Blog Entry

Trask explains Raiders' vote

Posted on: July 21, 2011 10:52 pm
Edited on: July 21, 2011 11:37 pm
All but one club approved the NFL's proposed agreement for a settlement to the lockout, and can anyone guess who abstained? If you said the Oakland Raiders, go to the head of the class.

Of course, it was the Oakland Raiders. It's always the Oakland Raiders. If there was anything that was normal about Thursday, it was that the Raiders refused to sign off on the deal ... and now we know why. Because we asked team CEO Amy Trask.

"(Because of) profound philosophical differences, of both a football and economical nature," she said. "We have consistently expressed those views to the league. We're not reluctant to share our views, and we're also not reluctant to vote in the manner that we believe is in the best interests of the National Football League and to vote the courage of our convictions."

Trask could not be more specific, saying that the differences were "of a football and economic nature -- systemic issues in both regards," and, no, I don't know what that means, either. But I do know why the Raiders voted to abstain instead of oppose the proposed deal ... again, because we asked.

"We voted in the manner that we believe is appropriate," she said. "Look, we want football. This is not about not wanting the football season to start. Of course, we want football. And our organization has a tremendous, tremendous track record of the manner in which it has related to and taken care of players."

Category: NFL
Tags: lockout

Since: Aug 4, 2008
Posted on: July 22, 2011 10:26 am

Trask explains Raiders' vote

Of course Al Davis would not  want to be on record as voting for any proposal. Any proposal might have a clause about franchises moving. If a franchise ever attempt to move into the Los Angeles area, you can almost bet the farm that Al Davis will immediately file a lawsuit indicating he and the Oakland Raiders have never relinquished their rights to the Los Angeles territory.

Al Davis have seen the best and worst of things in the NFL. He was the main reason for the Oakland Raiders dominance in their day. Boy those were the days to see Al Davis thumb his nose at the NFL, build a team with castoffs and those not wanted by other teams.

These cast offs and those not wanted by other teams were extremely pleased to be given another chance to play football on any team. It just so happen to be the Raiders. The selections Al made turned out to be pretty good as he had a keen eye for football talent.

The players of today are not in the mode of the older players of the sixties and seventies or even the eighties. The current players given a new lease on life by the Raiders don’t show the same appreciation. These are a new breed of players.

I don’t think Al Davis has seen the writing on the wall with the attitude of these new players. The current crop of players seem to feel entitled.

It is now time for Al Davis to move on and allow a new face to do the daily chores of the team without interference from him whatsoever. He will not allow this.

With his franchise not voting they leave then door opened for potential future lawsuits against the league for a team moving into Los Angeles.

If one would take a count the Raiders have filed more lawsuits against the NFL than any other owner or Managing General Partner as he is called.

Step aside Al and allow the Raiders a chance to become what they once were, which will never happen as long as Al Davis is the honcho.

Has he fired the current coach as of yet? It is just a matter of time.


Since: Sep 25, 2009
Posted on: July 22, 2011 10:24 am

Trask explains Raiders' vote

As stupid as people claim Al Davis is, he is honestly just one QB away from being an SB contender again.  He picked wrong with Russell which set the franchise back, but he is generally able to pick up explosive players.  If the Raiders had Peyton Manning they'd be a top team. 

Since Peyton probably is not an actual possibility, they need to figure something else out.  Unfortunately for the Raiders roughly every decade teams get a crack at one top free agent QB, usually with strings attached.  The Saints got Brees, and the Eagles got Vick.  I don't see anyone else with that potential as an FA, so the only real chance is to draft and develop, but that's got about a 50% shot at best. 

Since: Sep 28, 2006
Posted on: July 22, 2011 9:28 am

Trask explains Raiders' vote

I have to agree with the post from maise_blue.

Al Davis my be crazy and get in the way of his coaches and sign players for ridiculously stupid contracts for to much money but he is sly as a fox when it comes to leaving himself options to sue the NFL or get around some decision.

I also agree with the post that Al Davis has been known to be good to his players that are good to him.

Since: Aug 28, 2006
Posted on: July 22, 2011 9:18 am

Trask explains Raiders' vote

Al Davis is a crotchety, old, INSANE fool.  He's also a liar.  End of story.

Since: Apr 14, 2007
Posted on: July 22, 2011 9:06 am

Trask explains Raiders' vote

Seps, yeah because living in a world where making excuses or pretending things are not what they are is a much better place...the NFLPA has been employing dirty tactics all along. That is reality.

Since: Sep 20, 2006
Posted on: July 22, 2011 8:47 am

Trask explains Raiders' vote

bearsfannh,must be nice living in your black and white world.Was the easter bunny good to you this year?

Since: Sep 11, 2006
Posted on: July 22, 2011 8:44 am

Trask explains Raiders' vote

Amy Trask has a really tough job, I'm sure she earns her money every day.

I'm pretty sure that the Raiders adstain from EVERY league wide vote.  Seriously.  I know that the abstain whenever the league votes on whether a team can move or not.  And that leads to why I think they abstain all the time.

They want some sort of legal wiggle room in case they want to sue the league for whatever reason.  In the case of teams moving, they need to abstain so they have a stronger case when THEY want to move.  I bet abstaining from this CBA gives Al some sort of legal wiggle room if he ever decides to challenge free agency, the draft, whatever.

The Raiders are consistent under Al, thats for sure and this was not news.  I didn't expect the other 31 owners to vote yes, but I did expect Al to abstain.  Been doing it for 30 years or longer.

Since: Oct 6, 2006
Posted on: July 22, 2011 7:53 am

Trask explains Raiders' vote

"If the NFLPA is right about the owners trying to slip things into the CBA"

Whatever.   This is not about the owners slipping things into the CBA, but about a decertification of a union which was a sham and lawsuits that should not have been filed anyway and did not work the way they hoped.  If they just turn around and recertify the union overnight it will prove the sham that decertifying the union was.  Not good in ten years when they try the same tactic again instead of negotiating in good faith.   

Since: Sep 10, 2006
Posted on: July 22, 2011 7:03 am

Trask explains Raiders' vote

Think what you want about Al Davis, but he has always been the owner that would go the extra mile for his players, until they did something to violate his trust.  If the NFLPA is right about the owners trying to slip things into the CBA, then it would not surprise me at all to have the Raiders either not vote, or vote against the deal.

Since: Jun 22, 2011
Posted on: July 22, 2011 6:21 am

Trask explains Raiders' vote

Of course they said no....they need to have something written up in the new CBA which will allow them an edge over other NFL teams....Say extra draft choices or extra spots on the roster....anything to make these guys competitive again.

The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or