Play Fantasy The Most Award Winning Fantasy game with real time scoring, top expert analysis, custom settings, and more. Play Now
 
Tag:NFLPA
Posted on: July 21, 2011 10:41 am
Edited on: July 21, 2011 10:54 am
 

Report: New CBA will protect high-priced veterans

Posted by Will Brinson

The owners are meeting in Atlanta today and will likely vote on -- and hopefully ratify -- a new collective bargaining agreement. If and when that happens, there'll be plenty of surprises that come out of the woodwork with respect to new NFL rules and regulations.

Gregg Rosenthal of Pro Football Talk has an interesting early twist on one of these, reporting that the new CBA "will be very friendly to veterans with big salaries" in that it will keep these vets from "becoming cap casualties."

Rosenthal also notes that there will be language in the CBA "that good agents will exploit for veteran players."

No specific examples are offered in Rosenthal's post, mainly because the specifics probably aren't entirely concrete yet.

The most logical example of something that might happen, however, is that teams are given some sort of exemption for high-priced veterans when it comes to fitting in the salary cap.

Such an exemption would offer a solution that's both team- and player-friendly in that it doesn't punish either party for signing contracts during an uncapped year. (You think Denver wants to pay 38-year-old Brian Dawkins more than $7 million if they're nudged up against the cap? Doubt it.)

The agent aspect is interesting as well, though, because one has to wonder how that would affect someone like Baltimore Ravens backup running back Willis McGahee, who stands to make $6 million in 2011.

The Ravens seem likely to cut him, and McGahee's agent Drew Rosenhaus has intimated that he doesn't expect his client back with the Ravens, but perhaps the new rules will create a scenario where the Ravens can't simply cut McGahee outright, at least not without compensating him first.

Or perhaps not -- the only thing certain these days in the NFL labor world is that there's uncertainty abounding.

For more NFL news, rumors and analysis, follow @cbssportsnfl on Twitter and subscribe to our RSS Feed.
Posted on: July 20, 2011 4:17 pm
Edited on: July 20, 2011 5:41 pm
 

NFLPA votes conditionally on settlement agreement

Posted by Eye on Football Staff

Update (5:05): There are multiple outlets reporting that the players are leaving their meetings without voting today.

CBSSports.com's own Mike Freeman has learned this is because of the "massive volume of information" they're having to currently digest (mentally, of course) when looking over the settlement documents.

There is also a report from SI's Jim Trotter (since confirmed by the NFL Network's Albert Breer) where he cites sources who said that the players voted "conditionally" to "forward the settlement agreement to named plaintiffs." The conditions being that some outstanding issues be resolved before the vote is official.

In other words, the guys listed on Brady v. NFL -- Tom Brady, Vincent Jackson, Logan Mankins, Peyton Manning, Drew Brees -- will get a chance to review the settlement agreement and progress the settlement talks forward while the NFLPA continues to review the documents on hand.

All of this means it's possible -- and perhaps even likely -- that we see the owners and players vote on the CBA on the same day, Thursday. It also means if you had "Wednesday, July 20" in your office lockout pool, you just lost.
-----

Earlier today, we told you about NFLPA president Kevin Mawae saying the association wouldn’t be tied to a deadline of July 21 to hold a vote on a new labor deal.

"Our timeline is to get the best deal for our players,” he said. “We're not going to agree to any deal unless it's the right deal for all the players."

Apparently, the players haven’t agreed that the proposed deal is, in fact, the right deal for them.

As the various reporters in Washington who are waiting for the NFLPA to finish their meeting (and maybe vote one way or the other) have spoken and tweeted, there has been no vote taken today.

And by the reports that some players, including Bengals T Andrew Whitworth, have left the building, it's unclear at this point whether the owners will have the chance to vote on ending the labor struggle at their meeting Thursday in Atlanta.

That’s not to say the deal won’t be passed by the NFLPA at some point soon. Hell, it's possible the vote still takes place today. It’s just taking a little bit longer than some thought it might.

Which, in this labor environment, is pretty much par for the course.

For more NFL news, rumors and analysis, follow @cbssportsnfl on Twitter and subscribe to our RSS Feed.
Category: NFL
Posted on: July 20, 2011 10:03 am
Edited on: July 20, 2011 11:51 am
 

Mawae: NFLPA 'not tied to a timeline of July 21'

Posted by Will Brinson

Have we all taken for granted that a labor deal has to be in place by July 21 (Thursday)? Perhaps, yes. So it's a bit sobering to hear NFLPA president Kevin Mawae, speaking to reporters before the NFLPA's executive committee gets set to review a proposed labor deal, downplay the significance of that date.

"We're not tied to a timeline of July 21," Mawae said outside the NFLPA offices before heading in to review the proposal. "Our timeline is to get the best deal for our players. We're not going to agree to any deal unless it's the right deal for all the players."

See, again, everyone's assumed -- because of the good vibe going down in labor negotiations -- that the executive committee would walk into the NFLPA offices today, take a look at the deal, tell all the players they were good to go and then everyone would collectively high-five and football would be back.

It's pretty obvious from Mawae's comments that such a scenario isn't guaranteed. And that he's not necessarily "in-tune" with another potential sticking point -- the settlement of the Brady v. NFL class-action lawsuit.
Latest on Labor

"Obviously this litigation with the named plaintiffs -- there's a process and I'm not familiar with the legal part of it," Mawae said.  "Whatever argument there is going on between them, I think there's a lot of sensationalism going on."

Look, his lack of clear-cut understanding of how the named plaintiffs will end up being compensated doesn't mean Mawae's not in touch with those guys. It's necessary for Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, Vincent Jackson, Logan Mankins and the rest of the guys on the lawsuit to settle their legal issues with the NFL before we see a settlement.

And maybe at the end of the day, there's an approved proposal that's heading to the owners' meeting in Atlanta for ratification tomorrow.

But Mawae's comments are a tangible reminder that there are lots of moving parts in this deal, and even though everyone seems full of sunshine and rainbows when it comes to a labor deal getting done, it's still not done yet.

For more NFL news, rumors and analysis, follow @cbssportsnfl on Twitter and subscribe to our RSS Feed.
Category: NFL
Posted on: July 19, 2011 10:43 pm
Edited on: July 22, 2011 6:31 pm
 

Report: 75 former players suing NFL

Posted by Josh Katzowitz

In what is fairly shocking late-night news, TMZ is reporting that 75 players are suing the NFL, claiming the league intentionally hid the effects of concussions for 90 years.

The lawsuit, which seeks unspecified damages, was filed in L.A. County Superior Court Tuesday and states: “The NFL knew as early as the 1920s of the harmful effects on a player's brain of concussions; however, until June of 2010 they concealed these facts from coaches, trainers, players and the public."

TMZ writes that former Dolphins WR Mark Duper and former Giants RBs Ottis Anderson and Rodney Hampton are among the 75 players suing.

More from TMZ:

The suit claims the NFL commissioned a study in 1994, titled "NFL Committee on Mild Traumatic Brain Injury" and published a report in 2004, concluding there was "no evidence of worsening injury or chronic cumulative effects" from multiple concussions.

And, the suit alleges, it was not until June 2010, that the NFL acknowledged concussions can lead to dementia, memory loss, CTE and related symptoms. All of the players are claim[ing] they suffered injuries as a result of multiple concussions.


The NFL Alumni group has been making its views widely known recently about concussions, and they obviously haven’t had a great relationship with the NFLPA. So, instead of sitting down at negotiations between the two sides in the lockout (where they seemingly have been marginalized), some former players are instead looking to the legal system for justice.

For more NFL news, rumors and analysis, follow @cbssportsnfl on Twitter and subscribe to our RSS Feed.

Posted on: July 16, 2011 11:14 pm
Edited on: July 17, 2011 12:26 pm
 

Issues remain before a labor deal is finalized

Posted by Will Brinson

Saturday was a "great day" as far as the NFL labor situation was concerned; there weren't serious issues to bridge, because, after all, the "legal and financial teams" could handle everything that remained.

Right? Well, maybe. Now it appears there might be a little more ground to cover than initially thought.

CBSSports.com's own Mike Freeman reported  on Saturday that "there are still points to be resolved" with respect to a new CBA. Freeman noted two in particular: workman's comp and rollback benefits (those that were lost last season). Turns out there might be more.

There are also issues relating to whether the NFLPA will actually become a union -- it's currently a trade association -- and there are issues on how the named plaintiffs in the Brady v. NFL case will be compensated when it comes to free agency.

Latest on Labor

As you'll likely recall, when Reggie White and other named plaintiffs fought for free agency, they were compensated by avoiding any franchise tag issues. Now, Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Drew Brees and the rest of the plaintiffs named in the antitrust lawsuit against the NFL want the same thing to happen.

Presumably, one of the issues that needs to be resolved involves whether these named plaintiffs, which includes rookie linebacker Von Miller, will be given special consideration. They'll likely need to be given something, or else it might be difficult for them to file a Voluntary Dismissal and end the lawsuit against the NFL.

There is also a report from ESPN that the franchise-tagging system as a whole is problematic in negotiations.

According to this report, the players don't want to allow teams to continue to use franchise tags over-and-over again on a player. Obviously, teams prefer the lack of liability involved in a long-term deal to a franchise tag.

These issues aren't dealbreakers, per se, but they are problematic. Can teams live with a one-time shot at franchise tagging a player? Can the named plaintiffs deal with only having to be tagged once if it settles the lawsuit? Or will they demand perpetual freedom from such contract issues?

Making things more complicated is that while those questions are being sorted out, the NFL and players must figure out a way in which to handle the reimbursement of $320 million (lost benefits) and determine the locale for workers' compensation.

These complex issues are solvable, but they're why it's necessary to keep the champagne on ice for at least a few days and let the negotiations play out.

For more NFL news, rumors and analysis, follow @cbssportsnfl on Twitter and subscribe to our RSS Feed.
Posted on: July 16, 2011 4:20 pm
Edited on: July 16, 2011 6:41 pm
 

'Virtually nothing' stands in way of CBA deal?

Posted by Will Brinson

Update (6:15 PM EST): It appears the owners and players will meet -- Jeff Pash told media members that the players and owners will meet under the guidance of Arthur Boylan in Manhattan during the early part of the week to resolve some of the remaining issues in wrapping up a deal.

He also said, per Albert Breer, that the "principles have done their job" and that progressing the CBA will be up to the lawyers.

-----

There hasn't been a whole lot of news on Saturday relating to the theoretically soon-to-end lockout. The legal and financial teams have been "grinding" in New York City throughout the day, but nothing too substantial has leaked from the talks.

Except perhaps this: the NFL Network's Albert Breer reports that the players and owners have "no plans … to meet again unless necessary."

Yes, normally that would be terrible news. In this case, however, it's fantastic -- the sides are apparently close enough that, per Breer, all future negotiations/handling of details can be sorted out via email, telephone and via the wonderful channels that are lawyers.

Breer adds that there is "virtually nothing standing in the way right now" of a new deal getting done and getting done soon.

Additionally, the conversation/meeting/talk between Roger Goodell and DeMaurice Smith that was referenced on Friday appears to have taken place (or is taking place) today, as NFL spokesman Greg Aiello noted as much while pointing out that today is "a great day." (Though Aiello may just be excited to be hanging out by a pool.)

Latest on Labor

This all should result in final copies of a settlement agreement and new CBA coming before the two sides early next week. And, as Breer notes, the owners "are likely to vote on a deal" when they head to Atlanta on Thursday for their meetings.

Does this mean we should drop all caution and proceed blindingly into a new world free of a lockout? Um, no. There are still some things that have to get sorted out. Like, most importantly, signatures.

And for those of who've seen our optimism shattered by previous negotiations that fell apart and/or those of us who understand the concept of a deal not being a deal until it's done, every single party needs to sign before it's time to pop the proverbial bubbly.

But if all this holds the course over the next few days, we'll all be firing up our fantasy leagues before we know it.

For more NFL news, rumors and analysis, follow @cbssportsnfl on Twitter and subscribe to our RSS Feed.

Posted on: July 16, 2011 8:37 am
Edited on: July 17, 2011 12:20 am
 

NFL denies report Hall of Fame Game is canceled

Posted by Will Brinson

Many folks -- ourselves included -- believe the Hall of Fame Game featuring the Rams and Bears will be the first victim of the lockout, which we think is near death. (In fact, CBSSports.com's Clark Judge recently urged the NFL to cancel the game, just to make things easier.)

So a report Friday from Mike Mulligan of the Chicago Sun-Times that "word is out among key figures" of the Bears organization that the Hall of Fame Game is canceled doesn't seem too far-fetched.

“The dream is over,’’ one source said. “They had to throw one away, and everybody knew it."

The NFL, however, is denying said report.

"There has been no change in the status of any games,'' NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said Friday.
Latest on Labor

Now, even if the game was already essentially canceled, you wouldn't hear the NFL admitting as much, particularly when the thing that matters right now isn't scheduling a single preseason game, but making sure there's actually a season in 2011. Besides, if you ask Bears coach Lovie Smith, the teams don't need a full set of practices to get ready for the event anyway.

"If an agreement gets done and the NFL says we're going to play the game, we'll be ready," Smith said Friday, per Vaughn McClure of the Chicago Tribune. "Right now, we haven't been told that anything has been canceled."

Yeah, it's pretty unlikely that the NFL's issued a memo to the Bears or Rams about canceling the game. If that were the case, a) it'd be tough to deny it had been canceled.

More likely? There's a pervading sense of pessimism about playing the preseason content, and everyone in the Bears organization is picking up on that.

That's a reasonable vibe at this point, but as we've seen, the NFL and the players can move surprisingly fast with games on the line. And if the Rams and Bears are willing to take the field on short notice, it's still reasonable to see them line up on Aug. 7.

Unlikely, but reasonable.

For more NFL news, rumors and analysis, follow @cbssportsnfl on Twitter and subscribe to our RSS Feed.
Posted on: July 15, 2011 4:59 pm
Edited on: July 15, 2011 11:55 pm
 

NFL, NFLPA statement: Things 'in a good place'

Posted by Will Brinson

The NFL and NFLPA have wrapped up their Friday session of negotiations and the primary parties involved -- DeMaurice Smith and NFLPA reps, Roger Goodell and NFL reps, and retired players -- have left for the weekend.

However, Smith, while departing, said he and Goodell would meet and/or talk during the weekend, according to Albert Breer of the NFL Network.

Additionally, the NFL and NFLPA issued a joint statement about the progress of negotiations through Friday.

"The discussions this week have been constructive and progress has been made on a wide range of issues," the statement read. "Our legal and financial teams will continue to work through the weekend. We will continue to respect the confidentiality orders of Chief Magistrate Judge Arthur Boylan and will therefore refrain from commenting on specific issues or aspects of the negotiations.

We will provide additional information as developments in this process continue."
Latest on Labor
Additionally, per Bart Hubbuch of the New York Post, the NFLPA said that "things are in a good place" following the negotiations.

"We don't disagree," was the NFL's response.

Though the clarity of the statement is about what you'd expect in this situation (read: opaque as all get-out), it's been quite clear all day that the two sides are making tremendous strides towards a new CBA.

For more NFL news, rumors and analysis, follow @cbssportsnfl on Twitter and subscribe to our RSS Feed.
 
 
 
 
The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com