Here Are the Final Two Issues

[AbeBeta]

All the "meet in the middle" people are off-base. This is what the players want in response to what the owners added. This is a clear - you get X in exchange for this

 

[DeaconBlues]

All the "meet in the middle" people are off-base. This is what the players want in response to what the owners added. This is a clear - you get X in exchange for this

Exactly.

I don't understand why this is so hard to understand. Its called negotiation and bargaining.

 

[ElGatoGrande]

NO on the '7 year opt-out' clause,,, I need to know exactly which year the whole thing comes up for renegotiation so I can leave the country or have myself cryogenically frozen for 7 months to escape the insanity.

 

[JohnnyHopkins]

All the "meet in the middle" people are off-base. This is what the players want in response to what the owners added. This is a clear - you get X in exchange for this

I was just joking anyways (meeting in the middle between 7 and 10 years would be 8.5 HAHAHAHAHA (lame)) :

 

[reddyuta]

NO on the '7 year opt-out' clause,,, I need to know exactly which year the whole thing comes up for renegotiation so I can leave the country or have myself cryogenically frozen for 7 months to escape the insanity.

:laugh2::laugh2:

 

[TellerMorrow34]

Neither side considers the fans. Why should they? Until there is a massive fan union where stadium attendance and TV ratings are affected, why should either side?

Exactly. Absolutely 100%, nail right on the head, perfect.

 

[DeaconBlues]

NO on the '7 year opt-out' clause,,, I need to know exactly which year the whole thing comes up for renegotiation so I can leave the country or have myself cryogenically frozen for 7 months to escape the insanity.

Well, if there is a set opt-out, then you know what date you're gonna be frozen.

C'mon, you just want the extra time so they can bang out the bugs in the technology.

 

[AdamJT13]

This is what the players want in response to what the owners added.

Has anyone reported what the players claim was "added" by the owners?

(Other than the revenue sharing, which seems to be a deal between the owners that doesn't need the players' involvement.)

 

[jterrell]

they dont want to get it done right now, the players, they want to get all they can get first, forget us fans, or how much it will cost us in raised ticket prices, parking, concessions, that the players get a percentage of.


Did the players consider the people that lost jobs at teams facilities due to no Mini camp or OTAs, or the hall of fame game? No!

Players are only in it for themselves and to get money from fans for autographed pictures, jerseys. Not all players are like that, but most are.

Was said loud and clear by de smith, i am not here to serve the owners or the public.
A player rep said same thing, we are not here to serve the owners or the public, only our players, 1900 of us.

thats the attitude of some of the reps, not all of them, but some. Thats the holdup with the greed for more money.

this is a good for the goose, good for the gander issue.

owners have not lost a single dime yet and in fact have saved considerable money thus far.

they had zero real interest in offering up a best case deal themselves before now. neither side has shown an iota of respect to fans, team staff or small businesses working as vendors.

there are 32 NFL owners and they took a couple days to build the document then only agreed to it by 7 PM at night.

there are 1400 NFL players who all want to at least see the document and probably need agent/lawyer conversations to understand what it says. the one day stipulation was silly and childish as have the player tweets and whines since.

 

[burmafrd]

you can shill for the players all you want but this last bit is just BS.

By the way, last night they were whining about the revenue sharing. Suddenly no one is talking about that from the players side. Interesting, isn't it.

 

[Hostile]

Has anyone reported what the players claim was "added" by the owners?

(Other than the revenue sharing, which seems to be a deal between the owners that doesn't need the players' involvement.)

No sir. I've seen plenty of reports and claims, but nothing concrete has been explained that is supposedly different and affecting the players.

 

[ThreeandOut]

• An opt-out clause seven years into the proposed 10-year collective bargaining agreement; - Make it 8 years and we are good

• To be allowed to report to team facilities and vote in person on recertifying as a union. - team facilities or the nearest topless bar and we are done!

Options on the player ballot for voting on the CBA:

Yes
No
Make it Rain

 

[slotshot]

Players want a seven-year opt out clause in CBA

7/22/2011 10:54:03 AM

Chris Mortensen of ESPN reports a player vote is still possible today on the proposed labor agreement ratified by NFL owners on Thursday.

There are two key issues the players want the owners to agree to:

• An opt-out clause seven years into the proposed 10-year collective bargaining agreement;

• To be allowed to report to team facilities and vote in person on recertifying as a union.

Just do it!

If we miss the first preseason games, each of these questions will be worth about $100,000,000.

 

[burmafrd]

Why do they need to be in team facilities to do this? They cannot meet somewhere else and do it?

 

[phildadon86]

So, per Sal, the players were not given a full copy of the CBA the owners voted on, and you expect them just to nod their heads and head to camp?

Ya they should nod their heads and go to camp. If you read what that says it says 99 percent was given to the players the remainder was financial info only Privy to the owners. Who cares how the owners share their money? Thats none of the players business what so ever. They should shut up and get to work in my opinion, this deal is more then fair to the players, they are just stalling because they dont wanna work, they wanna sit back and do nothing until the season actually starts and they start losing money. Lazy greedy ******es

 

[Mr Cowboy]

Has anyone reported what the players claim was "added" by the owners?

(Other than the revenue sharing, which seems to be a deal between the owners that doesn't need the players' involvement.)

No, some claim that they have never seen the proposal, others have not had time to read it, and those who say something was added, don't know what it was!

 

[DeaconBlues]

Ya they should nod their heads and go to camp. If you read what that says it says 99 percent was given to the players the remainder was financial info only Privy to the owners. Who cares how the owners share their money? Thats none of the players business what so ever. They should shut up and get to work in my opinion, this deal is more then fair to the players, they are just stalling because they dont wanna work, they wanna sit back and do nothing until the season actually starts and they start losing money. Lazy greedy ******es

If the owners didn't want or didn't need the players OK, if it was none of their business, then why is it in the CBA?

 

[Yeagermeister]

Pass it to see what's in it

 

[burmafrd]

If the owners didn't want or didn't need the players OK, if it was none of their business, then why is it in the CBA?

its part of the overall package. There are parts in there that only concern the players as well. Like meeting at team facilities twice a year or whatever. Now the owners may have some interest in when that happens, but frankly it does not concern them, does it?

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I would not move off the 10 year agreement. We don't need this crap every few years and it's not good for the game, clearly.

If the players want to go to the Stadium, that's fine, so long as their is a reasonable time frame for arrival and vote.

On what has changed, I am confused about that. The players said that their were changes but they also said that they had not seen anything. One of those statements can not be true.

I would think that it is the job of the NFLPA Rep. Smith to insure that the player reps have that info and that the union members are kept in the loop. It is the responsibility of the Union members to make themselves easily accessible to receipt of information. I understand wanting to completely vet the proposal but in no way can I see how this would be the responsibility of the owners.