Twitter burns as Owners ratify

I think Don Banks summed it up well. The players need to stop acting so damn paranoid and thinking the owners are trying to screw them over, and the owners need to realize that the players do no react well when they think they are being backed into a corner.

It all comes down to a lack of trust between both sides. It's a tough thing to build back up once it's broken down.

As I understand it, one major sticking point is the out clause. I don't know who's right here, but players expected the deal would have an out at 7 years; owners didn't include it.

Were the players right to expect it? I'm not sure

But overall, it's a misconception that the players were completely blind to the proposal. It's that the full proposal was just drafted yesterday or the day before, and it takes some time to digest every detail. And again, they should. Brown M & Ms.

Further, Goodell holding a press conference (and other owners talking about it as well), basically saying they have an agreement before the full proposal was sent to the players rubbed the players the wrong way. They felt it put PR pressure on them, and was an attempt to make them look like the bad guys

It was...they need to get over it. Both sides have done enough to try and make the other side look bad. You'd think they'd all be inoculated against it by now.

Yes. Take the time to make an informed decision. However, - don't wait until the last minute to become informed about 3 months of negotiations.I should point out that it's not clear where the blame for this shortfall lies. NFL litigating team, NFLPA litigating team, and Judge Boylan probably all share in the blame for these last minute tactics.

I do know that the responsibility to ensure that it doesn't happen has to sit mostly with the NFLPA, because that's pretty much their job description.

Mawae says NFLPA* will consider proposal today | ProFootballTalk (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/22/mawae-says-nflpa-will-consider-proposal-today/)

I should point out that it's not clear where the blame for this shortfall lies. NFL litigating team, NFLPA litigating team, and Judge Boylan probably all share in the blame for these last minute tactics.

I do know that the responsibility to ensure that it doesn't happen has to sit mostly with the NFLPA, because that's pretty much their job description.

Who says there is a shortfall? You?
This is a negotiations and there is no time frame. As most everyone recalls we lost a good portion of the regular season the last two times they negotiated a CBA deal. That we are this close in July is great.
That the owners and the media released a schedule saying the NFL would open doors this weekend or Monday with out both sides having signed off on the agreement was irresponsible.
That some of the fans and media are upset that we might not make the pretend Monday opening date is a joke.

1- there is a reason why there are representatives.
2- why does it not take longer for the owners to look over the proposal?

There are 32 reps just like owners. The reps are in place to make decisions for the players of their teams. And there already should have been a decision made that if the reps thought the deal was fair then they could agree to it. But first is first the players should have had a plan on how to agree to become a union again especially when things started looking like it was coming to an end. Maybe they were out partying too much and not enough trying to understand the material as it was being formed and a plan for how to talk to the players for a reformation.

I think the players lawyers were too busy trying to figure out how to derail the system or shaft the process vs planning how to reform and get all the players involved.

It just seems the players were I'll prepared all around. Maybe if they needed all 1900+ players opinions on the matter they should have found a venue where all the players could show up instead of just the reps and should have gone over the material and voted on whether to reform and then gotten their "Union Cards" and voted on the CBA.

Well they are reviewing the proposal and hopefully voting on it. I think the players have the right to read on what they are signing up for and if that was just completing then they must be given time. Each side has been trying to outdo the other in some way, shape, or form. In the end, the delays hurts the players more, so I don't get any outright accusations against the players.

Who says there is a shortfall? You?
This is a negotiations and there is no time frame. As most everyone recalls we lost a good portion of the regular season the last two times they negotiated a CBA deal. That we are this close in July is great.
That the owners and the media released a schedule saying the NFL would open doors this weekend or Monday with out both sides having signed off on the agreement was irresponsible.
That some of the fans and media are upset that we might not make the pretend Monday opening date is a joke.The hall of fame game was scheduled. It is now cancelled. This is a shortfall that is as plain as day.

I think the owners gave the players plenty of time (until Tuesday) to approve this agreement, so it should not come as a surprise to anyone that the players are going to use some of that time to become more informed. Realistically speaking, nothing will be lost between now and Tuesday. Timetables will be pushed back, life will go on unimpeded.

Given how unimportant today is in the grand scheme of things, I'm not sure what added "pressure" the players feel under to get this done now as opposed to Monday. If they're talking about public pressures, I have little sympathy. They could have stayed on top of this and push the pressure back on the owners to meet them half way. If they're talking about legal pressures and what's at stake for them to make a quick, uninformed decision: well, nothing. They can pretty much just waste today doing nothing and they can wake up tomorrow, take recommendations, and make a vote.

I agree with your premise: being at this point in July is well ahead of schedule. Both sides just messed up royally on the procedural issues, and it cost them a nationally televised preseason game.

Mawae says NFLPA* will consider proposal today | ProFootballTalk (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/22/mawae-says-nflpa-will-consider-proposal-today/)

I'm beginning to think the players don't know what the issues are. Each time we hear from a rep it's something different. Did the players get a different proposal with different material inside? Do they not have the power to vote for the better of the whole? Where they not being kept informed of the negotiations and it's content?

The owners had the same issues but wee able to agree on the proposal. There were 32 owners and 32 reps all supposed to decide on the proposal. Not 1900+ players. That's why they are called reps.

1- there is a reason why there are representatives.
2- why does it not take longer for the owners to look over the proposal?

There are 32 reps just like owners. The reps are in place to make decisions for the players of their teams. And there already should have been a decision made that if the reps thought the deal was fair then they could agree to it. But first is first the players should have had a plan on how to agree to become a union again especially when things started looking like it was coming to an end. Maybe they were out partying too much and not enough trying to understand the material as it was being formed and a plan for how to talk to the players for a reformation.

I think the players lawyers were too busy trying to figure out how to derail the system or shaft the process vs planning how to reform and get all the players involved.

It just seems the players were I'll prepared all around. Maybe if they needed all 1900+ players opinions on the matter they should have found a venue where all the players could show up instead of just the reps and should have gone over the material and voted on whether to reform and then gotten their "Union Cards" and voted on the CBA.

They only need a simple majority vote to approve this CBA deal. Not every player will or has to agree to it.
I think what is not being discussed in this thread is the owners got what they wanted in this proposal. They got the majority of the revenue split. The rest is gravy. So of course the players are having to wrap their heads around this loss and trying to incorporate a 7 year out clause. The owners that won the revenue split will resist it. If incorporating the 7 year out clause is a deal breaker for both sides then we will have more delay and negotiations.