PDA

View Full Version : Ryan Clark and others plan to return to work Tuesday morning



BlitzburghRockCity
04-25-2011, 08:00 PM
With the NFL lockout lifted, Steelers players plan to start reporting to work at the team's facility as soon as 8 a.m. Tuesday. Safety Ryan Clark, the NFL Players Association representative for the Steelers, began calling and texting teammates this evening to inform them that they are free to report to work and urging them to do so early Tuesday. "I'm trying to get guys there at 8 o'clock, to get out there and show we want to be here, we want too be part of this organization and we want to be on the field," Clark told the Post-Gazette this evening. "We want to show this is not a litigation process but an attempt to have football in 2011."


From the Post Gazette (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11115/1141865-100.stm)

BlitzburghRockCity
04-26-2011, 09:13 AM
Players are returning to work this morning, it's all over twitter. We'll see what happens if the NFL owners try and appeal the decision.

BlitzburghRockCity
04-26-2011, 09:16 AM
MINNEAPOLIS -- The plaintiffs in the Brady et al v. National Football League case were granted an injunction on Monday by Judge Susan Nelson, lifting the NFL lockout, if temporarily.

The NFL's stance on the matter now is that the lockout rules remain intact until Nelson, and then the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, rule on whether or not the ruling will be stayed upon appeal. In reaction to Nelson's ruling, the league filed its appeal with the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and a request for a stay with Nelson on Monday night.

"We believe that federal law bars injunctions in labor disputes," NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said in statement, prior to filing the appeal. "We are confident that the Eighth Circuit will agree. But we also believe that this dispute will inevitably end with a collective bargaining agreement, which would be in the best interests of players, clubs and fans. We can reach a fair agreement only if we continue negotiations toward that goal."

The news set the stage for an interesting Tuesday morning, with the possibility of many players reporting to their respective team's headquarters.
Aiello said late Monday night that if players show up, they will be allowed into facilities.


"If a player comes to the facility, he will be treated courteously and with respect," Aiello said.

NFL Network insider Jason La Canfora spoke with one NFL executive who described the league's approach to players showing up to team facility as "Be nice," with teams instructed to allow players in the facility. Team personnel will "explain we're waiting to hear" word regarding a decision on a stay. Team representatives will "ask them to wait until that ruling," to begin going about what would be a normal workday this time of year, which generally consists of a morning workout.

Vikings linebacker Ben Leber (http://www.nfl.com/players/benleber/profile?id=LEB506360), one of the 10 plaintiffs in the still-pending antitrust lawsuit filed against the league, won't be heading to club facilities due to his free agent status, but said he would advice players to "go back to work."
"We're in a 'Wild West' right now," Leber said. "Football is back to business, but guess what? There's no rules. There's a lot of positive to that, but there's also a lot of negatives."

Bills safety George Wilson confirmed that the NFLPA emailed players late Monday suggesting they report to work on Tuesday. He said players were told they should be granted access under normal circumstances and if they are denied access the teams would be in violation of the judge's ruling.

"We have received inquiry from a number of players and agents. We have simply responded and told them we don't see anything wrong with it," NFL Players Association spokesman George Atallah said in a text message to The Associated Press. "Players are organizing stuff on their own ..."

Player agent Brad Blank advised client Chris Canty of the New York Giants (http://www.nfl.com/teams/newyorkgiants/profile?team=NYG), due a $250,000 workout bonus this offseason, to report to work in the morning. The logic being that by showing up Canty would strengthen his case to recoup whatever money might be lost in the labor fight.

"I definitely plan on going to work tomorrow," Canty confirmed to The New York Daily News (http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/giants/2011/04/back-to-work-maybe-for-some-giants), via email. "We'll see what happens."
Oakland Raiders (http://www.nfl.com/teams/oaklandraiders/profile?team=OAK) player representative Zach Miller had a similar message, according to the Bay Area News Group (http://twitter.com/#%21/Jerrymcd/status/62723753758556160).

"Any player that chooses to should be allowed to go into the facility tomorrow," Miller said.

While some such as Steelers player rep Ryan Clark (http://www.nfl.com/players/ryanclark/profile?id=CLA544413) are advising teammates to report in support of the judge's ruling, others are recommending their teammates to stay home.
Lions player representative Kyle Vanden Bosch (http://www.nfl.com/players/kylevandenbosch/profile?id=VAN378810) told the Detroit Free Press he is advising his teammates not to show up (http://www.freep.com/article/20110425/SPORTS01/110425065/1049/rss14) at team headquarters for the time being.
"I donít want to put the players or the team in a situation that we donít want to be in,Ē Vanden Bosch said. "I donít want to tell guys to go and find out that we really canít work out there. Iím just kind of telling everybody to, at least for tomorrow, do what you were going to do until I get more information about what we can and canít do. Just kind of hold tight a little bit."

Meanwhile, the NFL held a 7 p.m. conference call for all league executives to discuss how to move forward.

The group remains united, according to a source with knowledge of the call. The decision by Nelson was expected, with the league's legal team advising that their best odds for winning in court rested with the appeals court.

Former solicitor general Paul Clement is, as expected, listed first among the NFL's attorneys on its seven-page appeal. Additionally, Aiello said in an email, "We do not intend to start the league year until we have had an opportunity to seek a stay."
When asked his side's stance on the 2011 league year starting on Monday night, NFL Players Association outside counsel and the Brady counsel's lead lawyer on the injunction, James Quinn, responded via email that "There is no stay in place. It should start immediately."
During the April 6 injunction hearing, the league's case stood on two main points: That the National Labor Relations Board had to rule on the validity of the NFLPA's decertification as a union first, and as such Nelson lacked primary jurisdiction; And that the Norris-Laguardia Act precluded any court from enacting an injunction in a case arising from a labor dispute.


Nelson shot down both those claims in her 89-page ruling, writing that, "This Court, having found that the Union's unequivocal disclaimer is valid and effective, concludes there is no need to defer any issue to the NLRB. Because that disclaimer is valid and effective, the Norris-LaGuardia Act's prohibition against injunctive relief does not preclude granting the Player's motion for a preliminary injunction against what the League characterizes as a 'lockout.' "

In an opinion piece posted on the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704132204576285090526726626.html) 's website Tuesday night, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell cautioned that Nelson's ruling "may significantly alter professional football as we know it."
"Judge Nelson ordered the end of the (work) stoppage and recognized the players' right to dissolve their union. By blessing this negotiating tactic, the decision may endanger one of the most popular and successful sports leagues in history," Goodell wrote.

NFLPA Executive Director DeMaurice Smith reacted to Nelson's ruling in a statement, saying that "I'm happy for our guys and for our fans. Today, those who love football are the winners."

Giants defensive end Osi Umenyiora (http://www.nfl.com/players/osiumenyiora/profile?id=UME444955), one of 10 named plaintiffs for the Brady class, said that "Today's ruling is a win for the players and for the fans that want to see a full NFL season in 2011. The lockout is bad for everyone and players will continue to fight it. We hope that this will bring us one step closer to playing the game we love."
The NFL is expecting the next step in the process to begin Tuesday, with a ruling on the stay expected to come quickly. The league procedurally has to go to Nelson for the stay first, but the decision on that could ultimately land with the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Nelson did make her point clear that her judgment was the players are suffering "irreparable harm," and that the impact the lockout has had on the public played into her decision as well.

"[T]he public ramifications of this dispute exceed the abstract principles of the antitrust laws, as professional football involves many layers of tangible economic impact, ranging from broadcast revenues down to concessions sales," she wrote. "And, of course, the public interest represented by the fans of professional football -- who have a strong investment in the 2011 season -- is an intangible interest that weighs against the lockout. In short, this particular employment dispute is far from a purely private argument over compensation."

StlersGuy
04-26-2011, 10:39 AM
Just had him on espn... The building are still pad locked all they can do is go in offices. The owners have told the coachs and stuff not to talk to any of the players so he said it was weird.

Sent from my Droid on the now network!

LatrobePA
04-26-2011, 11:28 AM
Just had him on espn... The building are still pad locked all they can do is go in offices. The owners have told the coachs and stuff not to talk to any of the players so he said it was weird.

Sent from my Droid on the now network!

This LO is silly! The NFL has lost a lot of it's appeal to me!

coach
04-26-2011, 12:01 PM
This LO is silly! The NFL has lost a lot of it's appeal to me!

There is a lot of silly stuff going on in these negotiations. This article paints a pretty bleak picture of the owners vision of the future, though. As a fan, this is not what I want the future of football to look like.

I hope the courts don't grant the owners' appeal because collective bargaining comes with limits. It just can't fix gross stupidity.

What a shame we fans can't focus 100% on the draft this week.

StlersGuy
04-26-2011, 12:14 PM
This whole deal is crazy and its s shame it has to be like this. Of corse we only read what is put out and we all know that the truth is not going to be put out for us to read. I just hope both sides can come togather and get this coming year of football going

Sent from my Droid on the now network!

Black@Gold Forever32
04-26-2011, 01:08 PM
I still find it funny how anybody really blames the players for this mess......To me its been the owners greed and I won't change my stance.......

LarryNJ
04-26-2011, 01:21 PM
I still find it funny how anybody really blames the players for this mess......To me its been the owners greed and I won't change my stance.......

Years after they are done playing they are filing huge lawsuits. It's bullshit, you got paid huge money to abuse your body. Deal with the health issues later on in life. There is WAY more to it than rich owners being greedy.

Rampage
04-26-2011, 01:34 PM
Years after they are done playing they are filing huge lawsuits. It's bullshit, you got paid huge money to abuse your body. Deal with the health issues later on in life. There is WAY more to it than rich owners being greedy.

I agree with this. While I would like to see the NFL do a little more with post-career health care and insurance, it is a business. That said, the players should look at their pay like hazard pay: You are getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to millions of dollars per year to put your life on the line. They are essentially modern era gladiators. If you ask me, it is a pretty sweet gig for a bunch of people that lift weights and play a sport, and they should recognize that or fall back on all those physical education and kinesiology degrees that they got for free.

DanRooney
04-26-2011, 02:08 PM
I agree with this. While I would like to see the NFL do a little more with post-career health care and insurance, it is a business. That said, the players should look at their pay like hazard pay: You are getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to millions of dollars per year to put your life on the line. They are essentially modern era gladiators. If you ask me, it is a pretty sweet gig for a bunch of people that lift weights and play a sport, and they should recognize that or fall back on all those physical education and kinesiology degrees that they got for free.

I really don't understand the health care argument. Didn't Obama pass a law oh some 10 months ago that required everyone to get health insurance? What do they want free physical therapy after retirement? Massages?

JensK
04-26-2011, 02:38 PM
Years after they are done playing they are filing huge lawsuits. It's bullshit, you got paid huge money to abuse your body. Deal with the health issues later on in life. There is WAY more to it than rich owners being greedy.

They should not be filing lawsuits, as times just did not focus on these kinds of things when they played. Sucks? Yeah, but thats how it works. I can, however, understand why the current players would want a system that protects them afterwards. The science is far superior today, and we now know just how much abuse the players bodies take. Sure, they earn a pretty large pile of money, however the owners make at least 10 times as much, and they hardly put their body on the line. For all they care, a player is with their club for like 15 years at best and then they get new players. I don't understand the "They knew what they went into" argument. That would be the same as denying someone who got stress any help because the person damn well knew that stress is a potential risk of working. Furthermore, people seem to believe that all football players earn a shitton of money. Sure, we hear about the large contracts etc. but the average salary in a place like Packers (pre SB victory) was under 500k a year. While that is way above the average salary per year, the players are not able to work for nearly as long the average person, especially not if a good portion of those money have to go into surgical repairs of various body parts after their career is over.

I am not trying to argue that NFL players earn a lot of money, because that is unquestionable, however I do think that a policy after their career is over is warranted as they do put their body on the line day in and day out. It is not like this is cause the owners to go bankrupt. It is hardly all players who'll need a lot of attention afterwards. The owners would get a lot of good publicity and come out as winners of the debate, looking like the good guys, which would give them a great bargain strategy for next CBA.



Regarding Obama and the healthcare system.. really? Lets keep Obama out of here... Im sure you can find plenty of other places to rant about him should you not agree about his politics. This is a football forum so lets talk football shall we.

Black@Gold Forever32
04-26-2011, 04:47 PM
Years after they are done playing they are filing huge lawsuits. It's bullshit, you got paid huge money to abuse your body. Deal with the health issues later on in life. There is WAY more to it than rich owners being greedy.

Johnny Unitas wasn't paid huge money and while he was alive all he wanted was fair compensation from the NFL when he basically lost total use of his right arm......NFL basically told him to **** off and said his arm trouble wasn't related to his playing days......:lol:

Last time I checked it was the owners locking out the players......Not the players going on strike but whatever you're entitled to your opinions......NFL owners created this and now they better deal with it.....I'll support the players over the billionaires club.........

coach
04-26-2011, 04:59 PM
I pasted a few links below where the data I used in this submission came from. There are a lot of articles out there but it is hard to wade through the jargon and try to find substance. Even in below, the details were kept pretty brief and that doesn't show how one argument (free agency after 3 v 5 years) impacts the remaining issues. I don't pretend to know more than any other reader. I am limited to finding things on the Internet like anyone else.

Why are players seeking extended health benefits?
It currently takes three years in the NFL to receive five years of post-career healthcare. So hypothetically, a player is drafted at age 22, leaves the league when he is 25 and therefore will receive no more health benefits from the NFL and its multi-billion dollar enterprise after the age of 30.

Hardly a recipe for success; but, both owners and players (union) can be blamed:
For many years, the players union put the needs of the current players ahead of the needs of the retirees, but now that focus has changed.

Isn't this issue just about about money?
Itís not so much about money as much as it is about medical coverage for retired players. Football is a physical sport that can leave a lasting impression, especially as we continue to uncover more and more about the long-term brain damage that many players suffer. Right now, the NFL and NFLPA is barely providing players with enough coverage to survive.

The real crux of this problem is that itís an issue that the players have neglected in several previous labor disputes, and now itís snowballed into an avalanche.

What options have each side argued to resolve the issue?
The players union would like owners to set aside 2% of their profits ($320 million), while the owners will only offer $100 million.

Couldn't a salary cap easily fix this issue?
Options include a salary cap or re-routing some of these millions from incoming players to the outgoing ones via the pension fund. Sounds easy enough since many fans, owners and players believe there is an issue; just work out the scheme, right?

Without a doubt, the NFL rookie pay scale is out of control. Every year, first-round draft picks -- especially the ones at the top of the draft -- earn more than the majority of vested, proven veterans before they have even played a single live snap.

The league would be willing to do something like reduce the wage the rookies make, but are not offering anything along what they will save via a rookie salary cap.

Perhaps there is someone out ther that understands how the rookie wage drives veteran wages that can shed additional light on that issue. I just tried to keep this real simple.

http://ca.askmen.com/top_10/sports/top-5-reasons-to-side-with-the-players-in-the-nfl-lockout.html

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://radiojunkee.com/2011/03/01/10-nfl-lockout-facts-fans-need-to-know-for-next-season/

LarryNJ
04-27-2011, 06:30 AM
If the players gave up their right to sue the owners for millions in workmans comp claims. My guess is they would get some sort of better health care after retirement that would help pay for some of the surgical procedures that were caused by playing.

JensK
04-27-2011, 07:34 AM
If the players gave up their right to sue the owners for millions in workmans comp claims. My guess is they would get some sort of better health care after retirement that would help pay for some of the surgical procedures that were caused by playing.

This I agree upon! You can't have both. If it is clearly stated that they'll get help after their are done playing, they should not be able to sue the owners, nor should it be needed, unless the Owners break their part of the deal.