Terms of the deal ratified by owners

**psuraven** · 07-23-2011, 11:09 AM

Originally Posted by Raveninwoodlawn

That sounds like a pretty fair deal.

I know this can't cover all the specifics...but I'd like to know what exactly it is the players are holding out for.

Is it that they don't want to become a union again so they can decide to sue the NFL for Anti-Trust issues whenever they want? Are the lawyers still holding out for dear life for some type of compensation for the plaintiffs? Is the repayment of lost benefits from last year ($320 million...and was something that was a result of the last legal CBA) really that big of an issue? More? All the above?

Really, now this is obviously a PR power play, and I'm almost sure that there are things in that CBA that the owners didn't leak...this just sucks.

It is very simple what they're holding out for...less training camp time. They're going to wait until the last minute before games would be cancelled.

**Mista T** · 07-23-2011, 11:30 AM

Originally Posted by GOTA

I wonder why the Raiders abstained? Why not just vote against it if there is something Al didn't like?

This is nothing new. The Raiders have been abstaining on most league matters, ever since they successfully sued the league related to the LA relocation in the 80s.

**The Excellector** · 07-23-2011, 03:36 PM

RaidersoftheLostArk is declaring that Al Davis is an owner for the players and refused to be involved with the vote, because he knew that it was a power play by the owners to sneak in information, making the deal far more one-sided.

**HoustonRaven** · 07-23-2011, 05:09 PM

Originally Posted by The Eternal Ring

RaidersoftheLostArk is declaring that Al Davis is an owner for the players and refused to be involved with the vote, because he knew that it was a power play by the owners to sneak in information, making the deal far more one-sided.

That would have required cogent rationalization, something Davis has not had in decades.

**Beau Petard** · 07-23-2011, 05:34 PM

ER--
I checked back on some of R-ark's posts in a couple of related threads, and he sounds as if he's going off the deep end with "the deal is PROBABLY bad because of the owners" and "Davis is the only good guy owner" kind of stuff. I never cease to be amazed that many fans jump to conclusions based on suppositions, opinions and less than half-truths about this stuff. From what I'm reading here and there, the 7 year opt out issue is more the "fault" of the players side trying to pull a fast one, or power play. I think it was Ravenswintitle who posted a PFT link that offers a great explanation as to why the 10 year deal is actually a better option for both sides. I'll see if I can find it.