Skip to content

Report: Some Executive Committee members were “infuriated” by reports of benefits for plaintiffs

peyton-manning-colts-nfl-ap AP

As the dust settles on Tuesday’s unexpected brouhaha regarding the efforts of four named plaintiffs in the Brady antitrust lawsuit — or agents and/or lawyers working on their behalf — to get something for themselves as a settlement of the case approaches, one of the guys who reported that an effort was made to block the franchise tag from ever being used on Colts quarterback Peyton Manning and Saints quarterback Drew Brees reports that the issue ultimately was dropped based in part on the reaction from other players.

Mike Freeman of CBSSports.com reports, citing an unnamed player, that some members of the NFLPA* Executive Committee were “infuriated” by the news.  “They want blood,” the unnamed player told Freeman.

The Executive Committee was meeting on Tuesday in Washington, in advance of an expected Wednesday analysis of the proposed labor deal.  Since Brees is a member of the Executive Committee, there’s a chance that things may have gotten a little awkward in the room.

Freeman also opines that, to the extent Brees, Manning (via his agent), and Chargers receiver Vincent Jackson are now saying they never asked for special treatment, they’re telling the truth.  Sort of.  As Freeman sees it, others had been pushing the issue on behalf of players who, as a result, were able to maintain plausible deniability.

As we first heard the story last month, CAA was attempting to secure the exemption for its clients, Brees and Manning.  On Tuesday, Jason Cole of Yahoo! Sports reported that an effort was being made to make Jackson and Patriots guard Logan Mankins free agents in 2011, or to get them $10 million each for the money they lost via the rules of the uncapped year and their ensuing holdouts.  Greg Bedard of the Boston Globe and Freeman reported that the effort of behalf of Brees and Manning was still being made.  And Adam Schefter of ESPN reported that Jackson’s agents had confirmed that Jackson indeed wanted free agency, or free money.

The issue has now been resolved, via the face-saving suggestion that the NFLPA* has decided it would be too cumbersome to negotiate deals for some or all of the 10 named plaintiffs in the Brady antitrust case.  The more likely explanation is that, with a storm of criticism coming from players, some in the media, and fans, the NFLPA* realized that it wasn’t the best issue to have on the table at a time when the deal was so close to being struck.

And that’s one of the realities of the new media world in which we operate.  As a PFT commenter pointed out, the twists and turns of the Reggie White antitrust action in the early 1990s weren’t covered and analyzed and reacted to in real time.  Today, everything is subject to immediate assessment and scrutiny.  And whoever was pushing this issue as of Tuesday grossly underestimated the extent to which the information would instantaneously trigger strong feelings that could be expressed just as instantaneously.

Permalink 45 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Indianapolis Colts, New England Patriots, New Orleans Saints, Rumor Mill, San Diego Chargers, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Top Stories, Union
45 Responses to “Report: Some Executive Committee members were “infuriated” by reports of benefits for plaintiffs”
  1. grpatriot says: Jul 20, 2011 7:44 AM

    Peyton’s horns are showing……

  2. macgee10 says: Jul 20, 2011 7:45 AM

    Ok so now what goes on from here?

  3. twitter:Chapman_Jamie says: Jul 20, 2011 7:49 AM

    “They want blood”
    —————————————————-

    Thankfully this came out. I couldn’t imagine an employee/player accepting special treatment for these 4 guys. It is reassuring to know the players spoke up to get the deal done.

  4. stairwayto7 says: Jul 20, 2011 7:50 AM

    No deal will be comign this week! NO DEAL UNTIL SEPT 27!!!

  5. berniemadoffsides says: Jul 20, 2011 7:51 AM

    I find it amazing that they ever thought it was a legitimate possibility in the first place. You guys really didn’t think the media, fans, and rest of the players would be irate by this…?

  6. ebenezergrymm says: Jul 20, 2011 7:51 AM

    I don’t think they dropped their requests for special treatment because of reactions from other players.

    I think they dropped it because Goodell told them he’d give James Harrison free reign on their ass.

    That’s when they dropped it.

  7. donovanmcflabb says: Jul 20, 2011 8:01 AM

    Whoever chose that particular photo of Manning to acccompany this article deserves a raise.

  8. Exiled1 says: Jul 20, 2011 8:02 AM

    I got a laugh @ the Peyton “Devil-horn” pic.
    Clever.

  9. herokravon says: Jul 20, 2011 8:02 AM

    So sick, tired, exhausted from all this CBA drama. Its just gross.

    Lets get on with it and talk about FOOTBALL already.

    Herokravon
    PFT Chairman of the fans

  10. birdcrazy911 says: Jul 20, 2011 8:03 AM

    Now that is how 1 small voice can become 1 very loud voice, great work football fans!!!

    Maybe our gov’t should look into this as a problem solving device.

  11. melikefootball says: Jul 20, 2011 8:15 AM

    The true Manning in this photo!!!!

  12. stanklepoot says: Jul 20, 2011 8:26 AM

    macgee10 says: Jul 20, 2011 7:45 AM

    Ok so now what goes on from here?
    __________________________
    The way I understand it, the plan is for a deal to be presented to the 32 member Executive Committee of the NFLPA (the 32 player reps) some time today. They vote on whether to recommend it to the plaintiffs (really, they’re voting on whether to recommend it to the players as a whole, but the plaintiffs need to sign off first). Assuming it passes, Thursday the owners vote on the proposal. Once it passes there, both sides inform the Judge that they’ve come to an agreement and the legal issues are finalized (quickly I’d assume given the attention this is getting and the timing for the preseason and training camp). They will also have to deal with the question of whether or not to reform the union. I’d expect the owners to demand that as part of the deal to guarantee that the NFL retains it’s anti-trust exemptions. If that’s the case, then it’s a simple ballot vote by the players (I’m sure the ballots are already in place). Seems like a fairly long list of actions that need to take place, but with the prep work done the dominoes would fall quickly. So, if all of this is done by Thursday, the league immediately begins a training/info session for front office personnel concerning new rules under CBA (the new salary cap/floor being the biggest aspect). There will likely be a 3 day period where the teams can sign their own players, immediately followed by the free agency period.

  13. elvisny says: Jul 20, 2011 8:30 AM

    This seems to have happened as the agents attempted to become a third party at the negotiating table…which is disgusting.

  14. easyeddie says: Jul 20, 2011 8:31 AM

    As the dust settles on Tuesday’s unexpected brouhaha regarding the efforts of four named plaintiffs in the Brady antitrust lawsuit — or agents and/or lawyers working on their behalf — to get something for themselves as a settlement of the case approaches, one of the guys who reported that an effort was made to block the franchise tag from ever being used on Colts quarterback Peyton Manning and Saints quarterback Drew Brees reports that the issue ultimately was dropped based in part on the reaction from other players.
    ——————————————-

    The only thing longer than this lockout is the first sentence of this story.

  15. realitypolice says: Jul 20, 2011 8:33 AM

    And whoever was pushing this issue as of Tuesday grossly underestimated the extent to which the information would instantaneously trigger strong feelings that could be expressed just as instantaneously.
    ===========================

    Are you referring to yourself in the third person here?

  16. realitypolice says: Jul 20, 2011 8:34 AM

    stairwayto7 says:
    Jul 20, 2011 7:50 AM
    No deal will be comign this week! NO DEAL UNTIL SEPT 27!!!
    ============================

    I so look forward to never hearing from you again when the deal gets done this week.

  17. urlacher2000 says: Jul 20, 2011 8:41 AM

    Like most fans that aren’t lawyers……I didn’t / don’t understand most of the legal aspects of this CBA ordeal. However, I was most confused that Brady, Manning & Brees were suing the NFL. These guys have made (&/or will make) over $100 Million Dollars each over their careers (through pay and endorsements). If my company paid me that much money – - – I would promise never to sue them!

  18. fballguy says: Jul 20, 2011 8:41 AM

    Chris Kluwe…Offseason MVP.

  19. vetdana says: Jul 20, 2011 8:46 AM

    This is a perfect example of how things have changed, from the past. Opinions on issues can sprout legs and run like the devil, through this new electronic device known as the social media. People now know instantly what others are doing and thinking ! You have to be very careful about what you say and the actions you take, because an avalanche of public opinion is always close, very close behind you !

  20. fergenator says: Jul 20, 2011 8:48 AM

    @birdcrazy911….you may be on to something! The only problem is that most people aren’t angry fans of our elected officials….if the masses get fed up enough…then this might…SLAP…this is about football! ME WANTS SOME REGULAR NEWS! Training camp fodder and free agent signings…etc.

  21. firejimcadwell says: Jul 20, 2011 8:50 AM

    Look what some hack from Boston has created out of thin air.

  22. ftblfan9 says: Jul 20, 2011 8:55 AM

    So the nflpa* was angry enough to leak the story to create the backlash against its own executive members. Interesting. More interesting is if the named players were ever promised anything by the nflpa*.

  23. eagleswin says: Jul 20, 2011 9:02 AM

    Gotta love plausible deniability.

    Anyone who thinks that those players didn’t know their agents were pushing for special treatment is very trusting. When Kessler spent hours arguing for lifetime Franchise Tag exemptions for Manning and Brees, they knew nothing.

    As has been noted elsewhere, the quick news cycle and reaction to it is responsible for the players backing away from their agents actions. Keep in mind the NFLPA kept telling it’s members that they should only trust information coming from the union and then proceeded to keep it’s membership in the dark for the most part. I say this because many players over the last few months repeatedly spouted what amounted to union rhetoric and repeatedly got the facts wrong.

  24. saturn1111 says: Jul 20, 2011 9:07 AM

    Members of the NFLPA* Exec committee need to brush up on their history before becoming emotional about this issue.

    When Reggie White and co. put their asses on the line for free agency, they got special treatment: career-long freedom from the franchise tag.

    Brady and co. shouldn’t *have* to ask for *some* reward for doing the same on behalf of the league.

  25. whatswiththehate says: Jul 20, 2011 9:40 AM

    vetdana says:Jul 20, 2011 8:46 AM

    This is a perfect example of how things have changed, from the past. Opinions on issues can sprout legs and run like the devil, through this new electronic device known as the social media. People now know instantly what others are doing and thinking ! You have to be very careful about what you say and the actions you take, because an avalanche of public opinion is always close, very close behind you !
    ——————
    I agree with you 100%.

    The truly sad part to this new technology is the lack of responsibility that is lost on the part of our media. No longer do they take the time to get the facts and the truth. It’s now simply throw whatever we hear out into the wind then demand answers while pretending to be looking out for the fans.

    When are the fans going to start demand accountability from our media or are quite fine with malicious gossip being presented to us by our so called legitimate media?

  26. crumpledstiltskin says: Jul 20, 2011 9:47 AM

    The Lion of Judah opens the first four of the seven seals, which summons forth four beings that ride out on white, red, black, and pale horses.

  27. glac1 says: Jul 20, 2011 9:48 AM

    Brady, Manning and the rest need to grow up. After all Brady is still ticked that he wasn’t a first round draft choice. That sums up the type of person he is… a spoiled individual who doesn’t have a clue of real life and acts like a 12 year old. Grow up gentlemen…

  28. thevchip says: Jul 20, 2011 10:01 AM

    Why are these four players the ones always talked about? Could it be that the NFLPA has been asking for the franchise tag to be limited to being used on a player once in their career and these four players are the only ones named in the lawsuit who have ever been franchised? So some idiot somewhere thinks “those four are asking for special treatment!!” when in fact the NFLPA is asking this for ALL players.

    But no, lets just make up stories about people arguing for “hours” about the need for these four to be immediately given twenty billion dollars and 150 strippers and lifetime exemptions from the drug testing… and acting like we have “inside information” when the only “inside information” is some unnamed source in an unnamed organization who very likely knows absolutely nothing about the negotiations.

  29. xxxfixxxerxxx says: Jul 20, 2011 10:11 AM

    Haha, they are infuriated?

    How about us fans? Make this deal or don’t, but quit f@# around. Nobody cares how “they” feel.

    Unbelievable.

  30. eagleswin says: Jul 20, 2011 10:29 AM

    thevchip says:
    Jul 20, 2011 10:01 AM
    Why are these four players the ones always talked about? Could it be that the NFLPA has been asking for the franchise tag to be limited to being used on a player once in their career and these four players are the only ones named in the lawsuit who have ever been franchised? So some idiot somewhere thinks “those four are asking for special treatment!!” when in fact the NFLPA is asking this for ALL players.

    ———————————-

    Neither Mankins nor Jackson have ever been franchised. This has been pointed out repeatedly the last 2 days. Player supporters just continue to ignore the facts.

  31. eagleswin says: Jul 20, 2011 10:50 AM

    thevchip says:
    Jul 20, 2011 10:01 AM

    But no, lets just make up stories about people arguing for “hours” about the need for these four to be immediately given twenty billion dollars and 150 strippers and lifetime exemptions from the drug testing… and acting like we have “inside information” when the only “inside information” is some unnamed source in an unnamed organization who very likely knows absolutely nothing about the negotiations.

    ——————————–

    I think the one making up stories is you. None of the things you posted here has been requested.

    I don’t think anyone has disproved that Kessler argued for hours on behalf of Manning/Brees. Nor has anyone disproved that Jackson’s agent/lawyer requested special treatement.

    All that’s happened is that the players are distancing themselves from the actions of their lawyers/agents. According to the players, the agents/lawyers are making demands without their knowledge. It’s beleivable that the players hear no evil and see no evil right?

  32. thevchip says: Jul 20, 2011 11:26 AM

    No, eagleswin, the requests I made were called hyperbole, a joke aimed at all the stupid things people say that players have been demanding when there is ZERO proof of it.

    FACT: Logan Mankins has the Franchise tag. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/02/14/logan-mankins-gets-the-franchise-tag/

    FACT: Vincent Jackson has the Franchise tag. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=6124670

    I doubt you’ll change your tune or retract your statement, but maybe some of the others out there will see you are full of crap.

  33. CKL says: Jul 20, 2011 11:27 AM

    firejimcadwell says:
    Jul 20, 2011 8:50 AM
    Look what some hack from Boston has created out of thin air.

    ___________________________________
    Freeman’s a Boston writer? He’s confirming details.
    Your Colts bias is showing.

    glac1 says:
    Jul 20, 2011 9:48 AM
    Brady, Manning and the rest need to grow up. After all Brady is still ticked that he wasn’t a first round draft choice. That sums up the type of person he is… a spoiled individual who doesn’t have a clue of real life and acts like a 12 year old. Grow up gentlemen…
    ________________________
    Brady has asked for nothing as far as any of us know. Why has he never been named as wanting an exemption while Brees and Manning have? Your bias is showing as well. Methinks agent Condon is a big factor here. He’s Brees’ and Manning’s agent and a huge DB.

  34. jeffperk says: Jul 20, 2011 11:31 AM

    No matter what these 4 douche/scum bags say, they were making a grab for themselves & the spotlight was shined bright on them, which Im sure they didnt expect. Brees can claim he cares about pat players, but we know his real feelings on that!! What a bunch of spoiled brats these guys are, already have enough money to last their families for several generations & still trying to screw this deal up!

  35. nolarules says: Jul 20, 2011 11:40 AM

    Brees and Manning want to have their good names back? Easy. Fire their agents today as they are certainly the ones who were pushing for this behind closed doors. Fire them now or be known for the greed you displayed yesterday. These guys should know that they have to have a fall guy to keep their good names. Condon is it or they showed who they really are yesterday.
    Signed – a disgusted Saints fan

  36. tarheelpirate says: Jul 20, 2011 11:58 AM

    Kluwe has juice!

  37. tommyf15 says: Jul 20, 2011 12:37 PM

    twitter:Chapman_Jamie says:
    Thankfully this came out. I couldn’t imagine an employee/player accepting special treatment for these 4 guys.

    Let’s not forget that the NFLPA and the Owner’s Union are asking for special treatment FROM the plaintiffs by asking them to drop the suit.

    I’ve said this before, but the player Jeffrey Kessler should be focusing on to not drop the suit is Mike Vrabel since he has nothing to lose by going forward and nothing to gain by dropping out of it.

  38. eagleswin says: Jul 20, 2011 12:52 PM

    thevchip says:
    Jul 20, 2011 11:26 AM
    No, eagleswin, the requests I made were called hyperbole, a joke aimed at all the stupid things people say that players have been demanding when there is ZERO proof of it.

    I doubt you’ll change your tune or retract your statement, but maybe some of the others out there will see you are full of crap.

    —————————————

    Calm down there chief. You are correct that Logans and Mankins were Franchised this year. However, their beef is with money they feel they lost in 2010 when they held out. They want to be compensated for holding out last year.

    The rest of your post is also still full of holes. Their agents were asking for special treatment. Kessler did waste hours of negotiating time trying get them special treatment.

    Also, saying that the lawyers asked for 150 strippers and exemption from drug testing for those 4 players is not hyperbole.

  39. endzonezombie says: Jul 20, 2011 12:57 PM

    “And that’s one of the realities of the new media world in which we operate.”

    The new reality is that the media NOW can spread rumors and innuendo from unnamed sources that are entirely fabricated and untrue – with no penalty to credibility. This site has made hay with RUMORS instead of fact. The public still does not know for certain what negotiating strategy was used in the 11th hour to accelerate an agreement by the owners, but the media is suggesting THEy know – which is untrue.

  40. tommyf15 says: Jul 20, 2011 1:10 PM

    endzonezombie says:
    This site has made hay with RUMORS instead of fact.

    Quoted for truth, and people should keep that in mind before getting ridiculous and demanding that Drew Brees fire his agent.

    Anyway,

    1. None of the players in the suit are obligated to drop it. If they want to ask for special concessions, they have the right.

    2. The Owners Union can sign a new agreement without the suit being dropped. If they choose not to, hold them accountable for making that choice.

    3. Since it’s ten individuals that filed the suit and not the NFLPA, it’s highly questionable whether the dropping of the suit should be subject to collective bargaining.

    4. Considering that these are federally mediated talks and that the NFLPA has no juristiction over those ten players, I seriously doubt the Owners Union could go all the way in demanding the suit be dropped.

  41. firejimcadwell says: Jul 20, 2011 1:17 PM

    CKL….

    I saw it attributed to the Boston Hack. Don’t worry every city has one. Indy has Kravitz…

    I doubt Bretard or whatever he calls himself would have dared post the made up rumors if the lass Brady would have been mentioned. Talking about a colts bias… You sure as hell have one.

  42. CKL says: Jul 20, 2011 1:36 PM

    @firejim-
    Ours is Borges and was Tomase, but they are against the Pats or various members not overly for them. You don’t know the B’town media well if you think they don’t write unflattering things about Brady…some justified some not. AFAIK there aren’t any kissbutts like Kravitz.

  43. thevchip says: Jul 20, 2011 1:46 PM

    @eagleswin:

    “Also, saying that the lawyers asked for 150 strippers and exemption from drug testing for those 4 players is not hyperbole.”

    It is the textbook definition of hyperbole: “the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device or figure of speech. It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, but is not meant to be taken literally.”

    There is also zero proof the agents or Kessler were asking for special treatment for those 4 players: one “source” said it happened; multiple sources have said it didn’t. If you choose to believe it, you are just trusting one “source” over others but there is no proof of it occurring. It might not have happened at all. It might have happened, but they could have been asking for a “only one use of franchise tag per player’s career” for the whole CBA (all 1900+ players), not for these specific players named in the suit. They might have been asking for all 10 players named in the suit as part of the settlement of the suit (which the NFL owners have demanded is settled at the same time as the new CBA), not for a few specific players named in the suit. And they might have been doing exactly as reported — if you believe any one over any other based on “sources” or “reports” then you are displaying your own bias. Quit acting like it is FACT when it is NOT.

  44. firejimcadwell says: Jul 20, 2011 2:04 PM

    Kravitz, a kissbutt? obviously you don’t know much about him. If anything he’ll type away just to stir up a story, but for the most part he’s one of the worst Indy has to offer and the furthest thing from a homer or a kissbutt.

    I read something from Borges today where he wouldn’t even attribute “comments” to his own paper. Maybe that is to safe face in the news room, but call a spade a spade. Don’t ignore this issue because Bedard works at the same paper.

  45. southmo says: Jul 20, 2011 4:28 PM

    tommy15.. still hoping the anti-trust suit goes through and the NFL as we know it ceases to exist, eh?

    Well, it’s not a done deal yet. Maybe you’ll get your wish. Go Mike Vrabel!! lol

    Tell Kessler I said hi at the family get-together this Christmas.

Leave a Reply

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