hope its true, because a shit ton of teams would have to cut a bunch of vets. not sure why the players would agree to that. a 130-140 cap would be nice, + a Sanchez restructure.
There is absolutely no way the owners would go for this. My guess is it is something along the lines of what was posted above, some type of an exception for keeping a high paid veteran. I have believed from the start that the players were right to fight to not lose anything they have gotten in the past... but it looks like they have a good deal, and really need to sign on. If Mankins and Jackson's $10mil is holding this up it's ridiculous. They are a couple of days away from flushing the first $100mil weekend down the drain! And holding this up to get $320mil in benefits they gave up of their own free will in exchange for an uncapped year, that is ridiculous also! Sign the fuckin deal already!
$3 million exemption was explained in a July 15th article. That's exactly what PFT is referring to: http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/6...-players-agree-rookie-wage-system-sources-say
The latest: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/21/latest-labor-issue-nflpa-recertification-timeline/ Latest labor issue: NFLPA* recertification timeline Posted by Gregg Rosenthal on July 21, 2011, 11:56 AM EDT APThe latest issue being discussed as we wonder how and when the lockout will end: How soon can the NFLPA* recertify? “Hearing the timing of the NFLPA recertification is the latest issue now to crop up,” Daniel Kaplan of the SportsBusiness Journal writes. “League wants right away, players saying needs two weeks.” Mark Maske of the Washington Post echoed the sentiment. Meanwhile, Ron Borges of the Boston Herald reports on the process that needs to happen to recertify. “Nearly 1,000 recertification cards have to be signed and returned, approving recertification before the union can re-form. And that takes a lot longer than 24 hours, according to the union,” Borges writes. So why does that matter? SI’s Jim Trotter notes that the union needs to re-certify before collectively bargaining issues like drug testing and discipline. (IE can arrests during the lockout incur punishment.) Could this process hold up the start of a league year? The reality is that no one knows. “I feel like we’re watching Charlie Brown and Lucy,” Judy Battista of the New York Times writes. “Just when Charlie is ready to kick the football, Lucy pulls it away at the last minute.”
Really bad news if this report is true: mortreport*Chris Mortensen* One issue very real Wed in DC players meeting is some don't see wisdom in reconstituting as a union, which protects NFL on antitrust
Apparently the owners are going to make sure of that. More "tweets" (I fucking HATE that word) dkaplanSBJ*daniel kaplan* Told owners will vote on a global deal here today and essentially hand it off to the players to say sign or don't sign, this is it. This... dkaplanSBJ*daniel kaplan* ...was the late Gene Upshaw's tack in 2006 when he was on a flight to Hawaii, leaving owners to either accept terms or reject. they accepted
The players got a lot of wins in these negotiations. Sign the fucking thing and let's get ready for TC.
For instance, if the players don't re-certify, it means the league can't enforce policies/guidelines on a league wide scale. Each team could essentially have their own set of guidelines to follow regarding pensions, player discipline etc etc.....at least, that's how I understand it.
Unbelievable. I could lay my head down tonight knowing we have players enroute to camp but instead I will cry myself to sleep yet again as this god forsaken lockout continues.
Interesting note to come out of the new training camp/off-season: According to reports only 14 practices in pads will be allowed per season. Don't know if there's exemptions for playoff teams but if not that seems kind of absurd. Not saying we should be in pads every Wednesday/Thursday/Friday but when you could potentially have all your pads practices used up with six games to go seems a little over the top.
Sounds to me like Smith has lost control of the union http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/21/de-smith-addresses-recertification-issue/ De Smith addresses recertification issue Posted by Mike Florio on July 21, 2011, 3:22 PM EDT In a surprise appearance before the cameras and microphones parked outside NFLPA* headquarters, executive director DeMaurice Smith talked about the question of whether the trade association will lose its asterisk. “Look, we visited every team some four times over the last two years,” Smith said in comments carried live by ESPN and NFL Network. “The decision by the players to decertify as a union was a significant one. And I think most of you remember by neverending road trip where we went team-by-team to talk about the issues of decertification. “I know from yesterday that the issues for every player about recertification as a union is going to be an important issue, and here in America every time an employee makes that decision about whether he wants to be a part of a union it’s something that is serious, significant and should be done in a sober way. I know there’s a lot of questions swirling around, and I know from watching the folks at NFL Network that they’ve become experts on the recertification issue. “Let me tell you, every individuals person has to make a decision about whether they want to be part of a union. And recommendations made by the Executive Committee as the advisors to the class or the board of directors as advisors to the class are just that. But the individual decisions are something that our players take extremely serious.” That’s fine, but let’s be honest about what happened in 2010. Smith explained to the players that decertification represented the best legal strategy for dealing with a lockout. And so the players overwhelmingly accepted his recommendation to give him the power to shut down the union in order to block the lockout (which failed) and to obtain damages if the season is lost due to a lockout (which could succeed). To now explain it all as an intensely personal decision over which no one should have any influence seems a tad disingenuous at best, flat-out passive-aggressive at worst. If De Smith tells the players that the best legal strategy for signing a new labor deal comes from recertifying the union (and it does), the players will vote to put the union back together as quickly as they voted to take it apart. As previously explained, having a union in place insulates the NFL from an antitrust lawsuit that would threaten the draft. And if the draft comes under attack and if the draft is found to be an antitrust violation and if Andrew Luck (pictured) or someone else successfully overturns the draft and the rookie wage scale goes away and Luck can be paid whatever the Cowboys or Redskins or whoever want to pay him, the non-rookies can blame themselves for having less money available to pay their wages under the salary cap. Let’s repeat that, a bit more bluntly. If the players don’t become a union again, some incoming rookie will sue the league, arguing that the draft and/or the rookie wage scale is illegal. If he wins, kids still playing college football will be paid much more money than the proposed labor deal gives them, and that money will come from the pockets of the 1,900 men who have to make the individual decision as to whether to be a union again. De Smith may not be willing to make a recommendation, but I am. With protections in place to permit the union to decertify in the future if faced with a lockout, it’s a no-brainer to put the union back together again.
