Todd Haley distances Chiefs staff from NFLCA brief, too

Getty Images

When the 17 members of Mike Shanahan’s coaching staff in Washington signed a statement disagreeing with the brief filed last week by the NFL Coaches Association in support of the effort to lift the lockout, we expected that many other coaching staffs would follow suit.

Though we expected it to come more quickly, but it’s still coming.

The Chiefs have become the latest to join the list of coaching staffs to say that the NFLCA isn’t speaking for them.

“In talking to all of our guys, there was a great deal of surprise this was filed on their behalf,” Haley told the Kansas City Star.  “Nobody was aware that it was going to happen.  This was not on behalf of the coaches.”

Other coaching staffs that have expressed disagreement with the NFLCA brief include the Saints, Jaguars, Cowboys, Rams, and Texans.

That’s nearly 25 percent of the coaches that the name “NFL Coaches Association” purports to encompass.  And that’s why we should always be skeptical of any group with a name that, on the surface, implies that it speaks for a much broader group of people than it really does.

So for whom does the NFLCA really speak?  We’ll have a little more on this one later in the day.

18 responses to “Todd Haley distances Chiefs staff from NFLCA brief, too

  1. Yellow cowards. The group speaks for ex. assistant NFL coaches who know the importants of sticking together for the betterment of all assistant coaches. These current losers are to scared to support anything that puts their jobs on the line. When they get fired (and they will) the NFLCA will become paramount to them

  2. Does PFT speak for the owners? It sure looks that way. Anyone with an ounce of common sense will know that the coaches will get pressure from their bosses to side with them. Of course that possibility isn’t raised by this pro-owner website.

  3. @ duanethomas
    The NFLCA consists of people on the NFLPA* payroll, check it out with a little research on line before you bash the non-member coaches.

  4. Can’t we just consider the NFLCA statement to be officially discredited and stop writing a 500 word essay ever time another coach disavows himself of it?

  5. Hell Duane, your posts are beginning to read like something out of the “Stockyards” or maybe some grade b novel from the end of the 19th century.

    I don’t and never have thought you were a current or former NFL player, I just think you are a bitter and angry union member, SEIU maybe, public teacher perhaps, and can’t get over the fact that time has passed you by.

  6. If there was a brief submitted by the NFL Journalists Association, this site would be the first to claim that they are not part of such a group. No one would argue the point.

  7. “The NFLCA consists of people on the NFLPA* payroll, check it out with a little research on line before you bash the non-member coaches.”

    @willycents: That statement is complete BS coming from a known pro-owner shill.

  8. @ endzonezombie
    Check out the contact list on line at the NFLCA home page compared to the NFLPA* list of employees. Every contact on the list for the NFLCA excepting Larry Kennan draws a paycheck from the NFLPA* in the range of $40K to $448K.
    Mike indicates that he is going to supply information on this later today. He also has the same information on the relationship between the NFLCA and the NFLPA* employees.

    from the last line of this article:

    “So for whom does the NFLCA really speak? We’ll have a little more on this one later in the day.”

  9. The NFLCA is a coaches’ association, not a union. Not all coaches belong to that organization; however, all assistant coaches fully realize that they serve at the will of ownership. Since it is not a union, assistant coaches totally are cognizant that the association actually carries “no juice” not only with ownership but also NFL headquarters on Park Ave. Assistant coaches are allowed to file grievances over disputes with management, etc.; however, Park Ave. suits are the ones who hear the greivances. Unfortunately, assistant coaches often are reminded by ownership that there are 25,000 guys out there who would pay them to coach in the NFL. As a result, many assistant coaches tread lightly when it comes to the NFLCA.

  10. leftcoastnative says:Jun 2, 2011 11:37 AM

    “….. all assistant coaches fully realize that they serve at the will of ownership…”.
    as it is at most businesses, whether unionized or not. Granted, in most unionized businesses, there are specific procedures required to get rid of an employee, but, the employee still serves at the “convenience” of the ownership. The exception to this rule is federal govenment employees, who are protected by the Civil Service Act, which requires virtually an act of god to remove them from their job.

  11. txchief says:
    Jun 2, 2011 8:54 AM
    You can aways count in @duanethomas for a knee-jerk player union response. Who are the real “shills” around here?

    You can always count on someone from the Texas or the south to be anti-union and will fight to the death to work for peanuts.

    txchief? Jerry Jones has you brainwashed the Cowboys are SB contenders every year, so now who is the “Shill”????

  12. @duanethomas,

    Once again you have illustrated you have no clue what you’re talking about. First bishes!!!!!

Leave a Reply

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