gbill2004 Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 @ArashMadani: Key word: emphatic. RT @danralphcp: Flory emphatic players won't accept what #CFL has termed its "best and final offer." #cflpa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 Sixty percent of the time the players are united every time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JuranBoldenRules Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 @ArashMadani: Bang. RT @JasonAMT: @CFLMikeCopeland your PR bullying tactics are embarrassing, and unprofessional. We stand United as a union. #CFL #CFLPA @ArashMadani: And boom goes the dynamite. RT @scratchingpost: #CFLPA VP Marwan Hage: "It's two steps forward, ten steps backward." #CFL @ArashMadani: BREAKING: Excerpt from CFLPA internal memo: "After we are legally allowed to conduct the vote in Alberta, we will all strike together." #CFL @ArashMadani: Unnecessary! RT @AndrewBucholtz: The NFL has independent sideline neurologists, but #CFL president Michael Copeland says they're unnecessary @ArashMadani: BREAKING: #CFL commissioner Mark Cohon has, at last, joined the bargaining talks between the league and the players... Urgency being felt. @ArashMadani: Wow. Now the #CFL players are tossing back uppercuts. RT @CButler28: When can I get my Cohon jersey? @ArashMadani: Boom. RT @KBergCBS: NBA and the Sterling family trust have settled their dispute, league announces. The team will be sold to Steve Ballmer. When I joined twitter a few years ago I started following him cuz I thought he'd have good CFL info.... this is the reason why it took about a week before I unfollowed For me it was the shot by shot live tweeting of tennis matches....not what Twitter is for. I bet he got his account locked a few times for the volume of tweets. Noeller 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JuranBoldenRules Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 They need some backchannel guys to get the CFL to "compromise", save face and move on. The CFL's deal was fair. Take it. I understand the point of not letting your members vote but maybe its time. On a side note, my local just completed negotiations and I attended the vote where things got heated. It was actually a good deal which tells you the feeling amongst many members if there was heated arguments over a "good" deal. But one of the sticking points was that when the Union announced they had a deal in principle, they refused to tell members what the deal was (there was only 3-5 key points outstanding) in advance of the vote. They actually opened voting before any presentations were made as to what we were voting on. Several people, myself included, took the opportunity to ask why the information was witheld from us and after initially brushing us off, one Union leader said his experience is, if they release the info and its a good deal, people dont bother voting because they assume it will pass and if the vocal minority dont like it, they come out in droves and vote down a good deal. I think that logic is ludicrous. But it shows in CBA nogotiations its not just a matter of letting members choose their deal. its politics. Its "leading" the members to the "right" deal. Etc. Its all rather silly in my opinion. I don't understand the point of not letting the members vote, along with withholding information from members. It would be pretty ridiculous to take job action when the sides are speaking the same language with a gap in money, without taking the offer to the membership. Either they accept and it's over, or they vote it down and now you have a mandate for job action. In the end, the PA executive is representing the players. The fact that they are taking strike votes before taking any offer to membership just shows how they've lost sight of their purpose. Jaxon 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluto Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 too much upward salary movement in too short a period of time in the Players' offer. salary is a business expense to owners and the PA doesn't seem to understand that businesses can't have a fixed expense rise so sharply. if Flory can somehow get a strike vote done (even if it's a soft one), then the PA may yet do a little better than the League's "final, best offer" and the PA executive can save face. if they can't get a strike vote ratified, i see the League's offer getting accepted (although maybe for a shortened term). still laughing over Butler's tweet: "Where do I get a Cohon jersey" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbill2004 Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 My expectation is that the players will get another $100k per year added to the current owners offer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JuranBoldenRules Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 I don't believe the league will move at all. It's take it or leave it now, and if the players cost the owners real money by walking out, the offers will get progressively lower, specifically when it comes to the ratification bonuses and immediate SMS limit increases. Jaxon and DR. CFL 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 They need some backchannel guys to get the CFL to "compromise", save face and move on. The CFL's deal was fair. Take it. I understand the point of not letting your members vote but maybe its time. On a side note, my local just completed negotiations and I attended the vote where things got heated. It was actually a good deal which tells you the feeling amongst many members if there was heated arguments over a "good" deal. But one of the sticking points was that when the Union announced they had a deal in principle, they refused to tell members what the deal was (there was only 3-5 key points outstanding) in advance of the vote. They actually opened voting before any presentations were made as to what we were voting on. Several people, myself included, took the opportunity to ask why the information was witheld from us and after initially brushing us off, one Union leader said his experience is, if they release the info and its a good deal, people dont bother voting because they assume it will pass and if the vocal minority dont like it, they come out in droves and vote down a good deal. I think that logic is ludicrous. But it shows in CBA nogotiations its not just a matter of letting members choose their deal. its politics. Its "leading" the members to the "right" deal. Etc. Its all rather silly in my opinion. I don't understand the point of not letting the members vote, along with withholding information from members. It would be pretty ridiculous to take job action when the sides are speaking the same language with a gap in money, without taking the offer to the membership. Either they accept and it's over, or they vote it down and now you have a mandate for job action. In the end, the PA executive is representing the players. The fact that they are taking strike votes before taking any offer to membership just shows how they've lost sight of their purpose. The point is (and this is certainly true in my workplace), you have X amount of highly informed hardlined pro-union members. Then you likely have a majority that dont care either way. And maybe you have a few that are either Anti-union and will vote against anything or you have a few that are so hardlined against management that they will vote down any offer even if its fair. Union leadership's position would be that they were elected to their positions with a mandate to achieve certain objectives. And there would be meetings and fact-finding efforts prior and during negotiations to deep what is important to membership. And again, you likely have a miniority of members that respond or take part but they are the ones that give leadership their mandate. And if that mandate is to achieve X amount of raises, X amount of bonuses etc, then leadership wont bring an offfer to members until it is close to that. if they do, you might have that uninterested majority that now say 'f this, lets just accept it' and they niether took part in the process, provided a mandate etc etc, but they end up deciding on the contract. So to an extent I get that. I certainly dont get the idea of a union witholding information (like mine did), especially when its pertaining to an offer that we *are* voting on. Whether Im a hardline union guy or disinterested from the beginning, my vote counts just as much so witholding information doesnt serve a purpose at this stage. In teh case of the CFL, if Im a PA member, Im likely considering demanding an option to vote. The reason being, the CFL's offer is fair. It might not be as fair as the players want, but it's not offensive in any way. If the remaining option is miss games, then I'd want to vote on this deal because even if I have to hold my nose to cast my vote, its better then missing games. The PA's argument would be they already got a strike mandate so they dont need to vote. Jaxon 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.O.A.B. Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 David William Naylor @TSNDaveNaylor 1m According to a source, strike votes have been counted on 7 of the 9 CFL teams. 98 per cent in favour of a strike. #cfl #CFLPA Noeller 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweep the leg Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 Naylor said 7 of 9 teams' votes are in & it's 98% in favour of striking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
17to85 Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 Naylor said 7 of 9 teams' votes are in & it's 98% in favour of striking. I have a hard time believing that. DR. CFL 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.O.A.B. Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 i hope the CFL and CFLPA comes into agreement this week / weekend. Otherwise, we will not see our Blue Bombers in action on Monday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noeller Posted June 3, 2014 Author Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 Naylor said 7 of 9 teams' votes are in & it's 98% in favour of striking.I have a hard time believing that. I don't in the least. They're committed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 Naylor said 7 of 9 teams' votes are in & it's 98% in favour of striking. I find this virtually impossible to believe. It means that either membership is very informed and very united and very trusting of their leadership or it means the only people that bothered to vote are the hardliners. Which I find easier to believe. Show me the percentage who returned their votes. Side question, was this snail mail voting? This is an issue I have with my current union. They actually argued this week with members who inquired as to why we cannot have communication via email. Everything is done on paper, memos, snail mail. You're certainly relying on the hardliners when you go with snail mail. But I have a theory that unions dont want to update because they dont want to make it easy for the people that arent blindly pro union to have a say. Jaxon 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
17to85 Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 Naylor said 7 of 9 teams' votes are in & it's 98% in favour of striking.I have a hard time believing that.I don't in the least. They're committed... You believe that 98% of players who will be lucky to play 2 years in the CFL are willing to lose game cheques just to get a few more sheckles for future players? I'm sorry but the world is more selfish than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atomic Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 Keep in mind that rookies aren't included in the vote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
road griller Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 A strong strike vote would not surprise me at all. I was actually thinking around the 80-85% range myself. 98 does sound real high but good for them if it is! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 Voting for a strike to give your leadership ammunition to negotiate with is a lot different than actually striking and missing game cheques. For all we know, the feeling was "look, if we have to strike, we'll miss a week of training camp and the owners will cave". When its real money, we shall see. MOBomberFan 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
road griller Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 Well, I don't like to brag about myself and say how awesome I am. I usually leave that to others (thank you all by the way). But when it comes to negotiations I know a little. Yes, the stronger the strike vote the better and members are usually aware of this. I find it works better for both sides in the end and a fair deal can usually be made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DR. CFL Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 98% I call fudge on that.....more hype and posturing by the PA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bomber_fanaddict Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 I think I heard somewhere that 98% of all stats are mad eup on the spot....or something like that. Harbaugh 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearpants Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 I think I heard somewhere that 98% of all stats are mad eup on the spot....or something like that. that's only true 84.7% of the time... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Unknown Poster Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 I think I heard somewhere that 98% of all stats are mad eup on the spot....or something like that. 40% of the time, the players will strike 98% of the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Dee Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 When you factor in human emotion, I think it's closer to 98.6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 3, 2014 Report Share Posted June 3, 2014 $5.2 million is a good first year point, with the tv money to increase each year by 1 million each year, the cap should increase by $100k each season. Although I'd rather see a 6 year agreement instead of 4 or 5. Five years would tie in directly with the next tv deal negotiations and 4 years seems like a waste for the players, because they would know what the new tv or other revenues would be. I do find the 98% very hard to believe, yeah it's a great pr number to release to the media/fans, but completely unbelievable. Should have stated something around 65-80%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now