Eric Reid, through Mark Geragos’ law firm, demands invalidation of CBA

Getty Images

If you thought the fight over the new CBA was over, think again.

Free-agent safety Eric Reid has enlisted his collusion-case lawyer, Mark Geragos, to request invalidation of the new labor deal based on differences between the version proposed to players on March 5, 2020 and the final version, dated March 15, 2020, after the players ratified the CBA by a vote of 1,019 to 959. The letter also seeks a new vote on the CBA, along with an independent investigation regarding the reason(s) for the changes.

The four-page letter dated March 30, 2020 and signed by Ben Meiselas and Ray Genco of Geragos & Geragos points to inconsistencies in Article 60, Section 4 from the March 5 version of the CBA and the March 15 version of the CBA. Article 60 contains rules regarding the NFL Player Disability & Neurocognitive Benefit Plan. The revisions from March 5 to March 15, when applied to the relevant language of the disability plan, allegedly modify offset rules claims from made on or after January 1, 2015 to claims made prior to January 1, 2015.

The March 5, 2020 and March 15, 2020 agreements definitely contain different language in Article 60, Section 4. At a minimum, the difference in language cries out of an explanation because, indeed, the language should not have changed from the version on which the players voted to the final version — especially if, as alleged, the revisions make a significant change to eligibility for and/or amount of disability payments.

It’s unclear whether the appropriate remedy is invalidation of the entire agreement plus a new vote. The easiest fix, frankly, would be to make the March 5, 2020 version of the agreement the official CBA.

The demand for a new vote isn’t surprising; Reid was an outspoken opponent of the CBA, and Geragos previously prepared a written document analyzing the deal and recommending that players reject it.

Even if a new vote were taken, the CBA likely would pass. At these uncertain times, the players likely won’t embrace further uncertainty in the form of a 2021 offer that may not be nearly as favorable as the offer they accepted, given current global public-health and economic circumstances.

NFL Players Association spokesman George Atallah tells PFT that the union is aware of the letter, and that the union currently is reviewing it.

64 responses to “Eric Reid, through Mark Geragos’ law firm, demands invalidation of CBA

  1. Of course it’s Reid. What a tool. I wonder if he is one of the overwhelming amount of players that didn’t even cast a vote.

  2. Best way to engender trust from the other side is to sneak in some late changes after the initial one has been agreed. SMDH.

  3. This guy just needs to go away. He’s a man without a team and that’s not going to change anytime soon.

  4. I don’t like it so no one can have it!
    Reid may have a point, but man, does he always come off as being disruptive.

  5. The players have been terrible at communicating to the public the bottom-line around their rationale for their perspective(s).

    Whats your why?

  6. Hasn’t the NFLPA ever heard of a “red line” (i.e., a document that shows all of the changes from the prior version…easily done with Microsoft Word)? Even the greenest of legal associates would have caught a change like this.

  7. For all of you commenters disparaging Reid because of prior bias – if you actually read the article – you’ll see that this is an egregious discrepancy with huge ramifications for players.

  8. Reid angling for another reason down the road as to why no team has signed him. He’ll do the interview circuit and self promote his martyrdom. It’s so predictable.

  9. I’m demanding invalidation of the Bears using the #2 pick on Trubisky, they should get a do-over

  10. So the guys in here support the owners in this case? The players voted on a contract, then the owners changed the language after the vote – that’s as shifty as you can get.

  11. Take your chips and get out of the casino. The owners are considering the possibility of paying players to do nothing this year.

  12. They do realize that they won’t get a deal close to this if they get out of it. The economy is not the same and this is not a good fight to have right now with what is going on. So tired of lawsuits after 1 side didn’t get there way. You voted in the union reps and it passed by the player vote. Deal with it this is an attention grab after you were cut.

  13. If they wanted this legal argument to be most effective, is Reid really the best messenger?

  14. If they did revote it would likely pass far more comfortably than the first time. Lots of talk out there of regular players wanting to change their votes after being misled by the big-money players.

  15. As a fan I would love to see a strike and actually hold out for better player safety and former player medical payments. F them owners.

  16. I call BS. I want to see copies of both. I’ll decide for myself if it “definitely changed”

    If it DID, then why is this ONE player the ONLY one who noticed or cared.

    B.S.

  17. What is the difference in the language? The word “is” is replaced by the word “are”? I could see complaining if there are changes in the wording or description of something important. I highly doubt there would be any backhanded tricks played with something of such importance to both parties.

  18. Can dislike Reid all you want, but his argument is legit if the NFL really did do what is alleged

  19. I think the majority of commenters need to put their bias of Reid aside and actually read what he’s pointing out.

  20. When the FA market is slow for your services pull a stunt like this so the league will be forced to have a team sign you to avoid another collusion case.

  21. There was already talk owners were regretting the deal. This may be great for the owners. Okay, invalidate it.

    The owners should just cancel this season due to coronavirus and see how many players are willing to sit out NEXT year for a better deal after losing a season of earnings.

  22. The comments here are priceless. This isn’t about Eric Reid, it’s about the fact the the NFL willingly changed the content of the proposed CBA AFTER submitting it to the players.

    Wake up, this is an egregious offense. The change even appears to be somewhat significant.

  23. I’m not an attorney, but I was part of a team who worked on labor agreements with our attorneys. There is always a clause at the end of the contract that says if any articles are found to be illegal, unconstitutional ( and other legalese), it only invalidates the one article and not the entire agreement. I’m certain that the NFL has the best lawyers and a similar clause is in the agreement. Nothing to see here.

  24. Newsflash to anyone who has never ever completed any type of contract, (ie bought a house, got a loan, purchased a boat, rented an apartment). Once you agree and sign a contract, you can NOT change any language in the contract and specifically without informing the other party of said changes.

    So talk about Reid all you want, what he is referring to is illegal. So yea, I hope that the next time you enter into a contract that they switch your language and change terms and we will see what you have to say then.

  25. He’s a malcontent and not long for the NFL. It shows how selfish he is, this CBA is providing a lot more money for the lower level players and retired players.

  26. Inevitably he’ll end up suing his lawyers, agent, etc. because all his money will be gone and it’ll be everybody’s fault except his own.

  27. Usually, once you put pen to paper, that’s it, deal over. But one side changing the document after a vote, well, that’s judge Judy stuff right there.

  28. Why can’t this tool go away with his buddy Kaepernick. Here he is again, setting the path for the “Poor poor me” plight. When teams see that he isn’t as good as he was, he won’t get any offers. He’ll find something to gripe about and try to bilk a few more dollars out of the NFL by claiming collusion or black balling. This trick is tiresome. Cudos to Kaepernick for getting a few dollars. Reid is only a couple years from trying this.

  29. Jackie Chiles says, “That’s totally inappropriate. It’s lewd, lascivious, salacious, outrageous.”

  30. Only in America can people’ disdain for someone who stood up for human rights they are not affected by outshadow support for that same person when they stand up for rights those same people are affected by….pft commentors can be pitiful.

  31. I’m not going to read all of the comments, because I am sure most of them are just shots at Eric Reid. I will admit that he is a poor messenger.

    HOWEVER, you can’t change the language in a collective bargaining agreement after it’s voted on. It’s illegal. It definitely warrants an investigation, regardless of what you think of the player who brought it up.

  32. vottorific says:
    March 30, 2020 at 8:52 pm
    Usually, once you put pen to paper, that’s it, deal over. But one side changing the document after a vote, well, that’s judge Judy stuff right there.
    ==============
    Lots of comments on here laying this change solely on the owners. If you read the letter (link in the article above), it is clear that the NFLPA agreed to the change in the agreement:
    “The new language in subsection (b) states that Parties agreed to amend Section 4 of the Disability Plan…”

    This was not one side changing the agreement. The union agreed to the change. If players don’t like it, they need to first look at their own representation.

  33. timpiker says:
    March 30, 2020 at 5:39 pm
    Why does a player that is not on a current roster even get a vote?
    ===========
    Any player who was on an NFL roster in 2019 was eligible to vote, including practice squad players. Even Antonio Brown.

  34. Yeah, I can’t stand this guy. Couldn’t stand him when he was on the Niners, can’t stand him now… I’m sure he’ll be wondering why he’s still unsigned when camp opens.

  35. Eric Reid has absolutely no case. The fact that a WEBSITE has a different version of what was LEGALLY ratified means jack. The legal document trumps the website. It would figure that the slimeball Reid would hire a slimeball lawyer to perpetuate a false narrative.

    Here is the simple test: Should a player take the NFL to court, which version of the agreement will be the legally binding one? Think carefully. The one the players ratified or one that appeared on a website?

    How stupid does Reid think we are?

  36. lesepi says:
    March 31, 2020 at 12:00 pm
    Eric Reid has absolutely no case. The fact that a WEBSITE has a different version of what was LEGALLY ratified means jack. The legal document trumps the website. It would figure that the slimeball Reid would hire a slimeball lawyer to perpetuate a false narrative.

    Here is the simple test: Should a player take the NFL to court, which version of the agreement will be the legally binding one? Think carefully. The one the players ratified or one that appeared on a website?

    How stupid does Reid think we are?
    ============
    So let me see if I understand. The amended agreement is NOT legal because it appears on a website (the NFLPA website, by the way). But the version that was originally on the same website, the one players were provided to read and vote on, IS legal because…? The agreement the players ratified was on a website. Mr. Reid may not have a case, but that has nothing to do with the fact that the documents were on a website.

  37. footballismybusiness says: For all of you commenters disparaging Reid because of prior bias – if you actually read the article – you’ll see that this is an egregious discrepancy with huge ramifications for players.

    If it’s so egregious, why didn’t they get a legitimate lawyer? I assume they got this ambulance chaser because Avenatti wasn’t available?

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.