Blog Entry

The Daily Shoutout

Posted on: July 20, 2011 7:09 am
Edited on: July 20, 2011 8:18 am
  •  
 
GREED? Minnesota punter Chris Kluwe was one of the few people -- media, players -- with the guts to tell the truth. He went to Twitter to do it: "Sigh, and once again greed is the operative byword. Congrats [Drew] Brees, [Peyton] Manning, [Logan] Mankins, and [Vincent] Jackson for being ‘that guy’. #douchebags."

Kluwe didn't back down when asked later about his tweet. He was angry over Brees, Manning, Mankins and Jackson slowing progress on a new collective bargaining agreement with personal demands. “The thing is we’re so close to having a deal done and to kind of pull that at the last minute it feels kind of like blackmail," he told the Minneapolis Star-Tribune newspaper. "We all out the owners when they do crap like that and it’s only fair to call out our own people when they do the same thing. I’m against hypocrisy wherever it’s at. Just finish the deal up so we can get the season going.”

Kluwe wasn't the only player angry over what Manning et al were doing, he was just one of the few willing to publicly express that anger. Members of the NFLPA executive committee, meeting in Washington as the story broke, were infuriated, one player told me. "They want blood," that person said.

That may explain why in the end it was leaked to the Boston Herald that any idea of the plaintiffs receiving special consideration has been now abandoned. It also explains why Brees, Manning and Jackson issued denials they were looking for special consideration after Yahoo! sports, the Boston Globe and myself reported they were. Profootballtalk.com broke some aspects of this story a few weeks ago. There was too much heat coming down on the players from both the outside and inside.

Brees said he never asked for anything special.

Manning said through his agent he didn't either.

Jackson said on Twitter he didn't.

And they're 100 percent correct. None of those players themselves asked for special considerations. Not one of them.

Their lawyers did.

That was the problem. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the league, to me, actually do deserve special compensation. They stuck their necks out.

The problem Kluwe and others had was twofold. First, while what the lawyers representing Manning, Brees, Mankins and Jackson were doing was within their rights, no CBA can be signed without all plaintiffs agreeing and it is accurate that the four men were basically slowing progress on a deal because lawyers representing them were seeking special considerations. That's a fact.

Second, how much money is enough? Certainly, owners have at times acted greedily during this lockout, no question, but what lawyers representing Brees and Manning were doing in particular -- seeking more compensation while slowing down the talks -- came off as greedy, too. The two men are millionaires many times over. They're set for life. Their demands were stopping a deal for the rest of the league many of whom aren't nearly as wealthy.

So here we are. A deal remains near. It'll get done.

But this was not the greatest moment for those four men. Not at all.

Or the lawyers representing them.
  •  
Category: NFL
Comments

Since: Jun 2, 2008
Posted on: July 20, 2011 7:05 pm
 

The Daily Shoutout

A power play by some rich players.  Crazy.  I have a ton of things to say about this and the money they make, and the amount of time they complain about owners, that actually had to do something with their life besides workout and play a game.  I just heard N. Suh say that they want a pension and lifetime health insurance just like everyone else gets that works for a company.  Nobody in the US gets that anymore, except for politicians and UAW members, both bullsheeotch.  But Jackson, from SD, asking for a release or lawsuit money, did he not miss a bunch of games last year because of his indescretions, shut your arse up, go to work/game, and earn your dough.  And they say this life is tough, and deserves to have a lifetime of insurance.  How about the guy/gal that works in a papermill/logger/steel/auto/constru

ction that works for 35-40 years, comes out with no hearing, no knees or hips, no back, and gets medicare.  Same thing, chose their profession, same physical result, yet, rare pension, and no lifelong health.  Annoyed, but cannot do a thing about it.



Since: Jul 12, 2011
Posted on: July 20, 2011 7:02 pm
 

The Daily Shoutout

For these four player not to know what there lawyers were doing, is hard to believe, It's nice to have Chris Kluwe speak up i wish more of the average player would speak so we the fans would know there feeling.



Since: Jan 28, 2007
Posted on: July 20, 2011 5:06 pm
 

The Daily Shoutout

Ridiculous Franchise Tag??  The only thing ridiculous about it is the amount they make for that one year.  Its the only thing that will allow a team to retain its player at a huge price.  Its sad when these players think its the right thing to do when they sue their employer.  go play in the UFL if you think that would be better.  Jerks!!!



Since: Jul 8, 2011
Posted on: July 20, 2011 4:31 pm
 

The Daily Shoutout

I'm a pats fan but I am sick of mankins whining...let him turn down the franchise millions and go try to find a real job..same for jackson, another whiny loudmouth from a team full of them in SD




Since: Sep 22, 2006
Posted on: July 20, 2011 1:55 pm
 

The Daily Shoutout

Uh...no. Brees is under contract for another year. He was not looking for any special consideration. 

If anyone was looking for anything special it was Jackson, or Manning, both of whom have that ridiculous franchise tag on them and are currently free agents who are not able to test the market.

If anything, asking the court to exempt one from the franchise tag paves the way to get rid of the franchise tag altogether, which, I'm pretty sure, the players would love.

The punter for the Vikings is just another clueless individual mouthing off on friggin' Twitter. 

The fact is that Brees, Manning, Brady and the rest DID stick their necks out AGAINST the NFL and stand to possibly suffer the consequences from the league for doing so.   The league is a billionaires fraternity who seem to play by their own set of rules.

In 1987 Jim Finks, the GM of The Saints, refused a raise to Bobby Hebert, the QB at the time, and there was no free agency in place. Hebert sued the NFL.  The NFL, as a result, had to set in place a series of Free Agency plans which eventually led to what we have now. The league boys then turned around and, in essence, "let Finks have it" when it came time to elect a new commissioner. Finks, who had previously been a shoe in based upon his league wide respect level from owners, history of turning the Vikings and Bears into Champions and his role in the unprecedented turn around of the woebeggon Saints, lost out in the election to Paul Tagliabue.   The NFL doesn't forget who crosses them.

The Plaintiff's lawyers are 100% correct in what they are doing. Exemption from Franchise tag? Is that all they are asking? wow. Big deal. You'd think they were asking for that AND damages, and court costs, and relocation fees...

Good Grief. The players ought to be thankful these guys stood up for them and stuck their necks out against the owners.



Since: Jul 27, 2010
Posted on: July 20, 2011 12:38 pm
 

The Daily Shoutout

If Brees, manning and the other two didn't want to be singled out for this, they should ahve instructed their lawyers against this request. Even if it was solely the lawyers decision to request anything, they are representing the client and therefore, represent the interests and desires of the client. Brees and Manning are just as much at fault for not telling them explicitly to drop it, just as if they had told them to keep going. I'm not trying to condemn them as evil or anything like that, but hiding behind a lawyer is not a valid excuse. It's the same deal with the personal conduct policy. Is the NFL getting arrested for being drunk and disorderly? no, but the players represent the NFL and their actions reflect upon the league. Did Manning and Brees request this "special treatement"? Maybe not, but their lawyers represent them and what they do directly reflects the intent of the client. Just man up and say it was a stupid move and it wasn't meant to be detrimental to anyone. Apologize and then it disappears  



Since: Nov 26, 2006
Posted on: July 20, 2011 12:06 pm
 

The Daily Shoutout

I second the RIP for MRS Kraft. I have never heard anything negative about the Kraft family. They are the class of the NFL owners.





Since: Nov 26, 2006
Posted on: July 20, 2011 12:03 pm
 

The Daily Shoutout

You had better read again. Manning is just as much envolved as Brees. They both are on the same suit.





Since: Jul 20, 2011
Posted on: July 20, 2011 10:31 am
 

The Daily Shoutout

Thank you. RIP Myra Kraft.



Since: Aug 30, 2007
Posted on: July 20, 2011 10:18 am
 

The Daily Shoutout

Oh, and correct me if i am wrong, but don't the lawyers represent the players? So, by proxy, the players in question did ask for more and they can remove the demands at any time if they request it. But they won't. They will see what they can get away with first.


The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com