Skip to content

Kevin Mawae and Drew Brees join the mediation party

1st Annual Cartoon Network's "Hall Of Game" Awards - Show Getty Images

Wednesday’s mediated session between the NFL and NFLPA has brought out the big guns, at least on the player’s side.

For the first time in the negotiations, NFLPA President Kevin Mawae will be be in attendance.  Albert Breer of NFL Network reports that Drew Brees is also in the house.

Breer notes that all eleven members of the NFLPA executive committee and both retired members have now attended the negotiations over the last two weeks.  There has only been one owner at the sessions until today.

As Florio mentioned, NFL owners are in town because their labor committee broke bread last night.  The owners will continue to meet this afternoon, after the initial mediation session.  It’s possible mediation will continue in the evening after the owner’s meeting.

If there are no sessions tonight, it’s time to make your lockout plans for 12:01 a.m. ET on March 4.

Permalink 14 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Home, Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Union
14 Responses to “Kevin Mawae and Drew Brees join the mediation party”
  1. chapnastier says: Mar 2, 2011 9:35 AM

    Hmm, the President of the union hasn’t been to a single meeting yet? More evidence that the players have done little to nothing to help get a deal done.

  2. FoozieGrooler says: Mar 2, 2011 10:22 AM

    chapnastier says: Mar 2, 2011 9:35 AM

    “More evidence that the players have done little to nothing to help get a deal done.”

    Name one thing the owners have done to help get a deal done.

    Up till now, they’ve done nothing at all. They’ve been content to sit back and watch the clock tick down in the hopes of outlasting the players who would lose their income.
    But since Doty ruled against their slimy attempt at “lockout insurance”, the owners have now lost a fair portion of theirs, and with it, their leverage.

    There’s nothing management hates more during contract negotiations than a level playing field.

    BTW, why aren’t you ranting equally against the no-show owners?

  3. chapnastier says: Mar 2, 2011 10:36 AM

    The owners have no obligation to come to a new CBA. They can let it expire and then get rid of the union all together which is exactly what any company looking to make any money should do.

  4. FoozieGrooler says: Mar 2, 2011 10:57 AM

    chapnastier says: Mar 2, 2011 10:36 AM

    “They can let it expire and then get rid of the union all together which is exactly what any company looking to make any money should do.”

    The league needs the players a lot more than it needs the owners.

    Without players you have no league.
    Without an owner, you have the Green Bay Packers. and last time I looked they seemed to be doing just fine without one.

  5. mick730 says: Mar 2, 2011 11:57 AM

    “The league needs the players a lot more than it needs the owners.” Sure, I would gladly put down a few hundred bucks to go out to the park and watch Brees and some of his union buddies play a game of flag football.

    You are so clueless, it isn’t funny. The league could tell all of the current players to go pound sand and start over, and after a season or two, wouldn’t miss a beat. The players on the other hand, if they were so all important, why don’t they simply start their own league? They could build their own stadiums, hire their own coaches, their own scouting departments, their own medical staffs, and then they could demand 59.6% of the total revenue, before any expenses, mind you, from themselves.

    It would be wonderful? Just like Cuba!!!!

    Upon which planet do you reside?

  6. myspaceyourface says: Mar 2, 2011 12:06 PM

    You can always get new players.

    Expand the draft

    Unsigned FA’s

    Eventually the union will abolish and the current players will come crawling back.

    Why? Because the guys with the $$$$$ said so.

  7. childressrulz says: Mar 2, 2011 12:12 PM

    NFL needs it’s players more than the dusty old farts. The players should start their own league. Schedule their draft a week earlier than the owners and get to work. Oh yeah I don’t think it would be anything like cuba only a moron would say something like that.

  8. FoozieGrooler says: Mar 2, 2011 12:21 PM

    mick730 says: Mar 2, 2011 11:57 AM

    “You are so clueless, it isn’t funny. The league could tell all of the current players to go pound sand and start over, and after a season or two, wouldn’t miss a beat.”

    You just agreed with me.
    You admitted the league needs players.

    In your roundabout circular logic, you’re trying to tell me they don’t need the players they have now, but they would just go out and get new ones.

    Right, that’s what I said. The league needs players.

    But you forgot to tell me how the league needs private owners.

  9. hobartbaker says: Mar 2, 2011 12:25 PM

    How about a little catering from Snoop? That will take the edge off things and help the boys get along better. I mean really, is it that serious an issue in the cosmic plan?

    Hahaha, no!

  10. chapnastier says: Mar 2, 2011 12:26 PM

    I would assume that most fans are fans of the game and of their teams. I know if my team put a bunch of CFL players on their rosters I would still watch and buy all of the junk I don’t need. I couldn’t care less about a majority of the players. There are very few in the league that are irreplaceable.

  11. mick730 says: Mar 2, 2011 1:13 PM

    Foozie, you ask why the league needs private owners? I suppose you believe there should be no private ownership of anything in this country? But I’m sure you rant and rave against corporations, don’t you? Well, the Packers are a corporation.

    As some of the posters on this site are aware, the Packers made over 35 million dollars in 2007, 20 million dollars in 2008, and 9 million dollars in 2009. They did this with the youngest roster in the league, but during the same time period, their player costs rose 15% per annum on average.

    For fiscal 2010, the Packers will probably show a loss. There is a problem with the current CBA because 59.6% of every new revenue dollar goes to the players, not the team.

    Still don’t see the problem? The Packers do not have a “greedy, billionaire, scumbag owner” to bail them out. They do not have a Daniel Snyder or a Jerry Jones to throw aways tens of millions of dollars each and every year on a hobby.

    Do you realize that there are other costs to an NFL Franchise besides player salaries? If this current CBA puts the Packers on a road to insolvency, simply with the salary levels alone, what do you think happens when you throw in the increasing cost of liability insurance for Lambeau Field? For the increasing costs of utilities, for the cost of medical care for all 53 players, the practice squad and all the players brought into training camp? The front office personnel? The scouting departments? The marketing staffs? The maintenance staffs? Capital improvements and upkeep on the stadium, team offices, practice facilities and weight rooms?

    In short, the expense to run a NFL team increase, and my guess is they are increasing rapidly.

    So, absent a billionaire owner, what are the Packers to do? Well, for 2011, they are raising ticket prices by $2.00 per ticket. However, 59.6% of that $2.00 for each of those tickets is allocated to the players. That leaves approximately 80 cents per ticket to the team to pay for for everything else related to the team other than player salaries.

    That’s 59.6% of every new dollar the Packers can generate. How long do you think this can work for Green Bay? It won’t last long.

    What will happen if this whole thing is not changed is that we will have MLB in the NFL. The only teams which will be able to afford to stay in business, or to compete if they do stay, will be the Cowboys, Redskins and others who have the billionaire owners you laborites rant against.

    I do not feel that NFL players at any level should be impoverished. And they are nowhere near poverty level. But the players come and go, share none of the risk, but demand that they get almost 60% of everything off the top.

    If the players really believe themselves to be partners, then they should take 50 percent of the bottom line, not 60% of gross revenue.

  12. 3octaveFart says: Mar 2, 2011 1:26 PM

    chapnastier says: Mar 2, 2011 12:26 PM

    “I couldn’t care less about a majority of the players. There are very few in the league that are irreplaceable.”

    And it only follows that the same could be said about the owners, yes?

  13. 3octaveFart says: Mar 2, 2011 2:00 PM

    “If this current CBA puts the Packers on a road to insolvency, simply with the salary levels alone, what do you think happens when you throw in the increasing cost of liability insurance for Lambeau Field?”

    Sell the naming rights – there’s $40 mil right there.
    I hear Nestle’s is looking.
    You could call it “Nestle’s Fudge Packers Stadium”.

  14. rcali says: Mar 2, 2011 4:01 PM

    It is fair to ask what some teams are doing to bring in more money without screwing the fans more. Naming rights seem very logical for Green Bay, although that doesn’t fix the rising costs.

Leave a Reply

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