Players Reportedly Making One More Effort To Screw Up Labor Negotiations

by Christopher Gates on Jul 17, 2011 9:58 AM CDT in NFL

Everything that we've heard for the past couple of days has been that the end of the NFL Lockout was going to happen very soon and that the negotiations were on the fast track. However, as legendary poultry feather tycoon Winston Wolfe is always quick to tell us. . .let's not start pluckin' each others' chicks just yet.

The players, apparently embiggened by their success in getting the league to drop the issue of "right of first refusal" for free agents and their concessions on the rookie wage scale (which I mentioned yesterday), are apparently asking for even more. They're looking for $320 million in unpaid benefits from the uncapped year of 2010, according to ESPN.com's Chris Mortensen (via Pro Football Talk). They also want a rule that says that teams can only use the franchise tag on a player one time rather than being able to use it over and over again, much like the Oakland Raiders have done with Nnamdi Asomugha in recent years.

The franchise tag thing I can understand. While it's nice for players to be able to get the big money, if a team doesn't express any interest in negotiating a long-term deal with them, they should have the right to be able to seek that out. The $320 million, however, seems like the players might be trying to bite off a little bit too much. I don't think it's likely that the negotiations are going to blow up after all of this, but with everything we've seen this off-season, you never can tell.

In addition, according to Pro Football Talk, the named plaintiffs in the "Brady" case could be looking for career exemptions to the franchise tag. In the last anti-trust lawsuit filed against the league, the players that actually put their name on the complaint were exempt from the franchise tag, with Reggie White being the most prominent example. The following players are the named plaintiffs in this case:

New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady
Indianapolis Colts quarterback Peyton Manning
New Orleans Saints quarterback Drew Brees
San Diego Chargers wide receiver Vincent Jackson
New England Patriots offensive lineman Logan Mankins
Denver Broncos linebacker Von Miller
Minnesota Vikings linebacker Ben Leber
Minnesota Vikings defensive end Brian Robison
New York Giants defensive end Osi Umenyiora
Kansas City Chiefs linebacker Mike Vrabel (who has retired since then to become the linebackers coach at THE. . .dramatic pause. . .Ohio State University)

Manning and Jackson had the franchise tags applied to them by their respective teams before the lockout hit. Mankins has been franchised before, and Brees' contract is up after the 2011 season. If you thought that Peyton Manning was going to get a gigantic contract before, can you imagine what he's going to get if the specter of the franchise tag isn't hanging over everything?

Oh, and if he's open to coming to Minnesota. . .okay, I know that will never happen. Just throwing it out there.

EDIT: After further review (thanks to our friends at Stampede Blue), those restrictions to the franchise tag for the named plaintiffs in the Brady case might not take effect until 2012, depending on who your source is, so those players listed above could potentially be subject to it for this off-season.

But the Peyton Manning pipe dream was fun for five minutes, wasn't it?

Tweet Comment 10 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Peyton would look good in Purple.

I full support this. Somebody start a petition that we can send to the ambassadors on planet Manning.

by Jesse on Jul 17, 2011 10:09 AM CDT reply actions

"Manning to Rice!!"..... "TOUCHDOWN!!"

Gotta change my pants.

A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on - Winston Churchill

by Alittlemore_cowbell on Jul 17, 2011 11:55 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions

The Workers’ Compensation issue has yet to be resolved also.

A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on - Winston Churchill

by Alittlemore_cowbell on Jul 17, 2011 10:40 AM CDT via mobile reply actions

Can we just sign the thing and play football already?

This is a perfectly cromulent deal…

Roberto Luongo + Game 7 Stanley Cup Final= LOLFAIL

by NorthernStar on Jul 17, 2011 11:00 AM CDT reply actions

Manning? Heck, might as well get Brady too ....

Based upon your post about the legislature’s refusal to discuss the new stadium proposal, I’m sure both Manning and Brady would look great wearing the purple and gold … of the Los Angeles Vikings.

by Vikinole on Jul 17, 2011 1:06 PM CDT reply actions

the ohio CHEAT university

by redhearring on Jul 17, 2011 1:09 PM CDT reply actions

Couldn't imagine a post this misleading

if I hadn’t read it with my own eyes. Anything and I mean anything sourced from PFT should be looked at very carefully. Every post by Mike Florio is slanted. I hate people who complain about media bias but Florio is biased (o.k. I hate myself). I realize that he’s taking Mort’s report but nobody really knows what’s going on inside the meetings. How many times have we been told it’s over? Or nearly over?

And how many times have we been told that it’s the “greedy” players? When’s the last time the players threatened to move a franchise if taxpayers didn’t pay up?

Gene Upshaw always said that if there was one uncapped year then the cap was gone forever. Did the players back down on that? Back down on a rookie wage scale? Does Jerry Jones draft the best petroleum engineers or does he have to compete for them? Do the Fords draft the best auto design people or wait, strike that we know the answer. What other business owners feel a right to a profit simply because the doors are opened?

A word to the wise ain't necessary - it's the stupid ones that need the advice.

by FrozenFinger on Jul 17, 2011 2:49 PM CDT reply actions

I wasn't meaning to imply

That one side is being any greedier than the other.

It was more a case of the negotiations being this close to the end, and the players seemingly pulling a Columbo and going, “Oh, there’s just one more thing.”

I don’t really care who wins and who loses, to be honest. . .I just want them to be done negotiating so that we can have actual football.

SBNation Minnesota - For the greatest sports fans in the world.
The Daily Norseman - The greatest Vikings' site on the Internet!
"Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game because they almost always turn out to be—or to be indistinguishable from—self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time." - Neal Stephenson, Cryptonomicon

by Christopher Gates on Jul 17, 2011 3:03 PM CDT up reply actions

Well the players can ask for this and do have a reasonable case.

Here is an article discussing the uncapped league year rules and a little snippet …

http://www.bloggingtheboys.com…et-2010-and-the

Q. Are current player benefits affected in the Final League Year?

A. We expect current player benefits to decline in the Final League Year. The union agreed that in the Final League Year, clubs would be relieved of their obligation to fund numerous benefit programs. Examples include second career savings (401K), player annuity, severance pay and performance-based pay. The total league-wide contributions to such plans in 2009, the last capped year, were in excess of $325 million or more than $10 million per club.
-———————————————————————————————————————————

Many of the players did not get performance-based pay checks at the end of the year. For example, at the end of 2009 John Sullivan (yes the much maligned Sullivan) received the largest check …

http://www.nationalfootballpos…ebased-pay.html

Minnesota center John Sullivan received the biggest check, according to a source familiar with the system, getting $397,555. Sullivan was in his first year replacing perennial Pro Bowl player Matt Birk.
-———————————————————————————————————————————

So the players could ask for this but since they agreed to the uncapped year rules in the last CBA that was negotiated it is highly unlikely the owners will give them anything. I wouldn’t. I would tell them they should have read the fine print.

But maybe the players are asking for this in lieu of dropping the lawsuit in Judge Doty’s hands where it was found that the league did not try and get the best deal it could on the last TV contract in order to have some money in case there was a prolonged lockout or missed year. Maybe the owners will go for that but even if Judge Doty hands down a significant award the owners can still appeal for quite a while. Eventually they may have to pay whatever Doty dictates but they can keep it in the courts for at least another year most likely.

It is a tough call but the players really do not have a leg to stand on here. I can only see them doing this in exchange for dropping something else.

It is all negotiations. It will be worked out.

by MarkSP18 on Jul 17, 2011 3:01 PM CDT reply actions