Create Account

Or log in with Facebook


Log in

Or log in with Facebook

Both Sides Could Vote On New CBA Thursday

By Category

Both Sides Could Vote On New CBA Thursday

Wednesday came and went with plenty of drama surrounding the meeting of the former players union and its player representatives from each of the 32 NFL teams. However, a new Collective Bargaining Agreement was not voted on by the players. What was advanced was a conditional vote to approve the new CBA - provided a few "issues" were resolved before finalizing the new pact between the players and the National Football League.

Chief among these issues is the demands of both Patriots guard Logan Mankins and Chargers wide receiver Vincent Jackson. Both players feel (rightfully) that they have been shafted by the entire process of the two sides untangling themselves from the prior CBA and are demanding, as named plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the league, $10 million each. (Both players had reportedly originally asked for a lifetime exemption from the franchise tag as well, but have supposedly dropped that demand)

When word of the demands was made public yesterday, Jackson took to Twitter to proclaim that fans should not "believe everything they read in the media" - even though what was being reported in the media was completely accurate.

Meanwhile, according to Pro Football Weekly, the former union's player representatives were all on a conference call Wednesday afternoon so as to enable those representatives not present to be brought up to speed on the proposal being presented to the group. Reportedly, the call did not go well. (Quick side note - outside of a funeral, what possible reason would a player representative have for not being present at what would most likely be the most important meeting of their professional lives?)

Several representatives left the meetings in Washington D.C. early. ESPN reported that the departing players have given De Smith and the players who remain their "vote of confidence" to enact whatever actions need to be taken tonight and tomorrow on movement toward a new CBA.

In the background on all of this is the owners meeting down in Atlanta, where today the Labor Committee met for several hours in advance of the entire group of NFL owners meeting tomorrow. League council Jeff Pash indicated this afternoon that the owners could possibly vote on a new CBA before the players do, though the thinking now is that the two sides will most likely resolve their differences in the next 12 hours, the players will sign off on a new CBA (which, don't forget, would also require them to re-form their union) and then for the owners to vote and agree - giving us labor peace for the next decade.

Of course, there are many moving parts here and this could end up playing out in any number of ways. But regardless, tomorrow is shaping up to be the most important day the National Football League has seen in quite some time.

  • Like Like
  • 0 points

Fan friendly comments only: off Comments (6) This filter will hide comments which have ratio of 5 to 1 down-vote to up-vote.

Chris's picture

Aaron, can you explain to me what this Mankins Jackson mess is all about. How can two players who are there supposedly to represent their fellow NFL players take advantage of this situation to get 10 mil a piece? I really cannot comprehend how this is even possible. Please, enlighten me!

packeraaron's picture

This piece from Jason Cole lays out their argument (which I totally disagree with):

MarkinMadison's picture

One of the first things that surprised me about the lawsuit was that the NFLPA was heading the settlement discussions, not the named plaintiffs. When individuals are named as plaintiffs they should be playing a direct role in the negotiations. They do have some leverage. The suit can't be settled without them.

Due to the fact that the NFLPA has negotiated on behalf of the players throughout, while formally disclaiming any role as a collective bargaining representative of the players, obviously the suit was a farce. Since there is no real suit, the named plaintiffs deserve very little (Mankis Jackson) to nothing (Tom Brady), because they probably risked very little to nothing. Whatever they get should be paid to them by the NFLPA, and should be handled outside of the settlement discussions.

This is what you get, NFLPA, for going down this road. I'm not saying that you should not have done it, but I am saying that you should have put an agreement in place with the players ahead of time that would lay out what exactly they as individuals should expect to receive for being named in the suit. -1 for DeMaurice Smith.

tony's picture

This shit's gotta wrap up.

Chris's picture

Just read Cole's piece. What a load of crap!!!! Can't believe Cole wrote that. What did those players put on the line? What did they risk? To give those two guys 10 Xtra mil is just insane to me. Makes absolutely no sense. Can't say Kluwe is my favorite player in the world, for obvious reasons, but Kudos to him. These guys are taking everyone hostage for very selfish reasons. I just don't see how they can get out of this with their reputation intact.

Cole's picture

If they wanted that money they should've put it in negotiations weeks ago.

Log in to comment, upload your game day photos and more!

Not a member yet? Join free.

If you have already commented on Cheesehead TV in the past, we've created an account for you. Just verify your email, set a password and you're golden.

Or log in with Facebook



"The Bears still suck!"
"A school without football is in danger of deteriorating into a medieval study hall. "
"I firmly believe that any man’s finest hour, the greatest fulfillment of all that he holds dear, is that moment when he has worked his heart out in a good cause and lies exhausted on the field of battle – victorious."