Skip to content

Report: Eagles may vote against decertification

On Thursday, NFLPA officials will meet with the Eagles as part of a team-by-team effort to obtain advance authorization to decertify the union, a move that would be used to block a lockout — and to set the stage for a possible antritust lawsuit against the league.

While it has been presumed that the various teams will rubber stamp the move, Tim McManus of PhillySportsDaily.com reports that Eagles players may vote against decertification.

Per McManus, “the Eagles are more likely to vote against decertification as it stands
right now.  But there is open-mindedness heading in, as the Eagles are
curious to hear what the NFLPA representatives have to say about the
matter.  The meeting could sway the decision.”

In the end, it may not matter.  Decertification requires only a majority vote of all players; already, the union has harvested 59 votes in favor of decertification, with none opposing it.

As a result, we fully expect the union to have the ability to decertify, if the union chooses to do so.  Whether the union chooses to do so remains to be seen.

Permalink 43 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Philadelphia Eagles, Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories, Union
43 Responses to “Report: Eagles may vote against decertification”
  1. superb owl says: Sep 15, 2010 9:31 PM

    right to work!
    decertify.
    then duh smith is out of a job.

  2. birdmancometh says: Sep 15, 2010 9:39 PM

    What the heck are you talking about? I’m not a lawyer. I have assumptions of what this means, but please explain it better. yes?

  3. Nosredna says: Sep 15, 2010 9:43 PM

    Considering they have only gone to one team, the Saints, who everyone already knows now they feel, it is not surprising.
    As the saying goes, don’t count your chickens before they hatch……
    Even if they vote yes, it doesn’t really matter until March…….

  4. mannyfresh209 says: Sep 15, 2010 9:59 PM

    good.

  5. RedLeg15 says: Sep 15, 2010 9:59 PM

    Florio, is there any reason for the Eagles players not being in favor of voting for decertification? Are the players in Philly that dead set in fighting it out Union vs Owners?

  6. BoltsFan says: Sep 15, 2010 10:00 PM

    Of course that idiotic union is going to push to decertify. If the owners were to try something like this, though, the players would be screaming “collusion” at the top of their collective lungs. In fact, if the owners were all to go take a piss at the same time, the NFLPA would try to claim there was collusion in that.
    I hope this union, and the players who make it up, get slapped down HARD this time. They need to discover what their place as EMPLOYEES is and STAY there.

  7. 1NationRaiderNation says: Sep 15, 2010 10:02 PM

    it must be tough to only make an avg of 1.9 million per year.

  8. slim1337 says: Sep 15, 2010 10:15 PM

    I have had enough of this dumb s!#t .

  9. nflhof says: Sep 15, 2010 10:30 PM

    I wonder how good golden goose tastes when it’s cooked?

  10. IndyColt45 says: Sep 15, 2010 10:32 PM

    In the end, it may not matter. Decertification requires only a majority vote of all players; already, the union has harvested 59 votes in favor of decertification, with none opposing it.
    ———
    Yeah, they’re almost there.

  11. Fonetik says: Sep 15, 2010 11:01 PM

    Oh man, words can not truly express how little I care.

  12. In & Out Burger says: Sep 15, 2010 11:04 PM

    Any fan who takes a side in this issue is wrong.

  13. justthefacts says: Sep 15, 2010 11:12 PM

    here comes the voice of reason..again.
    @nationraidernation: try not to let our fandom obstruct facts. while you say the players avg 1.9 mil, the owners are making much much more. then look at the 1.9 mil, they will be in a higher tax bracket than you and will take home about half that after taxes, then they have to pay their agent(s) and any other representatives they have. now you are looking at about 800 g’s, which isnt chumo change. but then if you look at the avg career of someone in the nfl and the damage they put their body through for those 3.5 yrs it works out to the owners making a killing over someone who made a huge sal of 1.9 mil, as you say. look at the whole picture before you or anyone else starts to claim the players are selfish and greedy, its the owners who opted out after they didnt like how much they were making not the players.

  14. BoltsFan says: Sep 15, 2010 11:37 PM

    justthefacts…It’s NOT like the players don’t know the physical and financial risks and rewards when they freely decide to pursue a career in the NFL. Most of them gladly jump on it because if it weren’t for football, they’d be pushing brooms somewhere. It’s not like most of those players are Phi Beta Kappas now, is it????

  15. smiley says: Sep 15, 2010 11:48 PM

    Justthefacts – good argument. Nuff said. Hail!

  16. Section731 says: Sep 15, 2010 11:50 PM

    The only side here is the players side. I pay to watch them – not the owners. Non-guaranteed contracts – if they outperform – they are greedy for wanting more. If they underperform – they get cut. It is a one way deal favoring the owners. I hate to see my teams players hold out – but I don’t blame them for doing it.
    The owners have guaranteed TV, merchandise, ticket, concession and parking income – whether they blow out their knee or get 7 concussions. For 53 players that give them their living to get 60% is more than reasonable.
    PS – if you don’t think that it is collusion that Mawae didn’t get a job this year – then you are crazy. The owners are so trying to be Union busters – I just hope by decertifying that the union isn’t helping them.

  17. Colts18 says: Sep 16, 2010 12:38 AM

    I dont understand people getting mad at the players. If I invested all my hard work, including college, where i didnt get paid, into football, damn right I would fight to make as much money as i can.
    People need to stop comparing the players salaries with their own. Yes they make a couple of million to play football, but its not like they just suit up on sundays and thats it. There entire lives are invested in it, even when the season is over.
    I fully support the players going against the billionaire owners. who probably bet yachts in games and stuff.

  18. Butkis-n-Ditka says: Sep 16, 2010 12:45 AM

    OK, so it may keep football going next year…is this really better?

  19. Philly99 says: Sep 16, 2010 12:53 AM

    I side with the owners. They should lock em out and make the players beg for a deal. I also think the owners should have gotten together long ago and made maximum salary agreements that are mostly incentive-based. For Instance:
    The top three QB’s in the NFL are Tom Brady, Peyton Manning and Drew Brees. Those guys should make lets say $5 million, the rest is incentive based.
    The worst three get $250,000, etc, etc. Third string QB that didn’t play at all? $250,000.
    Basically if they themselves weren’t so greedy they could be making even more money. I know people will try to rip me but I don’t care. The owners ALLOW the players union to have too much power.

  20. LAEaglefan says: Sep 16, 2010 2:01 AM

    These idiots still have almost a year to get a deal done. If they can’t do it in that amount of time then they all deserve what they get.

  21. fan62 says: Sep 16, 2010 2:06 AM

    If the players vote for desertification, than the union can basically become non-existent at any time.
    Does that mean that it is possible that the players could refuse to play in the playoff games for the 2010-2011 year, unless management agrees to a new contract before the playoffs start?

  22. forthelove says: Sep 16, 2010 2:17 AM

    @justthefacts: you are an idiot, and you are ugly. but in this case you are right.

  23. forthelove says: Sep 16, 2010 2:18 AM

    @justthefacts: you are an idiot, and you are ugly. but in this case you are right.

  24. DanSnyderSux says: Sep 16, 2010 7:49 AM

    The way this league prints money, this shouldn’t even be an issue. It’s just greed. I hope the league does have a work stoppage, just so I can see the backlash it would suffer.

  25. Florios'Lawyer says: Sep 16, 2010 7:50 AM

    # 1NationRaiderNation says: September 15, 2010 10:02 PM
    “it must be tough to only make an avg of 1.9 million per year.”
    Yea, imagine how hard it must be for the owners who are making billions…

  26. Voyager6 says: Sep 16, 2010 8:02 AM

    Do you really think that if the union decertifies that the leadership will just go away. They will still be directing things behind the scene as if there still is a union. It is basically a sham move that the courts should consider invalid and not strip ownership of their anti-trust protections.

  27. ronmexico says: Sep 16, 2010 8:33 AM

    BoltsFan says:
    September 15, 2010 10:00 PM
    Of course that idiotic union is going to push to decertify. If the owners were to try something like this, though, the players would be screaming “collusion” at the top of their collective lungs. In fact, if the owners were all to go take a piss at the same time, the NFLPA would try to claim there was collusion in that.
    I hope this union, and the players who make it up, get slapped down HARD this time. They need to discover what their place as EMPLOYEES is and STAY there.
    ___________________________
    Don’t you hate it when those young bucks get all uppity?
    If you’re going to blow the redneck dogwhistle, don’t half ass it.

  28. TheDPR says: Sep 16, 2010 8:43 AM

    “Florio, is there any reason for the Eagles players not being in favor of voting for decertification? Are the players in Philly that dead set in fighting it out Union vs Owners?”
    I am not Florio, obviously, but I have a theory.
    Troy Vincent still has a lot of influence in Philadelphia. Troy Vincent knows what a douche DeSmith is and he’s still pissed that he didn’t get the union boss job.

  29. justthefacts says: Sep 16, 2010 9:07 AM

    hey boltsfan, if you wanna get into a back-and-forth bring it on buddy. as current research keeps coming out, we are learning more about the risks that football entails, so we dont know the long term risks a player is accepting by putting on the pads. please dont stereotype athletes into a category that puts them at the bottom of society, its not the case. so dont be upset that they are making more than you to play a childs game. they work hard and put their bodies through much more than any of us would think is possible. they are just trying to get what they deserve and what the owners agreed to pay them. the owners have all the leverage and the players are just trying to swing some of it their way. but if there does end up being a lockout, i think its safe to say your job sweeping mcdonalds is safe.
    forthelove: what kinda name is that? what is it you love, cuz your comments are meaningless unless you are agreeing with the knowledge i drop on here from time to time, so then it just looks like you’re on my jock.

  30. medic474 says: Sep 16, 2010 9:37 AM

    A decert requires 100% percent vote not a majority besides who cares about 59 votes amongst how many members. It also has to be in and “open period” (into 2/3 of the longevity of the contract) If they decert there is no representation……therefore the owners are not compelled to negotiate with the union. Now….once the CBA expires so does the No Strike/No Lockout clause so the union can strike and the owners can lock them out!!! This move makes no sense to me whatsoever. The only time you really see a decert is when members are not happy with their representation. I am baffled here. So botlsfan, why would the union push for this??? It would be like government going around trying to get rid of themselves. Fan62: no they cant refuse to play as long as the are under the constraints of the current CBA.

  31. SDW2001 says: Sep 16, 2010 9:38 AM

    I side with the owners. They should lock em out and make the players beg for a deal. I also think the owners should have gotten together long ago and made maximum salary agreements that are mostly incentive-based. For Instance:
    The top three QB’s in the NFL are Tom Brady, Peyton Manning and Drew Brees. Those guys should make lets say $5 million, the rest is incentive based.
    The worst three get $250,000, etc, etc. Third string QB that didn’t play at all? $250,000.
    Basically if they themselves weren’t so greedy they could be making even more money. I know people will try to rip me but I don’t care. The owners ALLOW the players union to have too much power.
    _________________
    I won’t “rip” you, I just don’t understand exactly what you’re proposing. First, you’d have to evaluate who the “top” players are that can earn the maximum. The owners would have to agree to a certain standard–all of them. Also, why is it the top 3? Why not 5? Or 15? Lord…then you’ll have people complaining that certain QBs aren’t evaluated accurately. QB JoeSchmo will win the Super Bowl but not be anything special. Where’s [i]his[/i] money? That doesn’t even begin to touch on the other players.
    The lower end is just as problematic. How can you decide what to pay a player after the season is over? You can’t. Teams pay for a good backup QB. See what happens when you cut them down to 1/4 of what they were making….not so much quality on the bench anymore. In a system like that, Vick would never have signed.
    Lockout: I really doubt it. Both sides have too much money on the line. They saw what happened with baseball, and I don’t think they’ll let it happen next year. The NFL is the most popular sport/franchise/whatever in the country. Football is the new national pastime.
    Salaries: I do agree that contracts should be more incentive based. The whole system of injury guarantees and non-guaranteed money is ridiculous now. The player should earn his base salary regardless of injury. Then, have incentives for performance. Right now we have guys signing 10 year deals worth “$100 million” even though they know they’ll never see 10 years OR $100 million. Dumb.
    Holdouts: Don’t even get me started. Any player who signs a contract and then sits out for a new one should be fined HEAVILY. You skip minicamp? $50,000 fine. You skip training camp? $100,000 fine. Then, you get fined $10,000 per practice you miss and $100,000 per game. If you hold out for more than 8 weeks into the season, you void your contract and the NFL and team sues you for material breach.
    I also think there needs to be a rookie cap in term and $. Off the top of my head, let me say maximum 3 year deal, maximum $5 million per year.

  32. Krow says: Sep 16, 2010 9:50 AM

    They’re arguing over how to cook the golden goose. Oh sure, they could all be rich and happy just picking up the golden eggs. But they’re simply not that intelligent.

  33. palewook says: Sep 16, 2010 10:17 AM

    its all about legal maneuvering. will the nflpa go through with this, possible, owners threaten lockout, union pulls the plug, players file class-action suit.
    forbes ran a piece on it not long ago.
    http://blogs.forbes.com/sportsmoney/2010/09/13/how-the-decertification-option-fits-into-players-plan-to-fight-nfl/?boxes=businesschannelsections

  34. BroncosFan says: Sep 16, 2010 10:21 AM

    Allow me to just take a moment here and solve all of the NFL labor problems in one fell swoop…
    1) Strict rookie pay-scale – all rook contracts last for three seasons, no longer or shorter. Guaranteed money based solely on draft position, incentive money based solely on performance benchmarks established in advance by the league for each position. Neither owners nor players have the authority to alter the contract before it expires. If there’s a trade, the new team simply picks up the remainder of the contract.
    2) After rook contracts expire, all subsequent contracts may last for only one season. The franchise tag is eliminated.
    3) A hard salary cap, at least as strict as the late-’90s regime, is put in place.
    4) Once a player has been on a team for one full season, only some fraction – say 70% – of that player’s contract counts towards the team’s salary cap. To give teams an advantage in keeping some degree of roster continuity without disadvantaging the players.
    Voila. Owners get a cap that prevents contracts from balooning out of control and an end to all offseason holdouts. Players get a system that guarantees they are always paid market value, an end to the veteran pay disadvantage, and complete freedom of movement. Fans get continued parity, and no more holdouts.
    Thanks, I’ll be here all week in case someone needs me to fix the college football postseason as well.

  35. jediwrstlr says: Sep 16, 2010 10:24 AM

    @justthefacts-
    you may think you know what your talking about….but you dont. The players KNOW the risks they take everytime they step on the field, and they still complain that the game is too rough, and have rules put in place to keep them from getting hit. If the players REALLY wanted money, they would take the top 5 NFL contracts league wide, and have EVERY player make that. Personally, I think the pay should be capped. It is rediculous that a QB can sign a 43 million dollar contract for 4 years, get benched, and still get 27 million cause it is “Guarenteed”.

  36. myeaglescantwin says: Sep 16, 2010 10:27 AM

    Americans as a whole should be against the owners on this. They do nothing but rape the players of their bodies and youth then cut em when they get injured. The results of these carefree business practices is a billion dollar industry.
    The NFL owners cater directly to television networks regulations and wants. There are so many in game timing restraints that they already put on the NFL games that there is no flow to a game when you’re at the stadium.
    The players aren’t even fighting for more money. they are fighting for benefit packages that will take care of the players from the earlier days of the NFL that are suffering now. A major issue is that the owners don’t wanna pay these insurance policies and have no interest in creating a health care system for current players for when they retire.
    You can beat up the players now, but a 3 year career at $1.9 mil cant pay for the 30+ years of medical bills and terrible endings that occurr after an NFL career takes its toll.
    Rage against the greed of these owners; dont give in cause they will squeeze every drop of blood from these players just for ratings and a couple bucks.

  37. loutheeaglesfan says: Sep 16, 2010 12:36 PM

    As an aside, it’s great to see PFT giving some love to Philly Sports Daily. They’ve only been around for a few months, but they are doing some the best sports journalism in the Philly market.

  38. justthefacts says: Sep 16, 2010 1:42 PM

    thanks for chiming in jediwrstlr. now allow me to educate you, many risks are known as you point out. what about the long term risks of repeated blows to the head? new research is coming out and the nfl is currently doing research to study this. they also have players and former players who will donate their brains to study post-mortem. hopefully this will shed light on risks that are undertaken but are unknown. go ahead and google ted johnson, the linebacker for the patriots a few years back. he suffered multiple consussions and is still possibly dealing with complications from those injuries. i also see the other side, steve young had his career cut short from concussions and by all appearances seems to be doing just fine.
    your proposal for compensation is ridiculous, as a side note spell properly when attacking my statements, because i guarantee i know more about the league than you and i dont need to know you or anything about you to make this assertion. back to your proposal. it would not work for all players to make top 5 money under any labor agreement that could/would ever be formed. there would be little if any money to pay coaches or the people who make the day-to-day operations run smooth. and players get payed based on what they and ownership feels they are worth and everyone isnt top 5 dollar and everyone knows this.
    finally, it seems as though you have such strong feelings about players who get paid and then get benched. maybe your team should do a better job at evaluating talent for the draft and free agency so they dont continue to over pay people who cannot get the job done and having a faulty organization without structure. this will also keep them out of the top 10 in selecting in the draft for the past 7 years, minus the trade for moss. as i said in a previous post, dont let your fandom obstruct how you view the business of the nfl. it may work better if you denounce your team and become a fan of the game.
    i will gladly entertain any response or any others who would like to chime in. but if you make a comment towards me, please, be factual and keep your opinion out of it, because you have to be objective, once the subjectivity sets in your arguments mean nothing and they are easy to break down and obliterate.

  39. Codebeard says: Sep 16, 2010 1:58 PM

    jediwrstlr says:
    September 16, 2010 10:24 AM
    @justthefacts-
    you may think you know what your talking about….but you dont. The players KNOW the risks they take everytime they step on the field, and they still complain that the game is too rough, and have rules put in place to keep them from getting hit. If the players REALLY wanted money, they would take the top 5 NFL contracts league wide, and have EVERY player make that. Personally, I think the pay should be capped. It is rediculous that a QB can sign a 43 million dollar contract for 4 years, get benched, and still get 27 million cause it is “Guarenteed”.

    For one who criticizes others for “not knowing what they talk about”, you certainly don’t know anything yourself. NFL contracts are not guaranteed. There is guaranteed money in there by way of signing bonuses or what have you, but for most contracts a team can cut a player without paying any more base salary, and that money is agreed upon by both parties before the contract is signed. If it turns out to be a bad deal, then that’s the fault of the GM and ownership.
    The NFL is not a communist system; players are awarded contracts based on whatever an owner is willing to pay them – so your top 5 contract thing is stupid. Quite honestly, you’re ignorant for even tossing that out there. A player is worth whatever someone will pay him, absolutely no different from you or me. To suggest that just because they make more than us that they should just roll over and give in to all the owners’ demands is moronic.
    The difference is that NFL players are not just employees – they are the PRODUCT. There is no NFL without players. They get paid millions of dollars because they bring in billions . If you think that they’re not earning their money – by and large – then you don’t know jack about sports. For every overpaid JaMarcus Russel, there’s dozens of players literally compromising their futures for our entertainment. Damn right they deserve millions of dollars, because on average they won’t last more than a few years, and many players will be so physically compromised that they’re unable to work another job.

  40. forthelove says: Sep 16, 2010 4:37 PM

    @justthefacts: Let me correct myself, you are an idiot, you are ugly, and you are also a dick. but you are still right.
    @Section731: fantastic points.

  41. justthefacts says: Sep 16, 2010 5:48 PM

    dear codebeard:
    we have similar thoughts, but i did not bring up the idea of top 5 contracts, jediwrstlr did, and i pointed out how unfeasible that is. our thoughts are similar because we both feel players should as much money as they can while playing the sport.
    now let me educate you on contracts; there are 2 types of guarantees, for skill and for injury. jake delhomme and housh got contracts that are guaranteed for skill, largely, that is why they can get released from carolina and seattle, respectively, and sign for the vet minimum and still make what they had agreed upon. the team that released them pays the difference of the lower new contract they got. there are also contracts guaranteed for injury, this allows the team to release a player who is healthy and not pay them anything upon doing so, because they are still healthy and can sign and play with another team right away. but if that person got injured, the team would owe them the remainder of the guaranteed money for injury if the team released them while they were still recovering from that injury. remember d. hall in 2008 with oakland? he got released after 8 games and oakland didnt owe him any extra because the ‘guaranteed’ money they hadnt paid him yet was guaranteed for injury and not skill, the skill guarantees had already been paid. so if hall got a season ending injury he would have pocketed about $16 mil more if he were released. i hope that clarifies the money portion up for you so far, if you have questions or need a lil more education just get back to me. let me also add, most contracts, if not all are based upon guarantees for skill, injury, and then incentives. the examples i showed above are the couple that come to mind right away and are readily apparent.
    i never said or hinted to players rolling over and just getting what the owners will give them. the nflpa and the union had a contract, the owners opted out because they want more money. the players need to hold their ground and do what they can to ensure that football is played next year and the years after, as do the owners.
    the players, in any sport, have to play for free while schools, sponsors, and coaches to name a few make millions and billions, collectively off of them. once they get to the pros, that is the time to maximize what they make. they should do everything in their power to maximize their income, as would anybody else in any profession. you, me and all others reading this try to maximize our income, based on what we feel we are worth, with what we bring to our respected fields. people get bent out of shape because they see athletes are making millions and still complaining. what about the owners who have billions and are complaining? they are reneging on the agreement because they want more.
    again, note the name, just the facts. thats what you get when i make a comment, so dont try to twist what i say and if you comment at me, make sure i said what you think i said and not someone else or how you interpret it. and like i told jediwrstlr, i know much much more about the league than you. please dont underestimate this fact.
    forthelove: i know i am right, thats why i wrote what i did. now if others can stand back and look at the whole picture, they may get a different view than just following a certain team and applying that view to the entire league with the skew of their feelings. ill take it as a compliment that no matter how ugly, idiotic, or being a dick you think i am, you still have the juevos to say on a public blog that im right.
    i forgot to comment on j-russ and the role players, but this post is too long, i can address that later if others need to be brought up to speed.

  42. justthefacts says: Sep 16, 2010 6:17 PM

    @ codebeard: a couple more things, freshen up on your reading comprehension skills and your ability to form a coherent argument, it is obviously lacking in your post. i can help you out with these things or you can just follow the structure of my posts to see how its done, but its more implicit than explicit..if you know the difference.

  43. forthelove says: Sep 17, 2010 2:38 AM

    @justthefacts: you’re an idiot. codebeard was agreeing with you.
    So despite your novel, you’re still an idiot.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!