Skip to content

League, union can’t strike deal on IR, trade deadline changes

Getty Images

In May, the NFL’s owners passed a pair of rule changes that require NFLPA approval.

A league source tells PFT that a recent memo from the league office to the 32 teams explained that the NFLPA has yet to approve the changes.

One adjustment would nudge the trade deadline from Week Six to Week Eight.  The other would grant each team the ability to put one player who is injured after passing the training-camp physical on temporary injured reserve, with a potential return coming after Week Six.  Currently, any player who is injured after the start of training camp must either be carried on the roster or placed on season-ending injured reserve.

Both changes arguably benefit players.  (That said, some may not want to be traded, so they’d prefer that they window close earlier not later.)  Per the source, the union hasn’t agreed to the changes because the union wants something in return for agreeing to the changes.

It one of the basic realities of collective bargaining.  If one side wants something, the other side wants something in exchange — even if the thing the first side wants helps the other side.

Complicating matters is the general atmosphere of acrimony that currently exists between the league and the union.  From the bounty brouhaha to the collusion case to the ongoing posturing as to who “won” the 2011 labor negotiations, things aren’t good right now between the league and the union, which will make it hard for the union to agree to anything that the league wants.

Permalink 20 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Top Stories
20 Responses to “League, union can’t strike deal on IR, trade deadline changes”
  1. ramofsteel says: Aug 11, 2012 6:51 PM

    Really does anyone see how sad this sounds? Can’t change 2 little rules?

  2. butthatmakestoomuchsense says: Aug 11, 2012 6:53 PM

    Complicating matters is the general atmosphere of acrimony that currently exists between the league and the union.

    This pretty much sums up where I suspect the NFLPA is coming from. Not sure why the owners would expect a cooperative relationship after everything they’ve pulled over the past 18 months.

  3. hulkhogansays says: Aug 11, 2012 6:59 PM

    Love both proposals…unfortunately, I also wouldn’t trust the league brother.

  4. mrpowers88 says: Aug 11, 2012 7:10 PM

    How about the league stops doing anything to try to help the players and give that responsibility solely to De Smith? He would obviously do an awesome job.

    Everyone keeps complaining about Goodell- atleast he’s doing his job. Can anyone name a positive thing De Smith has done since he took over the union?

  5. FinFan68 says: Aug 11, 2012 7:14 PM

    Both proposals seem to have merit. The NFLPA needs something in return for something that actually benefits them? Why? Some guys would rather be traded from a basement team to a contender (likely the trade scenario the later date is intended to prompt) and some wouldn’t, so that seems to be a push as far as their membership goes. The IR issue would benefit players immensely. Many of these guys do not want to go on IR, especially if it is an injury that might be healed by the end of the year. I don’t get what the issue is unless the NFLPA has the opinion that their membership would rather get payed for doing nothing on IR rather than be paid to be a contributor to the team.

    Pissing matches from both sides of the management/union debate are tiresome. Especially when they are just out of spite without any legitimate concerns.

  6. marthisdil says: Aug 11, 2012 7:16 PM

    Will make the league come out looking great when players have to be let go because of being injured before the start of the season.

    And when players who can be traded, aren’t because it’s too late in the season.

    The NFL can then point to the NFLPA and say “Ask your union. We proposed these things that ultimately can help players. But they didn’t want to because they wanted something in return. Too bad, so sad. We’ll keep things as they are then!”

  7. armorgan67 says: Aug 11, 2012 7:26 PM

    I’m lost, does the nflpa think that the league is trying to pull one over on them by these changes? Who’s really is pushing for these changes? If There’s so much contention then just leave it the way it is.

  8. vbe2 says: Aug 11, 2012 7:29 PM

    Death to all unions. They’ve outlived their usefulness in our society.

  9. patfanken says: Aug 11, 2012 7:33 PM

    This is why there should be an immediate call for a change in the NFLPA leadership. This is crazy. The NFLPA shoots down a rule that is 100% beneficial to the PLAYERS.

    Are the players so dumb that they can’t see that their best interests aren’t being taken care of. If I were a player and read this, it would be the last day I’d pay dues to an organization that kills a rule that is in my best interests, for the sake of POSTURING?!

    This is right up there with fighting the HGH rules to protect those guys on HGH and help them take clean players’ jobs because they have an unfair advantage. That’s common sense NFLPA style

  10. cliffordc05 says: Aug 11, 2012 7:56 PM

    At some point the players need to tell their union reps to send a message to the union. Make the agreement on common sense issues and particularly those that benefit the players without a corresponding condition. Each team could vote on these rules and send a directive to D Smith and the other jackasses who take the very suspect advice of Jeff Kessler.

  11. rhodeislandpatriotsfan says: Aug 11, 2012 8:23 PM

    This is a classic, textbook example of why I often side with NFL management over the NFLPA.

  12. packhawk04 says: Aug 11, 2012 8:26 PM

    Judging by the current lawsuits, pretty easy to say the owners won the lockout. Knowing they had tv deals on the horizon, they let the players get a little more money in exchange for total authority for goodell.

  13. istateyourname says: Aug 11, 2012 8:30 PM

    Do the dudes on IR get paid? If so, bringing one back in week six causes someone else to get cut in week six that would be 2 players getting paid minus one player getting paid equals only one player getting paid and that IS bad for the union workers…two dues payers are better than one…so DeSmiff is right, they do need to get something for this.

  14. butthatmakestoomuchsense says: Aug 11, 2012 8:37 PM

    Yeah, the NFL not being allowed to change this rule is going to be SUCH a hardship on the players. Puh-leeze.

    This is like someone that’s been treating you like garbage offering you a bite-size candy bar. The pleasure of telling that person to stick it where the sun don’t shine is more pleasurable than the taste of the candy.

  15. dryzzt23 says: Aug 11, 2012 8:45 PM

    I would NEVER trust a union, especially the NFLPA, they don’t even take care of the people they claim to represent

  16. dryzzt23 says: Aug 11, 2012 9:08 PM

    Union leaders are out for one group of people….THEMSELVES. They use whatever tactics they need to remain in power. In the NFLPA’s case their MO is to vilify the league, keep making RG appear as a dictator, and make sure that every player sees himself as some sort of “victim” who NEEDS the NFLPA’s help to get what he wants.

    But a player should never look to the union for financial, educational, or football guidance b/c they don’t make any money off helping players, just themselves

  17. hummer53 says: Aug 11, 2012 9:26 PM

    Man, there is bad blood between Goodell and just about everybody. Vilma, NFLPA, Refs, you name it. I presume the owners have his back.

  18. djstat says: Aug 11, 2012 9:54 PM

    Ever since de smith took over the union has been awful

  19. djstat says: Aug 11, 2012 10:40 PM

    Goodell represents the owners. The players declined a deal in March of 2011 that was better then the deal De smith agreed to.

    As for roger, players hate him be cause he holds them accountable. He is the principal. The nflra wa td pensions when they make six figured for part time work and they suck almost as bad as replacements.

  20. Soulman45 says: Aug 12, 2012 12:36 AM

    I don’t care if it do help my side no no NO.

Leave a Reply

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