ok the Jackson Mankins (sp?) thing is stupid in it's own right...but what the heck makes Manning and Brees so special that they dont get franchised!?! And why the heck does Manning even care?? He's going to retire a Colt more than likley...Im sorry I used to like both QB's, but now im more disgusted than anything else....

They are asking for it because it's the same deal the named plaintiffs got in the last nfl lockout. That's where the whole Reggie White to free agency thing came from.

Brees says he wants no “special perks”
Posted by Mike Florio on July 19, 2011, 10:10 PM EDT

Earlier tonight, Saints quarterback Drew Brees provided a vague denial of multiple media reports that he is seeking special treatment for Brees and at least three of the other named plaintiffs in the Tom Brady class action.

“I hesitate to even dignify the false media reports with a response,” Brees said on Twitter, “but obviously they are leading people astray.”

We wanted something more specific. So we suggested this: “I want no special treatment. This was never about me. This is about all players, past, present, and future.”

And Brees was listening. Or it was simply one hell of a coincidence.

“I want no special perks,” Brees posted on Twitter after our story was published. “My job is to get a fair deal for all players, and I am proud to represent them all – past, present and future.”

Brees added some stuff for which we didn’t provide a rough draft: “All media claims about me wanting a personal reward for this deal are false. I hope you all know me better than that.”

But this is a bus Brees wasn’t driving. As we initially heard it, CAA was pushing the issue for Brees and Colts quarterback Peyton Manning. We subsequently were told that NFLPA* outside lawyer Jeffrey Kessler spent (or, as one source put it, “wasted”) hours during the week of June 27 arguing that Brees and Manning should receive special treatment.

Now that Brees has said he doesn’t want special treatment, here’s hoping that CAA and Kessler quit trying to get it for him. Let’s also hope that the other three guys (Manning, Logan Mankins, and Vincent Jackson) do the same thing.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... ial-perks/

Report: NFLPA* will recommend no special treatment for named plaintiffs
Posted by Mike Florio on July 19, 2011, 11:34 PM EDT

After a hectic day of reports that had its roots in an ominous item on Sunday from Ron Borges of the Boston Herald, Borges now shovels dirt onto the storm of something other than dirt (but also brown) that he kicked up when suggesting that Patriots guard Logan Mankins would seek free agency or compensation in exchanging for agreeing to settle his portion of the Brady antitrust lawsuit.

Specifically, Borges reports that the NFLPA* has decided not to pursue special treatment for the named plaintiffs in the Brady case.

“After some debate over possible special relief for at least some of the 10 player-plaintiffs, it was determined it would be too cumbersome to try and work out individual deals,” Borges writes. “Since the bulk of plaintiffs were well-placed NFL veterans, the best way to go, it was decided, was to stick simply with the larger deal negotiated between the NFLPA and the league’s owners.”

The assertion comes after Borges, via Twitter, openly supported the ability of the 10 players to strike their own deal. Based on Borges’ latest, it’s a decision that actually has been made by the NFLPA* (a trade association that technically has no say in the matter), and not by the 10 named plaintiffs, who supposedly controlled the lawsuit.

The development represents the most graceful possible abandonment of efforts by the NFLPA* to get special treatment for four or more of the named plaintiffs. Whether due to the backlash from the 1,890 players who were listed on the complaint or the flat refusal of the league to do anything for men who, for the most part, did nothing to advance the case or negotiate the settlement, the issue — the apparent brainchild of NFLPA* lawyer Jeffrey Kessler — is now dead.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... laintiffs/

Report: Some Executive Committee members were “infuriated” by reports of benefits for plaintiffs
Posted by Mike Florio on July 20, 2011, 7:37 AM EDT

As the dust settles on Tuesday’s unexpected brouhaha regarding the efforts of four named plaintiffs in the Brady antitrust lawsuit — or agents and/or lawyers working on their behalf — to get something for themselves as a settlement of the case approaches, one of the guys who reported that an effort was made to block the franchise tag from ever being used on Colts quarterback Peyton Manning and Saints quarterback Drew Brees reports that the issue ultimately was dropped based in part on the reaction from other players.

Mike Freeman of CBSSports.com reports, citing an unnamed player, that some members of the NFLPA* Executive Committee were “infuriated” by the news. “They want blood,” the unnamed player told Freeman.

The Executive Committee was meeting on Tuesday in Washington, in advance of an expected Wednesday analysis of the proposed labor deal. Since Brees is a member of the Executive Committee, there’s a chance that things may have gotten a little awkward in the room.

Freeman also opines that, to the extent Brees, Manning (via his agent), and Chargers receiver Vincent Jackson are now saying they never asked for special treatment, they’re telling the truth. Sort of. As Freeman sees it, others had been pushing the issue on behalf of players who, as a result, were able to maintain plausible deniability.

As we first heard the story last month, CAA was attempting to secure the exemption for its clients, Brees and Manning. On Tuesday, Jason Cole of Yahoo! Sports reported that an effort was being made to make Jackson and Patriots guard Logan Mankins free agents in 2011, or to get them $10 million each for the money they lost via the rules of the uncapped year and their ensuing holdouts. Greg Bedard of the Boston Globe and Freeman reported that the effort of behalf of Brees and Manning was still being made. And Adam Schefter of ESPN reported that Jackson’s agents had confirmed that Jackson indeed wanted free agency, or free money.

The issue has now been resolved, via the face-saving suggestion that the NFLPA* has decided it would be too cumbersome to negotiate deals for some or all of the 10 named plaintiffs in the Brady antitrust case. The more likely explanation is that, with a storm of criticism coming from players, some in the media, and fans, the NFLPA* realized that it wasn’t the best issue to have on the table at a time when the deal was so close to being struck.

And that’s one of the realities of the new media world in which we operate. As a PFT commenter pointed out, the twists and turns of the Reggie White antitrust action in the early 1990s weren’t covered and analyzed and reacted to in real time. Today, everything is subject to immediate assessment and scrutiny. And whoever was pushing this issue as of Tuesday grossly underestimated the extent to which the information would instantaneously trigger strong feelings that could be expressed just as instantaneously.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... laintiffs/