Not so fast on Mankins demands

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from D-DAY. Show D-DAY's posts

    Not so fast on Mankins demands

    Updating previous items, ESPN's Adam Schefter reports that Patriots LG Logan Mankins has "made no specific financial requests" relating to his franchise tag in the new Collective Bargaining Agreement.

    A Yahoo Sports report stated that Mankins asked for compensation from the league, but Schefter says he just wants to be an unrestricted free agent. Vincent Jackson, per Schefter, is the only player who has formally requested money back for having to sit out games last year and now sporting the franchise tender. Mankins still seems likely to play 2011 in New England.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Not so fast on Mankins demands

    you left out the part that says yet.

    "The update: "A league source confirmed the demands made by Jackson's agents, but Mankins and his agent, Frank Bauer, have not given their damages or repayment number to the NFL Players Association or its attorneys yet, according to the source."

    A key word is "yet", but this adds a new twist to reports."

    But I still believe his demand to be a FA is still valid. I'm sure once he's told no that a financial demand will soon follow
     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Not so fast on Mankins demands

    I wouldn't say the union has been out of line the entire time. Both sides have had their moments during this entire thing but imo the union has been just a bit slimier about it

    But that's what the union gets for making it more public then what the owners have done. Who knows what went on behind the curtians. All I know is I heard more venom coming from the union then I did from the owners and more about what the owners were willing to give in the CBA then I heard from the union.
     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from dna53. Show dna53's posts

    Re: Not so fast on Mankins demands

    1,880 players aregoing to be very mad if they hold things up..60maxpowero.com
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Dessalines. Show Dessalines's posts

    Re: Not so fast on Mankins demands

    I get confused, as to whether this is a forum for labor law of football.  I'd prefer the latter.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from tenacioust. Show tenacioust's posts

    Re: Not so fast on Mankins demands

    Unions suck
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from ChasaB. Show ChasaB's posts

    Re: Not so fast on Mankins demands

    these "slaves", and their multi million dollar demands.

    Bleh, just give me football.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from CaptFoxboro. Show CaptFoxboro's posts

    Re: Not so fast on Mankins demands

    In Response to Re: Not so fast on Mankins demands:
    [QUOTE]Unions suck
    Posted by tenacioust[/QUOTE]

     Unions are actually a good thing ... 

     Our whole country is a union .

     The United States of America
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Not so fast on Mankins demands

    In Response to Re: Not so fast on Mankins demands:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Not so fast on Mankins demands :  Unions WERE ONCE a good thing ...   Some remain a good thing while most ruin the whole country.  The United States of America is going broke paying them
    Posted by CaptFoxboro[/QUOTE]

    There I fixed it for you
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Not so fast on Mankins demands

    The demands of the 15 plaintiffs in the Brady suit aren't necessarily the demands of the union.  Despite what many think, the talks that have been going on are not a labor negotiation between the NFLPA and the NFL, they are settlement talks between the 15 plaintiffs and the 33 defendants in the Brady et al anti-trust suit.  So far, what has been going on is that the 15 plaintiffs are agreeing that they will drop their charges against the NFL if (1) the players re-certify their union and (2) the re-certified union and the NFL agree on a CBA like the one being discussed.  In addition to this main request, the 15 players have a right to make other (individual) requests in return for dropping their charges.  I suspect the NFL gives in because the NFLPA has no power to make Mankins, Brees, Manning, Brady or any of the other plaintiffs agree to a settlement they don't like, and I doubt the NFL wants to hold a settlement up to prevent a handful of guys from becoming free agents.  If the NFL doesn't give in, Mankins et al may very well refuse to sign a settlement agreement, which means the anti-trust suit remains alive.  I'm not sure what happens if the players re-certify and agree to a CBA in the meantime (which I guess they could do), but I imagine the anti-trust suit would still continue. It would be interesting to hear from a lawyer on what happens should Mankins et al refuse to agree to a settlement, but the NFLPA and NFL still are able to reach (independently of the lawsuit) an agreement on re-certification and a CBA.  What happens to the plaintiffs at that point? Can they continue their suit and also play?  I'd love to hear a legal opinion on this one. 


     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from danemcmenamin. Show danemcmenamin's posts

    Re: Not so fast on Mankins demands

    I really think they should pay him, if it wasn't enough that he's one of the best guards in the league (he's been called for holding 5 times in 5 years, can't believe that) It's about whether the CBA will happen or not. Pay him, this team has so much money and cap room pay him and forget about it. It's the patriots window this is it we're ready to roll not to be proud it's not over a bad player it's over a really really great player. Time to sign him and move on, this is the national FOOTBALL league let's play and let's win the superbowl. I love the pats but they can't be so up their own butts all the time, can someone actually explain to me what the implications of paying Mankins are? 
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from danemcmenamin. Show danemcmenamin's posts

    Re: Not so fast on Mankins demands

    Before you kill me on this I know they're over payed and they don't really deserve the astronomical amount of money they get. But why let it ruin this year. The players are all the same and that's the way they are (except Brady) get used to it the owners made it that way in the first place over years and years of raising contract values. Mankins will be payed what he wants bottom line the only team losing out will be the patriots because they're losing a top 2 guard. Bottom line!!
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Not so fast on Mankins demands

    Pro - normally I would agree with your post with the exception that these demands are being linked to Kessler who is one of the top lawyers for the NFLPA. So regardless if he's rogue or not he's the acting representative for the NFLPA currently and thus these demands are being brought by the NFLPA
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Not so fast on Mankins demands

    In Response to Re: Not so fast on Mankins demands:
    [QUOTE]Before you kill me on this I know they're over payed and they don't really deserve the astronomical amount of money they get. But why let it ruin this year. The players are all the same and that's the way they are (except Brady) get used to it the owners made it that way in the first place over years and years of raising contract values. Mankins will be payed what he wants bottom line the only team losing out will be the patriots because they're losing a top 2 guard. Bottom line!!
    Posted by danemcmenamin[/QUOTE]

    No killing you from me.  I think they should have signed Mankins a year before his contract was up.  Waiting so long to re-sign a top player working on a low-cost rookie contract was dumb in my opinion.  But the Pats may have been (rightly) more concerned with re-signing Brady and Wilfork, so Mankins' contract was put on the back burner and, when an offer was finally made (before Brady was re-signed) it wasn't fully competitive (despite what Rusty and others on this site will say), probably because the Pats were nervous about where the Brady deal would end up and therefore didn't want to spend too much on Mankins. Unfortunately, not addressing the Mankins situation early created a lot of bad blood between the team and a player who had really done everything you could ask for to earn the right to a new and better deal.


     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from kebbe. Show kebbe's posts

    Re: Not so fast on Mankins demands

     The franchise tag gives Mankins a salary of the average pay of the top five offensive linemen,not the average of the top five guards but the average of the top five offensive lineman which means the average of the top five paid offensive tackles,centers and guards.Anyone want to make the case that a guard,any guard,is as important to a team as the top five left offensive tackles or the best right offensive tackles in the league or perhaps even the top three of four centers.Even if you regard Mankins as the best guard in the league(and I do believe he is the best and should be paid as such)It's a tough case to argue that he is the best and most important  offensive lineman  in the league primarily because of the position he pays.Guards simply are not as critical to the success of an offensive line.One indication of this is the draft where the top offensive tackles go high while the top centers and guards go later.If Manning,Brees,Jackson and/or Mankins can hold up an agreement for the two thousand or so players NFL players and thirty-two teamssomething is terribly awry.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Not so fast on Mankins demands

    In Response to Re: Not so fast on Mankins demands:
    [QUOTE]Pro - normally I would agree with your post with the exception that these demands are being linked to Kessler who is one of the top lawyers for the NFLPA. So regardless if he's rogue or not he's the acting representative for the NFLPA currently and thus these demands are being brought by the NFLPA
    Posted by PatsEng[/QUOTE]


    In this particular instance, though, he's representing the plaintiffs, not the NFLPA, though you are right that he is also an outside counsel to the NFLPA. 


    Remember, the person linking the players' demands with Kessler is an anonymous NFL source who is speculating on where the demand is arising . . . this isn't the same thing as a fact. Even so, I think Kessler is just doing his duty to his clients if he is the source of the demand.  If the new CBA doesn't help Mankins (or any of the other plantiffs), I don't blame them for asking for special consideration for their own situations in return for dropping their suit.  Something similar was done in the settlement of the Reggie White anti-trust suit as well.  I just can't see Mankins agreeing to a settlement that leaves him locked up as a franchise player for another two years.  Similarly, why would Manning agree to a deal that locks him up?  These players have legitimate demands which may, I think, be at odds to some degree with the overall NFLPA interest in getting a deal done.  That's why some special deals for the plaintiffs are likely in order just to move the settlement forward. If the plaintiffs don't agree to settle, then there is no hope for a quick CBA, I don't think, though again I'd like to hear a lawyer comment on next steps if the case isn't settled but the NFLPA and NFL are ready to agree to re-certification of the union and a new CBA. 
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Not so fast on Mankins demands

    Pro - he's listed as the lead counsel for the NFLPA. This was what I was talking about that the decertification was a sham. He was the lead counsel before the decertification, the lead counsel for the Brady suit and the NFLPA lead counsel during negotiations.

    Even if he's linked he's still the lead counsel for the NFLPA so if he is advising players in this direction he's advising them on behalf of the NFLPA.

    I don't blame the players for trying to get what they can but when a multi billion dollar industry that employs tens of thousands of people during the year is on the cusp of completing a deal beneficial to both sides for a representative of the NFLPA in any form to try to toss a monkey wrench in the deal in an attempt to squeeze an extra penny out and just out of plain spite to the owners well that's where I draw the line
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from LazarusintheSanatorium. Show LazarusintheSanatorium's posts

    Re: Not so fast on Mankins demands

    I'm gonna have to agree with the unbelievable st#pid people on this one- RidingwiththeKing, PatsEnd, & tenacious...  I personally believe that IF and only IF we can finally break the backs of the few remaining Unions, far less than anytime within the past 60 or 70 years ago, in this country, COUPLED WITH continuing to give massive tax breaks for the top 5% of wealthy in this Country (those "ultra-Ultra Rich"), In order so that the can continue <reword: start> to infuse & re-invest in The US's Economy, and create jobs & opportunities for ANY of the rest of us, AND all the while <THIS is the key!> KEEP GOVERNMENTS SWAY & INTERACTIONS as small as possible...haha, I mean, At least in terms of the economy, we should keep as much governmental checks and balances out of the ECONOMY (b/c I for 1, personally believe industry wide monopolies & corporations controlling 10 more corporations, can and WILL, ultimately police themselves in terms of finally "transcending" and rising above those antiquated human emotions of seeking greed <more greed> and power <more power>); And so, like I stated, SMALLER government control in the ECONOMY alone should do the trick (B/c I personally believe the MORE government we have EVERY single place elsewhere, completely across the board, IS a must=i.e. NO pro-choice <govt decides>, NO freedom of speech...haha, less civil liberties at all in fact <govt, govt, govt...again-NEEDED: More private watch groups policing citizens, and No need for an actual judge to write a warrant for any sort of tapping, etc.>...

    Again...IF we could finally, Just FINALLY start cracking further (even further) down on individual rights & freedoms, while keeping oligarchies free to do whateverTH they so choose (they'll choose "right", just trust me here on this), AND at the same time start to shut down &/or completely shut-off some of our spending on various <i.e. numerous /> Social Programs to poor, underpriviliged, (i.e. always lazy people), and I guess I should add the middle class here (i.e. these are the people who completely across the board did st#pid things to become worse off, and/or just are too d#mn st#pid to be rich themselves)...

    ....ONLY THEN (if mine and others) Brilliant & doomed to SUCCEED, plan is finally enacted...then, we can begin to right this US Ship (of note: not the "Constitution"; I was thinkin' more like "The Enterprise"). 

    Now, are you d#mb sh#ts WITH Me, Or not?!?  
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from tcal2-. Show tcal2-'s posts

    Re: Not so fast on Mankins demands

    Who cares,  We are still winning it all with or without Mankins.  How many rings does he have anyway?
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Not so fast on Mankins demands

    Laz your satire is showing

    but seriously unions at one point were needed and in some cases still are needed but most have become antiquated, corrupt and power hungry. Time to balance the system in a financial crisis and reign in public/government spending as well as closing the loopholes on large cooperations. Closing tax loopholes, balancing the budget (ie reducing government not enlarging it), enticing small business and innovation, and breaking the unions that are crippling American business that were once cornerstones of world industry is the only to come out of this economic crisis alive. BTW allowing drilling for oil and reducing the foreign oil dependance would greatly help in reducing operation costs for all business and citizen livelihood. Such as shale oil which actually has minimal enviromental affects compared to drilling wells. Of whice it's estimateed the US has 1.5–2.6 trillion barrels worth of shale oil, by far and away the most in the world that we aren't tapping into
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: Not so fast on Mankins demands

    Of course Tom Brady is not rumored to be trying to derive any personal gain from the lawsuit which bears his name.

    He is not only a better player, but a better man than any of the rest of these avarice ridden plaintiffs.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from sportsbozo1. Show sportsbozo1's posts

    Re: Not so fast on Mankins demands

    If these cry babies continue to request ridiculous demnds tell them to jump off a bridge! Really it's reached a sad state,Vincent Jackson is a bum! If Mankins follows the lead of this gready moron then I hope they grant him free agency and he is blackballed by the rest of the NFL owners. Same thing for Brees and Manning. I know in my profession if I do something which reflects poorly on my company I get fired or released and then my prior employers blacklist me from employment.. So whats good for my profession should be good for the NFL players..
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from LazarusintheSanatorium. Show LazarusintheSanatorium's posts

    Re: Not so fast on Mankins demands

    In Response to Re: Not so fast on Mankins demands:
    [QUOTE]Laz your satire is showing but seriously unions at one point were needed and in some cases still are needed but most have become antiquated, corrupt and power hungry. Time to balance the system in a financial crisis and reign in public/government spending as well as closing the loopholes on large cooperations. Closing tax loopholes, balancing the budget (ie reducing government not enlarging it), enticing small business and innovation, and breaking the unions that are crippling American business that were once cornerstones of world industry is the only to come out of this economic crisis alive. BTW allowing drilling for oil and reducing the foreign oil dependance would greatly help in reducing operation costs for all business and citizen livelihood. Such as shale oil which actually has minimal enviromental affects compared to drilling wells. Of whice it's estimateed the US has 1.5–2.6 trillion barrels worth of shale oil, by far and away the most in the world that we aren't tapping into
    Posted by PatsEng[/QUOTE]

    Sorry pal... "Reducing dependance on foreign oil," "Seriously and FULLY exploring viable, cleaner, long-term Alternative Energy Solutions," and LMFAO- "Closing loopholes & placing ANY sorta regulatory check on Mega-Corporations, <whom btw- Account INFINITELY & far more negative consequences within US's current financial status, in terms of sending jobs oversees, outsourcing jobs, and cutting back on most if not all of the former numerous benefits they once offered their employees...much more than the few remaining unions />",....anyway=NOT a part of MINE (and others) masterfully brilliant right-wing save-clause, Which I believe MUST be excercised here & now...
     

    Right now?  Free reign to oligarchies in the economy without not so much as a single peephole into their trade and business practices...  Right now?  Continuing tax-breaks towards those very top percentile of Wealthy Americans, who've continued to secure more wealth & power while the remaining 97% or more, of US citizens, have struggled...the key here being my notion, that once either these guys get so much $ that they don't even know what to do with, OR they finally get secure enough to realize that God Almighty couldn't come down and change their power securement, wealth advances, and tax breaks...ever=THEN, we'll start to see that all-too-impt, trickle down effect to the rest of Us.  

    But... In the meantime, we'll simply have to make due, by cutting as many Social Programs as humanly possible (Ask me, "Ya think it's gonna be easier unseatting some huge power-broker, delving into their records, dealing with litigation & red-tape, and most imptly, disrupting my future campaign funds...OR, takin' away a few million people's 70 bucks a month in food stamps...?"  Right, me too.  Food stamps it is).  This is the here & now, time to be practical, if not smart.  Anyway, we'll make sure there's no stink about it, by passing as many laws placed on personal freedom & individual rights as possible, all in the name of "Homeland Security" (or whatever else I can think of in the interum).  

    Anyway, this has success written all over it, so try not to rock the boat with any "potentially beneficial" but "entirely implausible" additions that you think prudent, but nevertheless, will never be, o.k.?  
     

Share