Originally posted by socal9er42:
Probably belongs in a CBA Thread, but since Reid is the name attached to it.
https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/eric-reid-pushing-to-invalidate-new-nfl-cba-following-apparent-change-to-contract-language/
Interesting if true. I wonder if it was just a few words that significantly changed the meaning or what, and HOW IN THE WORLD did the Players Attorneys/Legal Team not catch this. Basic procedure any time I looked at a contract - go through it word by word to see if there were any changes in the final version vs. what was previously presented.
I am no lawyer, but it looks like they moved something from section b 3.b to section 4....maybe for ease of reading. The concept appears to remain the same, they simply "spelled it out" in the revised version. Odds are (since there is an army attorneys looking at this stuff) they just moved language from one section to another.
Cant know for sure unless some one posts or reads the other section.
This looks like an odd place to plant you flag and start the whole "no inch further".
In years past, the NFL is giving XYZ funds to the players, the NFLPA votes on how to distribute the funds. The NFL cares in part when it effects how the league salary caps rosters, I SERIOUSLY doubt the NFL cares how Social Security Insurance or Supplemental insurance for retired players is tabulated from the Retired players Pension funds. Certainly not enough to sneak in rogue language that is pretty standard fair. Hell it likely is a byproduct on the insurance company. My insurance has similar verbiage, dealing with employees that end up on Social Security Disability. it very well could be a law for all i know.
This certainly does not paint the NFL in a bad light, odds are this is a nothing burger, but it would be interesting to see the players, sue... well.....eh....i guess themselves over this.
