NFL lockout: Why the players voted not

Jul 22 2011-3: 26 pm | 671 Views | 0 Recommendations | Image via Wikipedia

Amid reports that the owners last night to approve a settlement agreement prepared is fans and media members alike an end to the lockout call. Most questions, why still adopted the players woke up this morning did not approve, and I see enable public sentiment against them.

Here is the situation, as I understand it… have currently.

The players and owners verbally agreed a new collective agreement terms and conditions. Recently at Forbes explains how, must it close but first a settlement agreement on the trial run. Then players Association would have to certify (the a majority of players required) and a new agreement should be signed by both sides.

At the moment we need to have created you only vote to approve the owners that appear a settlement agreement. You have signed she recertifying how players Association from Tuesday and a new CBA period of three days of the settlement in conditions, built.

Here's where the problems start. Last time that recertified players Association after a court settlement (1993), the CBA mirrored the settlement agreement. This is not the case this time. This time the owner of the player, the complaint, based on nothing more than a verbal agreement between the parties to rules demand. In writing, the players have not seen the new CBA. You are invited to present the owners with a written agreement that fully reflect the verbal to trust.

What happens, if the owner they present with a CBA differs from what agreed as orally and reach the players not to an agreement with the owners in three days? Now, the players have no legal proceedings, players Association will be certified again and the old CBA will be in place for the next ten years. This is to take a big risk for the players.

Even rather than reverting to the old CBA is that the players feel under pressure, a CBA accept that them some, but not all of them during the oral agreement were always giving. I can imagine, when the owners decided to play with conditions, the player page, would hold deal sweet enough to keep reverting to the last CBA.

I think if the owners were really ready to get this deal done and the up arrow and were up, she would have included the new CBA in the settlement. It is not you in the agreement, as simple as the saying goes "after the approval of this Convention by the Court of Justice, the players vote certify the NFLPA and run a collective agreement in the form as addendum A.", which tells me that they are still trying to get the upper hand.

Here is an analogy. What is, if you had an offer from a competing company. Their current employers required be verbal, give you a more lucrative contract. However you must reject the other offer, before you get, to see your new written contract of employment. What would you do?

The lawyer for the players, Richard Berthelsen, advised them in an e-Mail last night, that force the owners to certify the players violated labour law. I would imagine that they are advice without seeing the new CBA also players of the risks when approving this settlement agreement. That tight schedules have outlined the owner pressure on the players act quickly. Public mood following the announcement of the owners voting last night brings additional pressure on the players.

At this point, I would be shocked if the players voted today to approve the settlement.

View the original article here