NFL under impression pending offer will be accepted by NFLPA

Getty Images

Lost amid all the reports and comments regarding the meetings and discussions among the NFL Players Association regarding a new labor deal is the fact that the meetings and discussions followed months of negotiations that culminated in a tangible proposal for the NFLPA to meet about and discuss.

Per a league source, the NFL extended its latest proposal under the impression that the NFLPA will accept it.

It’s no different than a negotiation among lawyers to settle a lawsuit. The lawyers strike a possible deal, and the lawyers then sell the deal to their clients. The league believes that NFLPA leadership will be able to sell the deal, based on 17 games, to its client.

Whether that does or doesn’t happen remains to be seen. On Thursday, NFLPA leadership received unexpected pushback from the Executive Committee and board of player representatives. And here’s the question to which no one knows the answer: What happens if the union says “no thanks”?

The league may say to the NFLPA, “The offer is the offer. It’s not getting any better.” And if that happens, the question then becomes whether the league means it.

If the league means it, the question becomes whether the NFLPA will change its mind. And if the NFLPA doesn’t change its mind, the question becomes whether a work stoppage is coming.

19 responses to “NFL under impression pending offer will be accepted by NFLPA

  1. I don’t see what the big deal is for ONE extra game in the name of player safety. If the average “career” is 3.4 years, that amounts to a little more than 3 games over their NFL lifespan. That extra money can be used by the little guys. It’s the big money players like Sherman who don’t need the cash.

  2. I am spear-heading the campaign to elect Russell Okung the next NFLPA President. As a memeber of the Executive Committee he has demonstrated the strong leadership and vision necessary to lead the NFLPA into this next decade. Rest assured, under his reign the players will get their fair share. The owners know it and are trying to ram this deal down the players throat.

  3. Despite all the posturing, I really dont think either side wants a work stoppage. The NFL likely does not want the bad press or lost revenue, and the NFLPA likely understands the precarious position of alienating fans after the National Anthem debacle.

  4. If it’s that much of a no go, players should strike before they get locked out.

    Some previous speculation of each player only being eligible for 16 of the 17 games or X # of snaps per season would potentially be a starting point for compromise.

  5. sityourselfdown says:
    February 2, 2020 at 6:35 pm

    17 games compromises the last 50 years of passing records.

    ————————–
    50 years ago there were 14 game seasons. Before that there were 12 game seasons. No one was concerned about records during those expansions.

  6. Does anyone know if the 17th game will be a neutral site game for every team? Or will half the teams get an extra home game?

  7. Russell Kieng is a disgrace and will ruin the league. He does not have strong leadership and lives in fantasy land.

  8. C
    NinoBrown says:
    February 2, 2020 at 6:41 pm

    If it’s that much of a no go, players should strike before they get locked out.

    Some previous speculation of each player only being eligible for 16 of the 17 games or X # of snaps per season would potentially be a starting point for compromise.

    4

    12

    Rate This

    __________________

    It should be about compromise here. Thanks for neg votes, players won’t get every concession and 17 game season is reported to be THE sticking point. If reports are true, the NFL has already moved off marijuana discipline which is major victory for PA.

  9. Per a league source, the NFL extended its latest proposal under the impression that the NFLPA will accept it.
    ————————
    Oh please. Does anyone in their right mind BELIEVE anything an unnamed league source leaks? Is this the same guy that leaked the lie to Mort? Silly season in full bloom.

  10. greg3117 says:
    February 2, 2020 at 6:27 pm

    I don’t see what the big deal is for ONE extra game in the name of player safety. If the average “career” is 3.4 years, that amounts to a little more than 3 games over their NFL lifespan. That extra money can be used by the little guys. It’s the big money players like Sherman who don’t need the cash.
    ———————————
    They should go back to 14 games. Guess you love the 3rd string QB going against the FA QB games.

  11. Players should propose return to 14 games. Owners want 17. They could compromise on 16 games. Two-thirds of the way to owners’ position, win for the owners.

  12. blahblah5528 says:
    February 2, 2020 at 8:38 pm

    Players should propose return to 14 games. Owners want 17. They could compromise on 16 games. Two-thirds of the way to owners’ position, win for the owners.

    ______________

    They should. They will almost certainly get locked out but they should.

  13. Nino Brown. The players cannot strike while the current CBA is in force. It’s part of the CBA. Players cannot strike and owners cannot lock out during the CBA

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.