AndyJohnson

At which point he would need to take a side on what 'fair compensation' is, in essence either telling the Patriots he will tell them what they meant by fair, or saying fair is in the eye of the beholder.
There is absolutely no way in the world anyone can hold the Patriots to a defintion of fair compensation that differs from what they judge it to be.
The Patriot FO is not stupid, and there is no question they anticipated this move, and were extremely careful in the way they communicated this permission.

Quite frankly, and arbitrator ruling in Branch's favor would mean nothing because the Patriots would not accept that decision, and move to take legal action to block it, under which they would without question win.

MoLewisrocks

Not that I think it will come to that but I don't think the loser here gets take any further legal action. The CBA requires that the parties to it agree to be bound by arbitration.

But the point is moot. He is only going to rule on whether or not they had any kind of binding agreement regarding what specifically constituted suitable compensation and the variables are all over the board. While the union may cite Fumblepepper (who was facing a scandalous court date and a knee injury believed prior to this month to take two years to heal) the Patriots can just as easily cite the JETS own John Abraham who was merely disgruntled and traded for a #1. As I recall for a time Seattle was the compensation front runner on that deal until Abraham made it clear he would only sign with Atlanta. Even then NY held firm until Atlanta engineered a deal where they got that #1. No team in the league can be comfortable watching Chayut's antics because of the implications and the damper those would put on player facilitated trades. In fact I wouldn't doubt there are a number of more experienced and high profile agents who are not wxactly thrilled with Chayut's antics at this point.

thewaylifeshouldbe

So many Branch threads, it's hard to know where to post a comment on the situation.

The end game looks bad any way you dice it if you ask me. If they rule for Branch/Chayut and the Jets agree, we lose him for a second. If they rule for the Pats, we win a key player who is even less likely to meet on terms or play for more than half the season.

Personally, I think the whole mess is such a distraction and exercise in ego, it's worth it to take the deal and ship him to the Jets for the 2nd, shop for a player that wants to wear the flying elvis, and get plugged into the season.

If we were shopping for a WR of Branchs caliber and history would we be willing to offer up a 1st for him? I don't think so, I don't think anyone would. To me that states his max league value regardless of the money on the table.

AzPatsFan

Do you think you can just knowingly full fore thought tamper with an enforceable legal contract and make representations about creating a default situation without legal cost to yourself?

When the Jets entered into conversations with Chayut they were in effect negotiating with the Patriots with Chayut serving as an agent for both Branch and the Patriots. They came to an agreement with Chayut and he says they did. He has subsequently enlisted the NFLPA grievance procedure to confirm that agreement. That was the first SNAFU; it asserts there is a contract, binding on the jets. The NFLPA supports Chayut, confirming the SNAFU; that confirms the contract has standing by one of the Judges of contracts. The Jets are on the hook, and the Jets have opened their checkbook. But not just to Branch, but also to the Pats, as their lawyers will argue.

There is an established, pre-negotiated and agreed on a compensation plan in place unless supereceded, and the Pats don't agree to supercede it, so the default implicit compensation remains in force. Too bad for the Jets its 2 #1s.

Caveat Emptor! That's why they tell you to read the fine print, dummy!

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

All of those happy horse manure things they say as the lawyers seize your assets.

AndyJohnson

I will bet every penny I have that the Patriots never implicitly or otherwise granted Chayut anything in the universe of negotiating FOR THEM or having any say it what the trade compensation would be.

lobster

No, Chayut got a contract from the Jets and then it was up to the Pat's and the Jets to negotiate compensation which they were apparently doing on Friday. Chayut would have nothing to do with negotiating compensation which is between the clubs to work out.

The Jets offered a #2 pick to the Pat's which apparently the Pat's declined. At that point Chayut filed a grievance saying that was reasonable and fair compensation under the verbal agreement given to him.

Now I suppose if the Pat's can get more compensation from the Seahawks they could argue that was also reasonable and fair. It will be up to arbitration to decide what is reasonable and fair compensation.

AndyJohnson

In essence Chayut is saying:

We dont like the contract we agreed, so we arent playing, and are not even telling the Patriots what we would play for.
The Patriots solution was for me to go find someone my client wanted to play for and they would consider a trade.
We found the team, but they arent giving the Patriots a trade that the Patriots think is fair.
I SAY IT IS FAIR. I SAY IT WOULD BE SMART FOR THE PARTIOTS TO MAKE THAT TRADE.
Mommy, the Patriots are being mean to me, please tell them they have to do what I want them to. I think I'm going to hold my breath until you say yes. And I'm not going to eat those vegetables any more either.

I just don't understand the connection where refusing to honor your contract creates your inalienable right to be traded whereever you want for whatever that team wants to give up.
If Chayut were to win this grieveance anarchy would rule the NFL.

SamBam39

andy - refusing to honor his contract did not create this inalienable right to be traded - the patriots decided to grant him that right.

patchick

This is precisely it. And I suspect that arbitrator will feel just I do when one of my daughters runs to me complaining that her sister won't play the role she wants in their game of fairy princesses. "Kids, it's up to the people in the game to decide what's fair."

It is entirely possible that an arbitrator would rule that allowing a player to seek a trade does constitute an agreement on the club's part to, say, "consider in good faith any serious trade offers." The idea that this implicit agreement would require a club to accept a lousy offer from a division rival though, seems ridiculous. (Almost as ridiculous as claiming that when the Jets offered a #2, it constituted a binding agreement to fork over 2 #1s.)

Jacky Roberts

I don't see how any arbitrator can force the Patriots to trade Branch or to force the Jets to trade for him. This would be doom for the NFL in my opinion.

__________________
"Spirituality, Faith, and Democracy are the cornerstones of our country. We are all Patriots, and tonight the Patriots are World Champions."
-Robert Kraft, 2/3/2002




To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.