Skip to content

Redskins player rep Vonnie Holliday says sides “not in the same ballpark”

Roger Goodell

Redskins NFLPA rep Vonnie Holliday isn’t feeling more optimistic about the labor situation despite the league and union agreeing on a 24-hour extension to continue talking.

Holliday told Lindsay Czarniak of NBC4 in Washington that the two sides “are not in the same ballpark” and have not discussed major issues.  He told the Washington Post that owners still haven’t given a formal proposal, so the NFLPA has little to discuss.

Holliday’s words run somewhat contrary to the widespread reports that the league made a proposal Thursday that included some compromise.  Perhaps it wasn’t a formal proposal, but something significant happened Thursday.

ESPN’s Chris Mortensen said the league made a proposal that the union viewed in a positive light and it got the ball rolling for progress.  The union also reportedly made some concessions.

Despite Holliday’s comments, an extension can’t be viewed as a bad thing for NFL fans.  Especially if it forces another, longer extension.

Permalink 31 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories
31 Responses to “Redskins player rep Vonnie Holliday says sides “not in the same ballpark””
  1. h8dansnyder says: Mar 3, 2011 6:31 PM

    My guess is they are delaying 1 more day hoping for a slow weekend news cycle. Folks like me would love to waste corporate time chatting about this all day tomorrow, but I am certainly not going to care over the weekend (on personal time). I bet that we will see an announcement tomorrow at about the time happy hour gets started.

  2. paulnoga says: Mar 3, 2011 6:31 PM

    It seems that the sportswriters are making out the best here. It would have been the doldrums without these stories and amazing, incredible wondrous non-news

  3. alphaq2 says: Mar 3, 2011 6:41 PM

    What happened to the gag order? Was that just for owners?

  4. siggy00 says: Mar 3, 2011 6:43 PM

    What do Mort and Schefter do? What was the last piece of insider info they gave that was even accurate? They are nothing but lapdogs for the league.

  5. ravenspit says: Mar 3, 2011 6:45 PM

    Can’t trust a dude with a chick’s name

  6. wetpaperbag2 says: Mar 3, 2011 6:51 PM

    I guess Vonnie Holliday didn’t get the memo about keeping this “out of the media arena.” All these egotistical, self-centered buffoons had ALL this time to hammer a deal out, but instead wait until zero hour to “try” to get a deal done…only to say that they need more time.

    Priceless and pathetic all at the same time.

  7. hobartbaker says: Mar 3, 2011 6:56 PM

    Hell, Vonnie, from the sound of it, not even playing the same sport.

  8. realdeal12 says: Mar 3, 2011 6:57 PM

    “Redskins NFLPA rep Vonnie Holliday isn’t feeling more optimistic about the labor situation despite the league and union agreeing”

    Shocking a player rep with something negative to say. These losers can’t keep there yaps shut. Oh and he is a Redskins player rep, that explains it. I wish all these player reps would shut up.

  9. rapmusicmademedoit says: Mar 3, 2011 7:02 PM

    ancient chinese secret say
    no need to go to the ball park if there is no game……

  10. moochzilla says: Mar 3, 2011 7:10 PM

    I have a solution to players like Jemarcus Russell being paid too much:

    1) Owners who can’t afford high picks should trade the picks.

    2) Owners who can’t afford to sign A-list, in-demand talent should put their checkbooks away.

    3) Teams that can’t draw crowds should explore a move to Los Angeles.

    Ya know, common sense BUSINESS SOLUTIONS that become obvious when the cost of doing business exceed your revenues.

    Like, ya know, capitalism.

    So many want to rig the game for owners so that their risk is minimized and their profits guaranteed. Like we did with Wall Street. Guess what…that’s not business, and that’s not capitalism.

  11. moochzilla says: Mar 3, 2011 7:13 PM

    4) Broke-ass, leveraged owners should sell the team to individuals or groups that can afford to compete.

    If a player can’t compete, no one would argue that he should be guaranteed a roster spot.

    If someone in your workplace can’t perform, no one would argue that he / she be kept at the same level as everyone else.

    Why, then, do we look to have a lockout to protect the weak, foolish, and incompetent among the NFL owners? To keep some “divine right” to NFL team ownership going?

    SELL THE TEAM. I guarantee that every owner would make a huge profit tomorrow compared to what they bought in for.

  12. proflonghair says: Mar 3, 2011 7:24 PM

    That’s what she said

  13. riderspantherssk says: Mar 3, 2011 7:26 PM

    This guy needs to shut up. Whether progress is being made or not, leaks like these will not help.

  14. thefiesty1 says: Mar 3, 2011 7:31 PM

    The “good ole boy” network of the NFL prevents the owners of selling and they are making to much $$$ to get out anyway. The prima donna players (union) is trying to kill the golden goose. Poor babies are all starving to death.

  15. ilpackerbacker says: Mar 3, 2011 7:58 PM

    Um, the fact that Vonnie Holliday still plays in the NFL was the biggest news blurb I got out of this whole article.

  16. nothimagain says: Mar 3, 2011 8:15 PM

    A new deal isn’t coming anytime soon. The owners want to take enough back that’s it going to take awhile for the players to cave. Right now neither side feels a strong enough financial motive to cave. Owners seemed resolved to hold out for what they want regardless of the financial costs of doing so. Only when players start feeling the squeeze of missed checks will we see the pressure needed for the union to do what it ultimately will do – agree to a deal that is much more favorable for the owners than the last one.
    The stuff we gripe about is why we’re fans and not owners or players. Too much is involved and too much is at stake in big business/labor negotiations for it to be as simple as “just get a deal done already.”

    Optimism is believing a deal will get done by mid-summer.

    I imagine the fans who want 16 regular season games will be hurt the most when their love of preseason football is compromised.

  17. flr29 says: Mar 3, 2011 8:31 PM

    I agree with moochzilla.

    If the owners aren’t smart enough to make money with an NFL team, then sell the team.

    Don’t come crying that you need some artificial cap on expenses to be successful.

    The owners want a system that protects them from themselves. If you don’t want to sign a player to a big contract, then don’t sign the player to a big contract.

    Stop whining. Run a business like millions of your fellow Americans do every day.

  18. moochzilla says: Mar 3, 2011 8:44 PM

    I used to believe the owners could be helped.

    Then the Knicks, bailed out by an act of God with the “Allen Houston Rule”…DID NOT USE THE EXEMPTION ON ALLEN HOUSTON.

    They’re hopeless.

    I didn’t hire Jeremy Shockey to work at my company today. Ya know why? I can’t afford him. And neither can that off-brand Panthers team.

    Supposedly.

  19. moochzilla says: Mar 3, 2011 8:46 PM

    “The “good ole boy” network of the NFL prevents the owners of selling and they are making to much $$$ to get out anyway. The prima donna players (union) is trying to kill the golden goose. Poor babies are all starving to death.”

    That makes no sense.

  20. moochzilla says: Mar 3, 2011 8:55 PM

    Here’s what happens every time a union is “broken”…

    1) The cost of the product stays the same

    2) The jobs still move to China at the same rate

    3) The union families who had their healthcare yanked now put their kids on CHIP, so now YOU are paying for them as a taxpayer instead of the company paying

    4) If the company loses money, you cover it as a taxpayer

    5) If the company makes money, they pay a historically low corporate tax rate

    Yep, you all sure benefit from that!

  21. whatagreatfootballmind says: Mar 3, 2011 8:57 PM

    What the hell have they been doing for the last X amount of days? The major issues haven’t even been touched? Don’t you want to work on the bigger issues first before tackling the smaller issues? How many morons are running this thing? Just get a damn deal done

  22. nothimagain says: Mar 3, 2011 9:22 PM

    Hmm, owners are trying to reduce risks and cap expenditures. Sounds like they’re trying to run their business like millions of United Statesians do every day.

  23. moochzilla says: Mar 3, 2011 9:30 PM

    “Hmm, owners are trying to reduce risks and cap expenditures.”

    They already have that ability – just trade high picks and refuse to sign high-priced talent.

    What am I missing?

    Become the Pittsburgh Pirates of the NFL. Why not? If it’s 100% about profits and you don’t care about winning.

  24. moochzilla says: Mar 3, 2011 9:31 PM

    They give the Super Bowl trophy to the team that has the lowest payroll, right?

  25. flr29 says: Mar 3, 2011 9:41 PM

    nothimagain says: Mar 3, 2011 9:22 PM

    ++++++++++++++++++++++

    Cap it with your business skill, not a socialist cap on expenditures.

    If Mike Brown wants to spend $100,000 per player, go 0-16, and still make money, more power to him.

    American business owners make money while working within the market.

    Pay a man what the market says he is worth.

    Don’t be scared of the free market.

  26. lhaveprettyfeet says: Mar 3, 2011 9:54 PM

    The Skins haven’t cut him yet? He was worthless last season.

    Mmm Lindsay Czarniak … me likey

  27. dwatkins69 says: Mar 3, 2011 11:09 PM

    ilpackerbacker says:
    “Um, the fact that Vonnie Holliday still plays in the NFL was the biggest news blurb I got out of this whole article.”

    I agree, Thought he retied a few years ago!!

  28. nothimagain says: Mar 4, 2011 12:03 AM

    Moochzilla, it’s interesting you say pay a man what the market says he’s worth. If you truly believe that then you should be in favor of terminating the draft. Every player would be a free agent after college and free to sign with whomever they want if we follow free market logic. And, under this free market system Jemarcus Russell would have gotten noticeably less money than what he actually received because his value would have been determined by the market and not draft position. Yes, even players benefit from the oddities of the NFL’s system.

    Don’t kid yourself, most every other business owner would love to have the protections the NFL does. Just because they don’t doesn’t make them any better.

  29. plumber52 says: Mar 4, 2011 12:05 AM

    Ummmm… These players are getting payed millions of dollars a year. I know that I make my boss a whole bunch of money. Why can’t they just shut up and play. I dont evenmake close to one million dollars a year and i would play for free if they would let me. Just get a fair deal done.

  30. edgy says: Mar 4, 2011 1:36 PM

    flr29 says:

    Cap it with your business skill, not a socialist cap on expenditures.

    **********************

    Here’s the problem with your argument. Mike Brown ONLY makes a profit because of revenue sharing. If it weren’t for that “socialist” concept, he’d have to survive on his ticket revenue (Not exactly that top in the league) AND local TV revenue (Think that the networks are beating a path to Cincinnati or New York when they start doling out the TV revenue?). Without that shared revenue, you might as well prune the NFL down to an elite group of large cities and then while you won’t ever have to worry about business “socialism”, you also won’t have to worry about having to support a local team.

  31. flr29 says: Mar 4, 2011 7:17 PM

    edgy says: Mar 4, 2011 1:36 PM

    Without that shared revenue, you might as well prune the NFL down to an elite group of large cities and then while you won’t ever have to worry about business “socialism”, you also won’t have to worry about having to support a local team.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    First of all, I don’t know why you put “socialism” in quotes. As Art Modell famously said, “We’re 28 fat cat Republicans who vote socialist on league issues.”

    Secondly, I don’t care if the owners want to share the money they make with each other or not. I do care that they want to restrict what a man can earn by something other than the market.

    Thirdly, why would I not have a local team?

    This notion that NFL owners are business morons who cannot make money absent an artificial cap on salary is just absurd. If there was no salary cap, the owners would pay more money, because they are smart businessmen and know the revenue would outweigh the cost.

Leave a Reply

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