“The Emperor’s New Clothes, eh. Got it.”

Was my last attempt to say anything to MF without it being deleted, FYI.

When they agree in principal, they sign a contract that they agreed to this deal that will be made.

Many times there are clauses put in real estate contracts that allow a buyer access to a home or property prior to the closing of the deal. As long as it is spelled out in writing, it is perfectly allowable. In fact, it’s not even that uncommon. (My wife is a real estate para-legal, you don’t want to argue with me on this)

The exact same thing could be done here. A simple clause in all player contracts stating that the contract is based upon finalization of the CBA by X date- probably whenever the first game check would be due.
_________________________________
Very true, but in the case of real estate, no seller I have ever heard of would allow occupancy by a buyer without the buyer’s loan being approved first. And to me lifting the lockout without the whole deal being signed would be like a seller allowing a buyer full access to his home without any loan approval or a buyer trusting a seller to cut him a check for repairs agreed on in the deal instead of putting the money for that in escrow to be paid at the closing.
While RE deals can get complex, they are still usually between just a single buyer and a single seller. Imagine the headaches involved with negotiating contract terms of multiple players per team and then the CBA doesn’t get signed or doesn’t get signed by the date the contract specifies, etc…now you have multiple null and void contracts and all these players in limbo again and neither they nor the teams are protected from any consequences of that.

Much as I would love as a fan if they could get going ASAP after an agreement in principle I would rather they not take any chance no matter how slim (and I acknowledge that the idea what I say would actually happen is small) that anything could go wrong and kick this whole thing back to ill will between the parties.

This is simply another smart move by the owners to expedite the process. There is simply no other way to view it.

It’s not stupid at all. It’s smart business, and frankly, the players should feel the same way.

When you shop for a car, you don’t get to take it home simply by agreeing to the terms of purchase in principle, do you? No, of course not. You have to sign the papers and fork over the money before you can keep it.

The same principle applies here. No signature, no deal. Pretty black and white, actually.
====================================
Except when you buy a car there’s not a ton of stuff that needs to take place by a certain date so that you can get your car and be able to drive it properly.
This situation would be more like buying a car that has no wheels or doors and the engine needs to be assembled so that you can use it to go on vacation on a certain date. Once you agree to buy the car, wouldn’t want them to go ahead and start putting it together so that by the time you get them the money it’s ready to go? You wouldn’t want to miss your hotel reservation, would you?

I guess the players initial offer in March was not that bad after all. I wonder what has changed on the owner’s side other than the possibility of losing preseason revenue. It seems all the posturing by owners, the lockout and all the hubris was about nothing. This deal could have been done back in march if the owners were willing to negotiate then.

Dude, you are way out of your league here. As a lawyer, you couldn’t shine the shoes of the lowest man on the deal totem pole. Stick to getting football info for your readers, and quit pretending that you have the competence to shepherd this process through to definitive documentation.

I think that the league and the players have this one covered, they don’t need your “advice” on the logistics of getting this done.

I’m sure the owners & players can come to an agreement in principle today or within the next few days, & that would be nice to hear but I’d much rather know when its all official & the lockout officially ends.

When you shop for a car, you don’t get to take it home simply by agreeing to the terms of purchase in principle, do you? No, of course not. You have to sign the papers and fork over the money before you can keep it.

The same principle applies here. No signature, no deal. Pretty black and white, actually.

Many times there are clauses put in real estate contracts that allow a buyer access to a home or property prior to the closing of the deal. As long as it is spelled out in writing, it is perfectly allowable. In fact, it’s not even that uncommon. (My wife is a real estate para-legal, you don’t want to argue with me on this)

The exact same thing could be done here. A simple clause in all player contracts stating that the contract is based upon finalization of the CBA by X date- probably whenever the first game check would be due.

You don’t end the lockout based on a lick and a promise.

Did a lawyer from one side or the other say it?

Untrue.

As ftblfan9 put it, there is no reason league business couldn’t start upon agreement in principle- all contracts would simply need to include a clause saying that official execution of the contract would occur pending finalization of the CBA.

Pash is simply doing what he can to push the lawyers back to forefront of the discussions, where they are more comfortable.

That’s akin to trying to put the toothpaste back into the tube.

Actually the players shouldn’t be willing to go back to work without everything signed, sealed, and delivered either. It would be easy for the Owners to renege on some part of the ‘Agreement in Principal’ after the players are all back at work and expecting a check just as easily as it would be for the players to renege.

Can we get an agreement in principle for each side to fire a lawyer named Jeff?

These two are pit bull litigators who don’t really want to type up an agreement and settle a case, they still want a fight.

does the league think the players are just trying to fool them into letting down their guard?

seems to me it would be in the best interrest of everybody to have the players in shape and ready to play

plus it would show good faith… and might encourage people to start buying tickets, and satelite game packages, ect.

it wouldn’t hurt their image if they eased up a bit

I agree, too, that this sounds like posturing. As the negotiations progress, the owners may actually lose more than the players if they don’t end the lock-out before an agreement is signed, sealed, and delivered.