Why it's IMPOSSIBLE for Chayut to win the grievance... - New England Patriots Forums

patsox23 · 09-01-2006, 05:41 PM

If Branch wants to be traded to a team willing to pay him, on average, 6 million+ per season and...

if that is pretty much the yearly rate he would get if franchised and...

if compensation for a franchised player = two #1's, then...

even though it almost never happens that a team GETS two #1's - isn't that, by definition, FAIR compensation? I mean, that's how the parameters are set up. THOSE are the rules. It's impossible to argue otherwise. No?

SaCaCh · 09-01-2006, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsox23

If Branch wants to be traded to a team willing to pay him, on average, 6 million+ per season and...

if that is pretty much the yearly rate he would get if franchised and...

if compensation for a franchised player = two #1's, then...

even though it almost never happens that a team GETS two #1's - isn't that, by definition, FAIR compensation? I mean, that's how the parameters are set up. THOSE are the rules. It's impossible to argue otherwise. No?

Yup, look at the restricted free agent compensation. Imagine if you could offer a RFA 6 mil, what would the picks be for that??

***Mike the Brit*** · 09-01-2006, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patsox23

If Branch wants to be traded to a team willing to pay him, on average, 6 million+ per season and...

if that is pretty much the yearly rate he would get if franchised and...

if compensation for a franchised player = two #1's, then...

even though it almost never happens that a team GETS two #1's - isn't that, by definition, FAIR compensation? I mean, that's how the parameters are set up. THOSE are the rules. It's impossible to argue otherwise. No?

Florio at PFT explains it pretty clearly. If Branch is going to win a grievance it will have to be for breach of contract.

But there are two difficulties. First of all, it is very unlikely that the terms of any verbal agreement (if there was one) would be sufficiently clear for there to be a contract. Secondly, one of the principles of contract law is that there is only a contract where there is "consideration" (something given in return). But even if the Pats promised to let Branch take a decent offer if one came along, there would be no consideration because Branch did not offer anything in return.

Florio is a lawyer and knows about this stuff. I'm not but it smells of b*ll***** to me.

Florio's view is that the idea of letting Branch seek a trade has blown up in the Pats' faces because, whatever the legality, the fact that there are offers in excess of what the Pats have offered will reinforce Branch's sense of grievance. That's an interesting and plausible interpretation, it seems to me.

***PatsWickedPissah*** · 09-01-2006, 05:53 PM

What did the Pats have to lose? The Twig was gonna sit out 10 games, throw a hissey fit and whatever.

The Pats just PROVED because of the $ offered that the player equaled the league's stated price for a franchised player...2 #1s.

dhamz · 09-01-2006, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike the Brit

Florio's view is that the idea of letting Branch seek a trade has blown up in the Pats' faces because, whatever the legality, the fact that there are offers in excess of what the Pats have offered will reinforce Branch's sense of grievance. That's an interesting and plausible interpretation, it seems to me.

It is hard to argue with that. It has hardened Branch's holdout position at the start of the regular season which historically is when most players crack and come into camp.

Not only did it not resolve it, it ensured it will last until November.

5 Rings for Brady!! · 09-01-2006, 05:57 PM

Under normal circumstances, you would think that this grievance is just B.S. But, as I explained in the Taildragger thread, I think that Chayut has probably already contacted Upshaw, who clearly has a serious bone to pick with the Pats.

Rather than repeat my previous post, I will simply say that the politicians of the union and the agents who seem to advise them nowadays, are very strongly against the Pats, to the point that Upshaw and Chayut and the rest have 'Patriot Clauses' that they like to boast about in the media.

I think it would be ill advised to hope for any good will from the NFLPA in this matter, and I am a little apprehensive that those Nutcrackers are going to try and set a precedent of some kind with the Pats.

I think they relish the opportunity.

Remember that Owens was able to screw the 49ers and the Ravens with a little help from the union, and remember that the Redskins/Jets struggle over Coles was a political fiasco.

PromisedLand · 09-01-2006, 06:50 PM

Here's why it is impossible for Branch to win the grievance:

Branch And Chayut File Grievance

upstater1 · 09-01-2006, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatsWickedPissah

What did the Pats have to lose? The Twig was gonna sit out 10 games, throw a hissey fit and whatever.

The Pats just PROVED because of the $ offered that the player equaled the league's stated price for a franchised player...2 #1s.

But they also proved that other teams will pay Branch more than the Pats will. That was a bad gamble. There are 31 other teams. Someone will always throw crazy money out there (see David Patten, David Givens, Tom Ashworth, etc.)

upstater1 · 09-01-2006, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dhamz

It is hard to argue with that. It has hardened Branch's holdout position at the start of the regular season which historically is when most players crack and come into camp.

Not only did it not resolve it, it ensured it will last until November.

+1 Agreed.

I'm sighing here. Yeesh.

***PatsWickedPissah*** · 09-01-2006, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by upstater1

But they also proved that other teams will pay Branch more than the Pats will. That was a bad gamble. There are 31 other teams. Someone will always throw crazy money out there (see David Patten, David Givens, Tom Ashworth, etc.)

And you really think that the Pats didn't know that???????