Chiefs Player Rep Hasn't Seen Owners Proposal

by Joel Thorman on Jul 22, 2011 9:51 AM CDT

Kansas City Chiefs player rep Rudy Niswanger talked to Bob Fescoe on 610 Sports bright and early this morning and said, despite all the noise coming from the players, he doesn't know if the owners' proposal to the players to end the NFL lockout is a good deal.

That's because he hasn't even seen the proposal.

"I wanted to clarify it: I'm not saying it's a bad deal," Niswanger said on 610 Sports. "What I'm saying is I don't know. I haven't seen it. It very well could be a great deal for both sides, something everyone ratifies, we do a settlement with, and go into the whole process from there. It very well could be. I'm not saying it's not. What I'm saying is I haven't seen it and that's the bottom line. I can't say whether it's good or bad because I just don't know."

So, when will they get see the deal?

"I would make the assumption that our counsel already has it as of late last night," Niswanger told Fescoe and Josh Klingler. "Again, that's a total assumption but that would be my assumption. I don't think the owners are purposefully trying to put this off and make it look like the players are just stalling. I truly believe that's not what they're doing. I believe that it's there, it's probably already there, and we had guys analyzing last night and today."

When will the players discuss the owners' proposal?

"I'll make the assumption we have a call later on in the day," he said. "I don't know those things but that would be my assumption, good or bad, that we'll have a call today."

What about the actual vote on the proposal?

"I just don't know," he said. "I can't say that because, as I said as of 8:45 p.m. last night, I don't know what is going on. I would assume, at the very least, we'll get together and discuss the deal if we have it and my assumption is if we discussed it, and we were at a point where we understood it appropriately, then we would take a vote on whether we would recommend this to the full class of players. That's my understanding but I'll say it again that it's just a guess because I haven't seen it."

So it sounds like the next step is for the players to actually see the deal, get on the horn and talk about it and then take a vote on whether they'll approve it.

Tweet Comment 48 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Cue people over reacting

due to failure to understand that the player reps haven’t seen it because D. Smith and the NFLPA lawyers are still reviewing it.

This is my signature line. It is full of awesome and win.

by KC_Satchmo on Jul 22, 2011 9:55 AM CDT reply actions

^^^^This

Just because the players haven’t actually seen the proposal, doesn’t mean that D. Smith and company haven’t been going through it before presenting it to the players and relaying their thoughts on the “wording”.

Bob Fescoe mentioned that he didn’t understand why the link wasn’t put up on twitter (the dumbest comment I’ve heard him make of late).

by THE_TRUTH on Jul 22, 2011 10:10 AM CDT up reply actions

and trhat's precisely what they should be doing ...

Smith & Co looking over it with the small group of Reps already assembled, deciding if it’s acceptable or not … if it is, then and only then do they forward it to all reps and players … that’s how it works and as it should be

relax, people

Winner: 2009 Nostradamus of Arrowhead Pride Award
"I shall conquer untruth by truth" - Mahatma Gandhi
"It's always easier to sell 'em some shit than it is to give 'em the truth" - Shel Silverstein, The Perfect High
hi, Mo! 5 minutes!!!

by upamtn on Jul 22, 2011 10:29 AM CDT up reply actions

Really?

Bob Fescoe mentioned that he didn’t understand why the link wasn’t put up on twitter (the dumbest comment I’ve heard him make of late).

Are we talking about the same Bob Fescoe?

[ Google+ | Facebook | Twitter | Last.fm ]

by Tarkus on Jul 22, 2011 11:06 AM CDT up reply actions

Does the NFLPA use snail mail?

I’m serious, the rate the NFLPA passes out info seems to me that they use snail mail. Sure seems there were many players that received the proposal last night.

With that said, nothing can’t get done until these reps at least get to read over the owners proposal. Then they can go from there and hopefully that means a agreement today if they like it enough.

by ChiefMojo on Jul 22, 2011 9:57 AM CDT reply actions

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/22/espn-backs-off-friday-vote-prediction/

by jerseychief on Jul 22, 2011 9:58 AM CDT reply actions

That's a lot of assuming

I love my wife, my kids, and the Chiefs. In that order. Except on game days.

by MNchiefsfan on Jul 22, 2011 10:01 AM CDT reply actions

If you heard the interview, you'd understand

I kind of chuckled and rolled my eyes. Rudy was using hunting analogies (as well as another analogy about buying a house without seeing it first) that pretty much made J. Allen look like a Rhoads scholar.

Just my .02 but for player reps Vrabel > Niswanger

by THE_TRUTH on Jul 22, 2011 10:14 AM CDT up reply actions

shame they didn't get a word or two from Waters ... he's never been one unable to express himself

by upamtn on Jul 22, 2011 10:31 AM CDT up reply actions

I'll drink to that.

[ Google+ | Facebook | Twitter | Last.fm ]

by Tarkus on Jul 22, 2011 11:07 AM CDT up reply actions

I was joking

I don’t care either way, and it makes sense that he doesn’t know anything yet.

I love my wife, my kids, and the Chiefs. In that order. Except on game days.

by MNchiefsfan on Jul 22, 2011 2:29 PM CDT up reply actions

Looks like the Chiefs picked the right guy as their rep

speaking with a cool head and just facts unlike what some of the players are ranting on about.

by CapsLockKey on Jul 22, 2011 10:03 AM CDT reply actions

Kansas city Chiefs Football: forever classy

"Stay Classy Kansas City"

by Mas Cervezas on Jul 22, 2011 10:11 AM CDT via mobile up reply actions

except Monday Night Meltdown, of course

by upamtn on Jul 22, 2011 10:31 AM CDT up reply actions

First of all, you throwin' too many big words at me, and because I don't understand them, I'm gonna take 'em as disrespect...

by SFLChief on Jul 22, 2011 10:36 AM CDT up reply actions

Let's just give them time to look it over and take a vote...

if the owners changed shit that wasn’t agreed upon, draft your own agreement, ratify that shit , hold a press conference stating that you voted and approved an “agreement” and send the motherfucking ball back to the owners court…

First of all, you throwin' too many big words at me, and because I don't understand them, I'm gonna take 'em as disrespect...

by SFLChief on Jul 22, 2011 10:12 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs

Don't think anything new was added...

There was language for the lawyers to go over and then the stuff added were stuff the players weren’t involved with per their own request… namely Revenue Sharing aspects. This is where the players need to review the proposal first before they agree to it or need to tweak it further.

I think the players will love what they find in the proposal once they get a hold of it. Namely having 55% of the TV revenue and a big spike in overall revenue around 2014.

I think what the owners voted on will go through the players fairly quickly. Then they can ratify the Union and finish up the drug testing rules and other issues that you need a “Union” to negotiate with. So they could go to vote today, but expect it to be tomorrow.

by ChiefMojo on Jul 22, 2011 10:20 AM CDT up reply actions

The fact the players do need to be a Union to negotiate several things before anything can really get done

does make it seem like the players are the ones using a power play. If they don’t become a union this whole deal goes no where

I don't start arguments, I provoke thinking. -Me
H^2-Hali and Houston

by BAMFSpecialOps on Jul 22, 2011 10:23 AM CDT up reply actions

That is BS. They have been negotiating as a union for the past 4 months.

The only holdup is the paperwork that needs to re certify the union so they can sign.

The views expressed by craig in calgary do not necessarily represent the views of all Canadians.

by saskwatch on Jul 22, 2011 10:25 AM CDT up reply actions

So they are negotiating as a union when they are not a union?

I’ve heard it as that the players have been negotiating a settlement to the Brady case while the NFL is negotiating a new CBA and thats why there is so much distant.

I don't start arguments, I provoke thinking. -Me
H^2-Hali and Houston

by BAMFSpecialOps on Jul 22, 2011 10:27 AM CDT up reply actions

The negotiation by the "Trade Association" has been a joke from the start.

It was a legal ploy. They have been collectively bargaining a work agreement for 4 months. Sounds like a union to me.

The views expressed by craig in calgary do not necessarily represent the views of all Canadians.

by saskwatch on Jul 22, 2011 10:34 AM CDT up reply actions

Thanks for clearing it up

I don't start arguments, I provoke thinking. -Me
H^2-Hali and Houston

by BAMFSpecialOps on Jul 22, 2011 10:35 AM CDT up reply actions

You're right.

They should just stop negotiating, and make the NFL abide by antitrust laws.

[ Google+ | Facebook | Twitter | Last.fm ]

by Tarkus on Jul 22, 2011 11:09 AM CDT up reply actions

Tune in to heard on espn

Takeo spikes is fixing to be on listen to this moron!!!! What a joke!!! The players are pissing me off!!!!

by beano58 on Jul 22, 2011 10:13 AM CDT via mobile reply actions

Spikes

I’m a grown man and disrespected!!! This is not a street corner argument !!! What a joke!!!

by beano58 on Jul 22, 2011 10:15 AM CDT via mobile reply actions

I have lost a lot of respect for the players.

Tweet after Tweet form players not involved about how the owners are liars and cheats, and a player involved says he has not even seen the agreement. How do the other buffoons know that have tried to sneak thing sin.

The views expressed by craig in calgary do not necessarily represent the views of all Canadians.

by saskwatch on Jul 22, 2011 10:15 AM CDT reply actions

They heard it from someone who heard it from someone who heard it from someone else?

I don't start arguments, I provoke thinking. -Me
H^2-Hali and Houston

by BAMFSpecialOps on Jul 22, 2011 10:19 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

Maybe their cousin the Real Estate Agent told them.

The views expressed by craig in calgary do not necessarily represent the views of all Canadians.

by saskwatch on Jul 22, 2011 10:19 AM CDT up reply actions

I was in a KC pizza joint and overheard it...

First of all, you throwin' too many big words at me, and because I don't understand them, I'm gonna take 'em as disrespect...

by SFLChief on Jul 22, 2011 10:20 AM CDT up reply actions

ha!

by upamtn on Jul 22, 2011 10:33 AM CDT up reply actions

After they stopped to try to get a homeless man to buy a 1 million dollar house

which then the homeless man told them of the details trying to get a bargin

I don't start arguments, I provoke thinking. -Me
H^2-Hali and Houston

by BAMFSpecialOps on Jul 22, 2011 10:21 AM CDT up reply actions

can someone help me out...

The original story was that the players were going to vote on the proposal Wednesday and pass it on to the owners for Thursday’s vote.
So how is it that the players haven’t seen the proposal if they were supposed to vote on it two days ago?

by KC explant on Jul 22, 2011 10:18 AM CDT reply actions

Supposedly the proposal they had wasn't the one they wanted on Wednesday

Yesterday they said the owners added things in

I don't start arguments, I provoke thinking. -Me
H^2-Hali and Houston

by BAMFSpecialOps on Jul 22, 2011 10:20 AM CDT up reply actions

IF they hadn't seen the Proposal how

would they know things were added in. It was a Twitter shit storm that snowballed. So one guy tweets shit then another then another. Half of the guys talking on twitter are morons, football players or not. The League wasn’t trying to "Sneak " shit in on them.

"You guys line up alphabetically by height."
--Bill Peterson

by Big_Chief on Jul 22, 2011 10:24 AM CDT up reply actions

It could have just taken 1 guy who saw the deal that the owners passsed that started the snowball

I’m not saying the owners did or did not add anything in, just explained what the players have said is the hold up

I don't start arguments, I provoke thinking. -Me
H^2-Hali and Houston

by BAMFSpecialOps on Jul 22, 2011 10:28 AM CDT up reply actions

if you haven't seen the proposal, and I "assume" that you haven't, then how do you know for a fact that the league did NOT change any of the wording?

by upamtn on Jul 22, 2011 10:34 AM CDT up reply actions

Change the wording and try to "Sneak" it by A Huge legal team

getting payed Millions of dollars to make sure that dosen’t happen. Not a snowballs chance in hell.

"You guys line up alphabetically by height."
--Bill Peterson

by Big_Chief on Jul 22, 2011 10:45 AM CDT up reply actions

agreed ... but no harm in allowing the players and their legal reps time to look at it first to make sure, right?

by upamtn on Jul 22, 2011 10:47 AM CDT up reply actions

Agree ups.

I think we both know that the owners vote yesterday was a power play to put the ball in the players courts. I think the “changed” or “added” unknown terms was a play by the nflpa becasue they knew the american people would be like sign the fucking deal already, we want football

"You guys line up alphabetically by height."
--Bill Peterson

by Big_Chief on Jul 22, 2011 11:06 AM CDT up reply actions

Because you can't believe everything you read.

Many player reps warned us not to get too caught up in media reports, specifically when all that speculation was going down. Never did the NFLPA say they were going to vote on a proposal on Wednesday.

[ Google+ | Facebook | Twitter | Last.fm ]

by Tarkus on Jul 22, 2011 11:11 AM CDT up reply actions

Sticks head back into the sand

Someone wake me up when this shit is done.

"He that hath a beard is more than a youth, and he that hath no beard is less than a man" - Bill Shakespeare

by craig in calgary on Jul 22, 2011 10:37 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs

What a load of crap!

The NFLPA helped design the proposal and apparently agreed to everything except for what is being termed as minor changes by the owners.
If they want to say they haven’t seen the changes then fine. But to act like this is a complete new unilateral proposal from the owners is just a load of crap.

by grid_iron on Jul 22, 2011 11:00 AM CDT reply actions

I hadn't heard this.

But to act like this is a complete new unilateral proposal from the owners is just a load of crap.

[ Google+ | Facebook | Twitter | Last.fm ]

by Tarkus on Jul 22, 2011 11:13 AM CDT up reply actions

Really all the tweets saying

THEY WANT US TO SIGN SOMETHING WE HAVNT EVEN SEEN.
Your telling me with all the attention you pay to this, that you havn’t seen that

"You guys line up alphabetically by height."
--Bill Peterson

by Big_Chief on Jul 22, 2011 11:17 AM CDT up reply actions

They haven't seen the full proposal voted on.

Yeah, I’ve seen that. I haven’t seen it characterized as a “complete new unilateral proposal.” All I’ve seen is that they added stuff at the last minute that was never agreed upon. That’s far different.

[ Google+ | Facebook | Twitter | Last.fm ]

by Tarkus on Jul 22, 2011 11:22 AM CDT up reply actions

They are giving the impression that they haven't seen any part of the proposal

What they should be saying is “We need to review the changes, before we can vote on it”. By saying “I haven’t seen it” implies that he has no clue to the contents.

by grid_iron on Jul 22, 2011 11:27 AM CDT up reply actions

Again, I haven't seen that.

Well, I’m sure a lot of players haven’t actually seen the proposal, but not the player reps, whose responsibility it is to do just that. “I haven’t seen it” sounds to me simply that they haven’t seen what the owners voted on. If you haven’t seen it, how do you know what or how much has changed?

[ Google+ | Facebook | Twitter | Last.fm ]

by Tarkus on Jul 22, 2011 11:35 AM CDT up reply actions