NFLLockout.com yesterday posted a letter from a law firm soliciting players to intervene in the Brady v. NFL antitrust case under the headline, "Another Attempt To Divide Players." The letter, sent from the firm via e-mail to players, "indicated that it is a follow up to a previous effort, as it had to resolve a conflict before proceeding." It reads in part, "It is our hope and intention to represent a group of seventy (70) or more current or potential NFL players. These players have expressed an interest in obtaining independent representation in the hope that by adding their voice to the current negotiations and litigation they may: (1) work to secure a global resolution promptly that addresses the needs of all players; and (2) support and add to the legal efforts of the players now active in the litigation. The focus of our representation will therefore be to accelerate efforts aimed at securing a negotiated resolution of the dispute and, if necessary, intervene in the litigation proceedings and pursue resolution through direct participation in the litigation. ... It is our intent to work in a cooperative fashion with the current player representatives to add to the force of the players’ claims in the case based on our belief that our prospective clients’ are more 'typical' of the average NFL player from an interest, financial and damages perspective" (NFLLOCKOUT.com, 4/20).
PLAYERS SURPRISED: The NFLPA said that "no players have formally registered their displeasure." Chiefs LB Mike Vrabel said that the "logic behind the law firm's backdoor move was puzzling because 'mid-tier' players are represented in the talks by himself" and free agent LB Ben Leber. Vrabel: "I think if they're unhappy with that seat, we have to vote in a new executive committee and a new board of reps." In N.Y., Bart Hubbuch wrote if the law firm is "successful in getting enough disgruntled members to sign on, it would mark a surprisingly quick split in the players' resolve less than six weeks after the lockout was announced" (N.Y. POST, 4/21). In N.Y., Judy Battista writes if enough players join the lawsuit, it "could indicate a fissure among players little more than a month into the lockout and more than four months before they would start missing weekly game checks." Reps of players were "caught off guard by the potential action." One agent, "who asked not to be identified because his clients were not involved in the potential legal action," said that he was "shocked that players would show divisiveness so early." The agent: "It's way premature. It's a chink in the armor, for sure" (N.Y. TIMES, 4/21). Giants DE Justin Tuck said that it "would 'definitely be disappointing' if players are starting to splinter." Tuck: "Our strength is in our numbers and us being together as a collective unified group. ... No one has voiced any dislike how things are going. I think they are going fine. Everybody is entitled to their opinions about the situation." Free agent OT Damien Woody: "I think we elected leadership and we have our hierarchy in place. You got to let them do their job" (N.Y. DAILY NEWS, 4/21). NFL Network's Jason La Canfora said, "I have not found any evidence of there being 70 players in particular about to sign with a lawyer and try to become a separate part of the Brady class or have their own seat at the table” ("NFL Total Access," NFL Network, 4/20). ESPN's Chris Mortensen said, "In speaking to agents, this doesn't pass the smell test. … Some people believe the NFL might be planting this" ("Mike and Mike in the Morning," ESPN2, 4/21).
FIRST CRACK? YAHOO SPORTS' Dan Wetzel wrote while the players are "unlikely to just fall apart," the potential intervention by mid-tier players is "not a positive development." Wetzel: "Who cracks first often determines winners and losers in these battles and this may be the start. ... This isn't going to end the lockout but it's a controversy that the owners will no doubt enjoy and watch closely" (SPORTS.YAHOO.com, 4/20). YAHOO SPORTS' Doug Farrar wrote, "The question is, do a select group of players really feel left out, or has a law firm with a known conflict of interest with the NFL stirred up a proverbial hornet's nest in order to split the former union?" (SPORTS.YAHOO.com, 4/20). ESPN's Andrew Brandt said NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell is trying to "seek out those" players who might want to re-examine the last proposal from the league in an attempt to "cause this divide-and-conquer strategy to work." Brandt: "It may be working if this report is true" ("SportsCenter," ESPN, 4/20). ESPN's J.A. Adande said, "How are the players going to reach an agreement with the owners if they can't reach an agreement amongst themselves?" Boston Globe columnist Bob Ryan: "What a terrible indictment of the new ... DeMaurice Smith administration if they don't have the troops in line already. Are they panicking about paychecks already? Very, very bad thing for the union" ("Around The Horn," ESPN, 4/20). The Oakland Tribune's Monte Poole said, "We've all known all along that at some point there's going to be a rift, that at some point one side is going to blink and it's going to the players. The owners have deeper pockets, they've been in this longer, they've got better contingencies" ("Chronicle Live," Comcast SportsNet Bay Area, 4/20).
TAKING A BREAK: The N.Y. TIMES' Battista reports "after only four days of court-ordered talks, negotiations between NFL owners and players came to a temporary halt Wednesday with little sign that much progress had been made." Talks are "recessed until May 16," and both sides now "await a ruling by Judge Susan Nelson of United States District Court, which is expected by Monday, on the players' request for an injunction to stop the lockout" (N.Y. TIMES, 4/21). In L.A., Sam Farmer writes the break in the talks "could be interpreted as a lack of confidence in the mediation process -- and perhaps a lack of urgency." There is "no indication the sides are any closer to reaching a new deal." NFL Exec VP & General Counsel Jeff Pash: "There's a lot of uncertainties right now. I think when we're back together we'll know more. People's legal positions will be clearer" (L.A. TIMES, 4/21). NFL Network's Albert Breer said, "After what I've been consistently told have been tough negotiations, the feeling was some progress has been made" ("NFL Total Access," NFL Network, 4/20). However, CBSSPORTS.com's Mike Freeman wrote, "Basically, to be blunt, mediation has failed miserably" (CBSSPORTS.com, 4/20).
BACK TO WORK: In DC, Mark Maske notes the break enables U.S. Magistrate Judge Arthur Boylan, "who was appointed by Nelson to mediate the talks, to return to his caseload while the league and the players' side focus on Nelson's ruling and the legal maneuvering that will follow" (WASHINGTON POST, 4/21). Pash indicated that the "reason for the remarkably lengthy delay in mediated talks had to do with the case load" of Boylan. But in N.Y., Ralph Vacchiano noted that has been "met with some skepticism, since it's hard to believe such a lengthy delay would have occurred if actual progress was being made" (NYDAILYNEWS.com, 4/20). Also in N.Y., Gary Myers writes, "Why the long break now? Boylan has scheduling conflicts -- if he didn't have the time, why did Nelson pick him?" Myers notes U.S. District Judge David Doty is scheduled to hold a hearing May 12 "on damages in the television case" (N.Y. DAILY NEWS, 4/21).
