1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Mankins, Jackson holding out for settlement, stalling CBA

Discussion in 'Miami Dolphins Forum' started by finyank13, Jul 21, 2011.

  1. finyank13

    finyank13 Reality Check

    30,718
    5,415
    113
    Jan 6, 2010
    Albert Breer harped on this last night too, that the CBA wont get done until this lawsuit does. Why do these 2 get to hold the entire process up, this cant be going over to well with the rest of the players in the league....just another reason to hate the Pats.....

    https://twitter.com/#!/realfreemancbs/statuses/94102630082682880
     
  2. PerfectTeam

    PerfectTeam Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    2,631
    1,411
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    Port St. Lucie, FL
    Yea this is ridiculous. Two guys who had had nothing to do with getting this agreement this far all of a sudden want to hold it up. Disgustingly selfish.
     
  3. Stringer Bell

    Stringer Bell Post Hard, Post Often Club Member

    44,356
    22,480
    113
    Mar 22, 2008
    Why shouldn't they do whatever they believe is in their best interest?
     
  4. NaboCane

    NaboCane Banned

    31,949
    11,899
    0
    Nov 24, 2007
    I don't blame them one bit.
     
  5. finyank13

    finyank13 Reality Check

    30,718
    5,415
    113
    Jan 6, 2010
    Because there is no grounds for it, why because they got tagged the previous year? And part of that lawsuit if I am not mistaken has language about never being able to be tagged again...so who budges? How is it okay for them to serve their self-interest (which I get) but it also screws the owners, who in the ned could get pissed as well and stand ground on this issue, which would delay this even futher...
     
  6. Desides

    Desides Well-Known Member

    38,949
    20,033
    113
    Nov 28, 2007
    Pembroke Pines, FL
    Their best interest is not being "that guy who held up football".
     
    muscle979 and Ohio Fanatic like this.
  7. Stringer Bell

    Stringer Bell Post Hard, Post Often Club Member

    44,356
    22,480
    113
    Mar 22, 2008
    IMO it is as well. But, that is their decision to make, nobody else's.
     
  8. Stringer Bell

    Stringer Bell Post Hard, Post Often Club Member

    44,356
    22,480
    113
    Mar 22, 2008
    There is grounds for it, hence the lawsuit.

    With all due respect, the delay is our primary concern, but it may not be theirs. Their primary concern is their self-interest.
     
  9. PerfectTeam

    PerfectTeam Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    2,631
    1,411
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    Port St. Lucie, FL
    If they wanted all these things they are demanding, they should have been at these meetings, helping to get this deal done. Jackson I think went to one or two meetings and don't believe Mankins was at any. How do you let guys like Dominique Foxworth and Jeff Saturday real hard to get this deal done and then decide to hold up this deal so you can get paid instead the other 1900 guys. Instead, they should get their head out of their *** do what's in the best interest of the league.
     
  10. Stringer Bell

    Stringer Bell Post Hard, Post Often Club Member

    44,356
    22,480
    113
    Mar 22, 2008
    With all due respect, its easy to say "you should give up money so I can have the NFL back" because you aren't in their shoes. If someone came to you and asked you to sacrifice financially so others could benefit, you might feel differently.

    In regards to them being at meetings, I'm sure their issues were made clear. There is a reason they were the ones on the lawsuit.
     
  11. finyank13

    finyank13 Reality Check

    30,718
    5,415
    113
    Jan 6, 2010

    String come on.....not every lawsuit means you have solid footing, alot of cases get dismissed for that very reason....

    there has to be something else....has too, or why isnt Sidney Rice invovled? or the other tagged players.....

    I mean people arent too happy about it players included, it seems almost elitest to me....

    http://mike-freeman.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/6264363/30736822
     
  12. Stringer Bell

    Stringer Bell Post Hard, Post Often Club Member

    44,356
    22,480
    113
    Mar 22, 2008
    Their lawsuit certainly has solid footing.

    Of course its "elitist", and "selfish", and plenty of other things. But its still their right.
     
  13. finyank13

    finyank13 Reality Check

    30,718
    5,415
    113
    Jan 6, 2010
    okay what am I missing? what is lawsuit about......?

    They are suing because they dont want to be tagged again? Is that the crux of it? They are getting paid salary of the top 5 on avg, so it isnt like they are Chris Johnson-ing it....what is this about, maybe I dont have all my facts straight....is that it?

    In the end I think they get stuck with possibly being able to get tagged again, but get a chunk of change for their troubles....so it is all about the money, but from the reports it doesnt name everybody that has a legit right to this suit, and they are esstentially giving away free money, so why isnt everybody on board this suit....?

    Thats why I say it has to be something else...
     
  14. Dol-Fan Dupree

    Dol-Fan Dupree Tank? Who is Tank? I am Guy Incognito.

    40,533
    33,035
    113
    Dec 11, 2007
    According to Mankins agent, he didn't make any demands.

    http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...nkins-apparenty-isnt-happy-with-jeff-kessler/
     
  15. Paul 13

    Paul 13 Chaotic Neutral & Unstable Genius Staff Member

    85,620
    51,681
    113
    Dec 3, 2007
  16. Stringer Bell

    Stringer Bell Post Hard, Post Often Club Member

    44,356
    22,480
    113
    Mar 22, 2008
    They are suing the NFL for violating anti-trust laws. Its no different than the lawsuits brought forth by Brady or Brees or Manning. They're saying that the NFL is violating the law, and it has caused them to make less money because of that.

    In order for the CBA to be agreed upon, the owners want them to drop their lawsuits. Everybody else has agreed to this, presumably because they have gotten everything they wanted. But Jackson and Mankins have apparently not gotten what they wanted, and they still feel the NFL's business practices are and will cause them to make less money.

    In regards to who was named on the lawsuit, I assume they put Brady, Brees, and Manning on there because they are the most recognized and beloved by fans. Nobody is going to say Drew Brees is a scumbag. Jackson and Mankins were put on the lawsuit because they were two of the guys who were most adversely affected financially by the NFL's opting out of the CBA and having 2010 be an uncapped year. There were not many players that lost money because of that.
     
    finyank13 likes this.
  17. RevRick

    RevRick Long Haired Leaping Gnome Club Member

    7,191
    3,940
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    Thomasville, GA
    So someone can sign a contract, presumably understanding all of the wording in that contract, and when the course of events under which the contract was signed then leads to that person finding that they were not going to be rewarded as they anticipated, and then they violated the contract they signed by not performing the duties required under the contract, they thereby have the right to sue because the contract they signed was an illegal contract in their view. No wonder Shakespeare wrote of the "Day the hung all the lawyers." Might cure the bovine scatology here and the problem in congress at the same time.
     
  18. JMHPhin

    JMHPhin Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    7,684
    3,323
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Ohio
    here is where they are wrong, when they were tagged, it was part of a deal that the union agreed to. therefore, they were not wronged in any way. They have no grounds legally, they cannot be tagged now as there is no cba. They dont have to settle, but they cant win. They were tagged and that tag was a bartgained item in an agreed CBA. They cannot hold the process if the owners drop the global settlement issue. Mankins and Jackson dont have to vote for the agreement that is their right, if it passes, they have to live by the agreed rules.
     
  19. JMHPhin

    JMHPhin Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    7,684
    3,323
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Ohio
    right but at the time theyu were exempt from antitrust, they cant win that lawsuit
     
  20. Stringer Bell

    Stringer Bell Post Hard, Post Often Club Member

    44,356
    22,480
    113
    Mar 22, 2008
    What contract are you referring to?
     
  21. Stringer Bell

    Stringer Bell Post Hard, Post Often Club Member

    44,356
    22,480
    113
    Mar 22, 2008
    Who is exempt from anti-trust?
     
  22. JMHPhin

    JMHPhin Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    7,684
    3,323
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Ohio
    The NFL with a CBA, that is part ofteh CBA, that is why the union decertified, so that they lose their antitrust protection and therefore can sue the lockout violated antitrust. The franchise tag in previuous years isnt a violation because they did it with an agreement in teh CBA
     
    finyank13 and Stringer Bell like this.
  23. Stringer Bell

    Stringer Bell Post Hard, Post Often Club Member

    44,356
    22,480
    113
    Mar 22, 2008
    Yes, but Jackson and Mankins still have the ability to proceed with their lawsuits.
     
  24. JMHPhin

    JMHPhin Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    7,684
    3,323
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Ohio
    Right they do, but it is dumb and that is the point, they are holding up a deal for a losing case, thus being male genitalia
     
  25. Stringer Bell

    Stringer Bell Post Hard, Post Often Club Member

    44,356
    22,480
    113
    Mar 22, 2008
    As I said before, that is entirely their decision. I don't think their case is a losing one necessarily. Would I prefer they make personal sacrifice for my entertainment? Sure. But I'm not going to pass judgement on them if they choose not to.
     
  26. JMHPhin

    JMHPhin Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    7,684
    3,323
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Ohio
    So how can they win? the player agreed to the use of the franchise tag and the terms of use, did the nfl violate any terms? they followed the neg agreement so i cant see any road to success
     
  27. RevRick

    RevRick Long Haired Leaping Gnome Club Member

    7,191
    3,940
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    Thomasville, GA
    The contract under which they held out, then played, and were paid last year.
     
  28. Stringer Bell

    Stringer Bell Post Hard, Post Often Club Member

    44,356
    22,480
    113
    Mar 22, 2008
    And now they cannot play football unless they are willing to subject themselves to the same rules, which they believe to be illegal. But the problem is, there was no CBA when the lawsuits were filed.
     
  29. PerfectTeam

    PerfectTeam Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    2,631
    1,411
    113
    Nov 25, 2007
    Port St. Lucie, FL
    I'll ask you this then, if your the one doing all the hard work to get this settled and then someone at the last minute comes in demanding money without having done any of the work how would you feel especially if they are making your financial situation worse? That's what Jackson was doing until he backed off his stance. Guys are losing workout bonuses, rookies are taking odd jobs to make money. So you are going to pro long these guys getting paid just so you can make your situation better?

    http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/23/jackons-wise-decision-comes-better-late-than-never/

    This actually sums it up perfectly for me.
     
  30. Stringer Bell

    Stringer Bell Post Hard, Post Often Club Member

    44,356
    22,480
    113
    Mar 22, 2008
    Your argument doesn't apply, because those people that did all the hard work can still sign a CBA without Jackson. The NFL is the party that refuses to sign the CBA without the suit being dropped.
     
  31. JMHPhin

    JMHPhin Season Ticket Holder Club Member

    7,684
    3,323
    113
    Nov 27, 2007
    Ohio
    True but the alleged violation occurred when there was one. You can side with the players all you want. I am not on the owners side nor the players. I think they are both being petty at this point. I think if the deal is done, the final points shouldnt cost games. Now it is just the pttiness of who dictates then end terms, very petty.

    Players and owners alike can exercise their rights the way they see fit. Doesnt mean they are in the right, that it is logical. You cannot win a case where as a union you gave the owners the right to do what you are suing them for doing, it is just a shot in hopes they will settle something rather than having to go to court. As you can see Jackson has come out saying he would drop with no conditions if it comes to that point. Which means it was just a ploy to have, a card against the owners if you will.

    Basically it is a joke, this whole thing is a sham, but as much as I try ( I made it a day and a half) I hold ouit hope both willact like adult stewards of teh game and settle this.
     

Share This Page