason for talks not progressing is that some of those differences from group to group are lying just beneath the surface and aren't being talked about.

Therefore, from the players' standpoints - with the added risk (of bringing in a diversity of interests) may come added opportunity.

 

[Cheesebeef]

i'm now starting to get worried about this season.

 

[Crazy Canuck]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6396256

 

[Cardinals.Ken]

i'm now starting to get worried about this season.

You and me both...jackass!

The MLB lockout in 94, when they canceled the World Series, set a dangerous precedent as to how far ownership will go to achieve their goals.

I hope for the best, but I'm expecting the most NFL action I'll get this year will be beating Gee! on Madden 11 online.

 

[Bert]

There is a lot of debt among NFL players and these guys are going to be OVER not getting a paycheck really, really soon.

Ok Question: Say this group of players decides to cross the line and go back to work (Call them scabs or whatever you want I'm not debating the merits of doing that) but what would stop them from doing that? There isn't a union anymore so what would stop a group of special teamers and guys who are hurting financially in general from saying; 'screw this' and going back to work? Cuz that's beginning to look likely based on whats happening and the rumors of players taking out high interest loans to pay their bills...

Can they do that? On September 11th could we see half the team back and half still on strike? Just curious.

 

[joeshmo]

There is a lot of debt among NFL players and these guys are going to be OVER not getting a paycheck really, really soon.

Ok Question: Say this group of players decides to cross the line and go back to work (Call them scabs or whatever you want I'm not debating the merits of doing that) but what would stop them from doing that? There isn't a union anymore so what would stop a group of special teamers and guys who are hurting financially in general from saying; 'screw this' and going back to work? Cuz that's beginning to look likely based on whats happening and the rumors of players taking out high interest loans to pay their bills...

Can they do that? On September 11th could we see half the team back and half still on strike? Just curious.

They can do that and mostly likely would. Just like the last time in the 80's. If I remember right some pretty big names as well crossed the line - Montana and LT come to mind.

 

[WildBB]

They can do that and mostly likely would. Just like the last time in the 80's. If I remember right some pretty big names as well crossed the line - Montana and LT come to mind.

Are you saying pro's and scabs together?

They better not attempt to start a season like that. It'd be a sham.

 

[Weenus O'Baggins]

There is no "line to cross". All players, including new draftees, are locked out by the NFL.

The only time there is a line to cross is if there is a strike.

 

[kerouac9]

They can do that and mostly likely would. Just like the last time in the 80's. If I remember right some pretty big names as well crossed the line - Montana and LT come to mind.

Chandler Mike is right. The players all want to go back to work; NFL teams are locking them out. Players would go to work tomorrow if they didn't find the doors locked on the facilities and team officials physically keeping them off the premises.

There's no picket line to cross. This story seems pretty unsourced. You're talking about 50 players in a 2000-player "union." This seems to be a communication problem among the players more than anything else.

 

[Cardinals.Ken]

Chandler Mike is right. The players all want to go back to work; NFL teams are locking them out. Players would go to work tomorrow if they didn't find the doors locked on the facilities and team officials physically keeping them off the premises.

There's no picket line to cross. This story seems pretty unsourced. You're talking about 50 players in a 2000-player "union." This seems to be a communication problem among the players more than anything else.

Who?

 

[Arizona's Finest]

One thing I heard today that makes me hopeful for a full season.

As many of you know, the Giants and Jets are playing each other on 9/11 on the tenth anniversary of the event in New York to kick off the season.

That would be an unprecedented historic black eye on the game, players, and owners if that game was cancelled due to a labor strike and I think they all know that. The diehards will always come, but I think that would have a similar effect as the cancelling of the World Series in 94. I almost think that was part of the thought process when they scheduled that game in order to force a resolution as no one wants to see that happen.

I am hopeful but then again what do I know?

 

[Shane]

http://www.cbssports.com/#!/nfl/story/14971048/owners-players-continue-courtordered-mediation

 

[Cheesebeef]

One thing I heard today that makes me hopeful for a full season.

As many of you know, the Giants and Jets are playing each other on 9/11 on the tenth anniversary of the event in New York to kick off the season.

no they're not.

 

[azsportsfan01]

One thing I heard today that makes me hopeful for a full season.

As many of you know, the Giants and Jets are playing each other on 9/11 on the tenth anniversary of the event in New York to kick off the season.

That would be an unprecedented historic black eye on the game, players, and owners if that game was cancelled due to a labor strike and I think they all know that. The diehards will always come, but I think that would have a similar effect as the cancelling of the World Series in 94. I almost think that was part of the thought process when they scheduled that game in order to force a resolution as no one wants to see that happen.

I am hopeful but then again what do I know?

Uh, no they aren't. The Giants are playing the Redskins in DC.

 

[Arizona's Finest]

LOL must have misheard on the radio. This announcer on the Dolphins show was talking about it but I guess he meant NewYork was hosting games on the tenth anniversary.

But since we are on the topic, why would the NFL not set that up? When I heard it (or what I thought I heard) almost made too much sense. Missed opportunity by the NFL.

 

[CardsFan88]

Well I was wondering about that. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the richest men in the NFL. At first glance you might think, lead from the top, Brady and Manning are two 'good guys' of the league, and are plastered by the NFL all the time.

But I also started to think, this might mean that guys at the top, want to continue getting huge raises and have the focus be on THAT above all else.

With the 'mid-tier' trying to get a seat at the table, it's showing us that it was the 15 mill a year guys against the billionaires, and now the mid-tier guys are probably catching on that if the top end guys hold the keys it leads to two things.

Either the top guys keep that much at expense of all others in any deal.
Or they won't allow any deal unless they are taken care of first, meaning a long protracted affair.

The top guys, and the draft picks will lose the most, while the lower-mid tier guys need to gain, as well as retirees/health care. I just don't see how retirees get healthcare, low-mid tier guys get what they want....AND the top guys continue to have their contracts scale up like they have been....under a lockout scenario.

The mid-tier guys don't want to be screwed, and I have a feeling the way things were going, the top guys were protecting their interests first and foremost, and expecting the wealth effect to trickle down to the mid-tier guys.

Of course this is all speculation, but I'd take this as a bad sign for Manning/Brady and their tier, and a good sign for the mid-tier. If they throw the mannings/brady's under the bus, it might actually speed along the process. It just depends...how much power do they take from the manning's and brady's in this? Hopefully, a lot. It's better for the league to have the top players salaries frozen or reduced, so that everybody else's goes up, including minimum.

It's very possible the roadblock is manning/brady vs. the owners, and this is an attempt to change the direction. This could get very interesting.

 

[john h]

I recognize the danger involved in not presenting a unified front, but I also believe that 2nd and 3rd-echelon players have different interests than elite players; vested vets have different interests than rookies and rookies have their own set of interests as well.

Who among us doesn't think it whacky that high priced rookies who never played a down in the NFL get whopping guaranteed contracts worth many times more than a more deserved veteran.

And, the least as I see it - why aren't all contracts guaranteed but at the same time no longer inflated and therefore more realistic? And can't there be a fairer, more common-sense approach (than guaranteed money) to account for injury-risk?

Is anyone on either side even talking about these basic things?

Talks are only just that: various sides talking. (It's not as if a rookie sitting next to a veteran is going to give the dude "rookie disease"). It's just different guys airing their interests. Every group should have a seat at the table.

The danger, of course, is that the League may try to play "divide & conquer", but it could be that the reason for talks not progressing is that some of those differences from group to group are lying just beneath the surface and aren't being talked about.

Therefore, from the players' standpoints - with the added risk (of bringing in a diversity of interests) may come added opportunity.

The facts are that most of the rich players can afford to sit out a season. Others who are less wealth have big mortgages and a family and cannot go a full season with no pay. Others may be in the final year of playing football. Some are trying to make the team and need the experience now not two years from now. There are just to many players to all have the same common interest. Some of these guys would cross a strike line if it came down to it. Family is more important than a union. The NFL is not the cause of these different needs. This was almost bound to happen. I heard today the initial group of players number at about 60-80 and they are demanding a seat at the bargaining table to represent there own group and what they are willing to do or not do. Once this starts the NFL is going to be much less inclined to give away the farm. Anyway, there is no Union so why should a group like them not have a say when they reach a certain number?

I would be interested to see who they are. The players union attempt at having the draftees not attend the real draft fell on mostly deaf ears. The players union/group/what ever should have some regular players representing them rather than all the multi millionaire QBs who have very different needs than the guy who makes $700,000 a year.

 

[john h]

There is no "line to cross". All players, including new draftees, are locked out by the NFL.

The only time there is a line to cross is if there is a strike.

The owners could change this any time they like and the players would have to play with no contract or not play at all. It would be there choice. With no contract my guess would be the owners could put in place what ever rules on money distribution they want. The players could then reform there union and set up a picket line and probably half of them would cross the line and football would be played. Not exactly on the same level but if you can field half of all existing players you can be sure the rest would soon follow. I am no lawyer so read this at your own risk.

 

[Stout]

I see this as a positive. The NFL has had setbacks, and it looks like the players are starting to weaken a bit. Hopefully they decide it is better to get a deal done on all sides, and not have both sides become even more stubborn.

 

[Cbus cardsfan]

I can't wait for the movie sequel :
The Replacements 2: This time we were locked out.

coming this fall to a theater near you.

 

[Cards Czar]

Its also another way for those players agents and there lawyers to get inside and know whats going on and get a piece of the action.

 

[cardpa]

Something I need explained to me. If Judge Susan Richard Nelson lifts the lockout what or how does that impact things?

Does it mean that players could go back to work for teams if they want and how would this impact negotiations?

 

[kerouac9]

SportsCenter reported on this last night. Guess what? Things aren't as they seem.

Apparently the law firm was reaching out to players; there wasn't a groundswell of "middle class" players who hired the law firm.

Worse than that, the firm in question has ties to the NFL or at least some NFL affiliates. Pretty classy work there, Mr. Goddell.

 

[joeshmo]

SportsCenter reported on this last night. Guess what? Things aren't as they seem.

Apparently the law firm was reaching out to players; there wasn't a groundswell of "middle class" players who hired the law firm.

Worse than that, the firm in question has ties to the NFL or at least some NFL affiliates. Pretty classy work there, Mr. Goddell.

So the same exact sportcenter that is in direct competition with the NFL owned NFL network is trying to bunk the story and not a single other source is?

Sure the NFL may have nudged this along, but here is what we do know, it may not have been a ground swell but 70 players have hired this agency together. They did file paperwork to the courts in Minny, whether the courts take that paperwork seriously and we wouldnt know until the next mediation date of mid May is another story. The players actually showing up to the mediation know its real, so real that they are even answering and making comments on it, hasty comments that actually hurt their cause -

"We’re players here to represent players and De works for us, They do [have a seat]. And if they’re unhappy with that seat, we have to vote in a new executive committee, and a new board of reps.”

Umm, Mr Vrabel you just stated on record in only a few small comments that you guys are still acting as a union and your decertification was a sham. De Smith does not work for you, you do not represent all the players only your specific court case, and there is no such thing as an executive commitee or board of reps. If there is, guess what you are a union still.