Kendall: Owners statements are 'completely false'

191543.jpg

Kendall: Owners statements are 'completely false'

By Tom E. Curran
CSNNE.com
Pete Kendall hasn't played in the NFL for two seasons. The billions currently being fought over by the NFL and its players association aren't going to adorn his pockets to a great extent.But the former first-round pick (21st overall in 1996) and Weymouth native madehis NFL reputationon three things during a 12-year career with the Jets, Seahawks and Redskins. He was tough. He was smart. And he had integrity.When NFLPAExecutive Director DeMaurice Smith asked Kendall if he would be a part of the union's negotiating teamKendall agreed. And he went allin. Kendall spentabout three weeks away from hiswife and three kids in Marshfieldso that he could be in DC andtry to help in negotiating a new CBA. Unlike attorneys on both sides or the executive directors or chief legal counsels, Kendall isn't doing this because his job. He's doing it because he feels it's his responsibility to the game.How does he feel now that a parade of NFL owners and executives, in the wake of Friday's events, are accusing the players of angling to decertify all along?"I'm incredibly disappointed," Kendall said Saturday. "It's completely false. The outcome we have today is the outcome the owners sought starting in 2007 when they hired Bob Batterman (the labor lawyer who was at the center of the NHL lockout that wiped out an entire hockey season). Owners started talking publicly about a lockout in 2008 and evidence in the Doty trial (in which the league was found to have squirreled 421 million away for itself in lockout insurance) made it clear owners planned to do a lockout in 2011. No other conclusion can be drawn."The people on the players' side were more than willing to sit down with ownership and be convincedof the real problems," Kendall continued. "The only way the owners could convince the players was to demonstrate it. Not just say it. The owners said, 'Trust us.' After everything revealed in the lockout insurance case, how could we do that? Now we have a lockout. So who got what they were positioning for?"The prime hangup to getting a deal done was financial disclosure. The players wanted to know why they were being asked to give the owners additional credits that would amount to 2 billion off the top of league-generated revenues. Why were they being asked to settle for less than 60 percent of 7 billion or so in revenue instead of the 60 percent of 8 billion? The league said - ambiguously - in a statement Friday night: "The union was offered financial disclosure of audited league and club profitability information that is not even shared with the NFL clubs."Jeff Pash, the NFL's chief legal counsel, said the players were being given "unprecedented" information. "The NFL said they offered us unprecedented financial disclosure?" said Kendall."Let's stop right there. Where are they moving from on that financial disclosure? From zero as it relates to non-player costs and all of the issues that we sought clarity on. "For them to move to showing us league-wide profitability over five years? And to tell us simply the number of clubs that had declined in profitability - declined in profitability - not suffered losses. They were going to give us two numbers and they call that unprecedented financial disclosure. Well, yes, I guess that's technically true. Is it substantial? Is it sufficient? Is it meaningful? Our business people told us no. Some owners maintained for a long time that the business people needed to be involved. Ours said that those numbers weren't sufficient. Regardless of if they were unprecedented or not."Kendall said that the NFL's tightly-held financial secrets would have remained so. "We were more than willing to agree to confidentiality in that," Kendall pointed out. "The results could have been blinded so we didn't know which team's were declining in profitability."Kendall said the closest the two sides were turned out to be when the first extension was granted a week ago last Thursday. That was on the heels of the lockout insurance ruling by Judge David Doty that kept the 4 billion in TV money in legal limbo for the foreseeable future. Owners showed up en masse to negotiate. It was the most productive day of negotiations. And then they left, leaving just a few owners behind to negotiate with a phalanx of players. And, of course, the attorneys."The week of extension was a week that went backwards," said Kendall. "From where we were on Thursday as the deadline approached to where we were yesterday, we went backwards.Personally,I was disappointed with thelevel of involvementfrom ownership."

There's a point to consider there. On Friday, the day the extension would expire, there was a story that Peter King wrote noting that NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell had been given latitude by owners to "move drastically" to get a deal done. While that was taken as a sign the NFL was bending over backwards, it raised the question among the PA of what Goodell's marching orders were before the owners - for the most part absent from the negotiations except by phoneon that climactic day - gave him that latitude. Were the players negotiating in vain with Goodell, Pash and the rest if the decision-makers weren't even there? It was a feelgood story that made the NFL look good in the public eye - Goodell now could ride to the rescue - but it made the other side wonder whether the league's No. 1 man's hands were tied by men not even in the room. Kendall had more details on the financial gap between the two sides which we'll get into in another post..AOLWebSuite .AOLPicturesFullSizeLink height: 1px; width: 1px; overflow: hidden; .AOLWebSuite a color:blue; text-decoration: underline; cursor: pointer .AOLWebSuite a.hsSig cursor: default
Tom E. Curran can be reached at tcurran@comcastsportsnet.com. Follow Tom on Twitter at http:twitter.comtomecurran

Bennett back at practice, but admits injuries hurting his play

Bennett back at practice, but admits injuries hurting his play

FOXBORO -- Martellus Bennett is willing to admit it. 

"Last week was probably my worst game as a Patriot," he told reporters in the locker room on Thursday. "But, you know, you have a bad game here and there. This week, come back grinding, and get ready."

Never was it more clear than on Sunday that Bennett has been hobbled by the injuries he's dealing with. He's coped with an ankle injury since Week 5 in Cleveland that has earned him the respect of his teammates and coaches, but against the Rams it appeared to severely impact his performance. 

He saw four targets and caught two for four yards. As a blocker -- the facet of his game that stood out more than his receiving ability early this season -- he was called for two holds and had difficulty keeping his assignments in check, both in the run game and in pass protection. 

Asked if he may benefit from a week off, Bennett said he planned to continue to play.

"I never thought about that. I just keep going," he said. "I'm like the energizer bunny. I just try to find a way. Sometimes it's [expletive] when you're out there playing with different injuries. You can't do a lot of things that you want to do. You have [expletive] plays. You might have a string of bad plays in a row just because youre dealing with different things . . . 

"But throughout the game you kind of find a way to get the job done. I think that's the biggest point. It may not be pretty all the time, but try to figure some kind of way to get it done. Sometimes it's adjusting as the game goes on."

He added: "The thing about this sport is it's always something. You never go throuigh a season without having some kind of nick or tear, but there's a lot of guys playing with different things. But some guys are able to play through different injuries, and [with] some of the same injuries, you see guys around the league . . . go on IR and things like that. But it just depends on the person and their pain tolerance."

Bennett was back at practice Thursday after he wasn't spotted there on Wednesday. He may be helped by the long week leading up to Monday's game against the Ravens. It could mean an extra day of rest and recovery.

Sometimes, he said, it's difficult not to be out there.

"Sometimes. Sometimes it's like, thank God. I needed that today," he said. "It varies each week. . . I'll fight through whatever and I think that's something that my teammates and coaches know about me that I'm going to try to give them everything I got no matter what."

Ravens’ Suggs submits half-hearted effort at Brady snub

Ravens’ Suggs submits half-hearted effort at Brady snub

Terrell Suggs keeps doing his best to pump air into his one-sided “feud” with Tom Brady.

Ever since Brady begged for a flag on Suggs after a benign hit back in 2009, Suggs has made it his mission to speak truth to the perceived power of Brady.

“Everyone just seems to worship the guy so much,” he once said. “Not me, though.”

So, Suggs has called basically derided Brady as a crybaby and occasionally called into question the validity of the Patriots championships.

It’s clearly all for show. When Deflategate was at its height in June of 2015, Suggs said of Brady, “The guy is a winner. He’s won with whatever kind of personnel that he’s had. So I don’t think [Deflategate] really tarnished it … Everybody needs something to write about and needs something to talk about. It’s always something. I’m leaving that alone.”

This week, Suggs smirkingly refused to use Brady’s name when discussing the Patriots leading up to Monday night’s game.

Asked about Brady earning his 201st win as an NFL starter, Suggs said, "He's pretty good. Like I said, wins are wins and numbers are numbers. Numbers don't lie. He's pretty good."

Suggs went on, avoiding Brady’s name. It’s something he’s done in the past for whatever reason. But he’s also been complimentary of the Patriots and Brady as well, saying that, when it’s done, there will be three quarterbacks in the conversation for best-ever: Montana, Unitas and Brady. 

The only time Brady’s verbally stepped out against Suggs and the Ravens is in response to their barbs. In 2010, Brady stated that the Ravens, “Talk a lot for beating us once in nine years.”

Brady also chastised Ravens coach John Harbaugh – now there’s a guy who whines! – after the 2014 AFC Divisional Playoff Game when the Patriots snookered the Ravens with intricate formations. That’s about it for return fire.