NFLPA wants inquiry on Welker deal?

[Metaphors]

Re: NFLPA Accuses Patriots, Fins of violating CBA on Welker

It's a clear violation of both the CBA and the labor law to deprive or to attempt to deprive a protected bargaining member of a CBA right through collusion.

Welker did have RFA rights and here is how he could have used them:

Miami: "Wes, we want to trade you to New England."

Welker: "No thanks."

Welker gave up his RFA rights to facilitate the trade to the Pats.

 

[NE39]

Re: NFLPA Accuses Patriots, Fins of violating CBA on Welker

It's a clear violation of both the CBA and the labor law to deprive or to attempt to deprive a protected bargaining member of a CBA right through collusion.

The guy had a 1 Year contract, which he willingly signed. The Pats traded for that contract, then signed an extension, which he willingly signed.

All this offer sheet crap is clouding the issue. There was never an offer sheet executed. The Pats traded for a player under contract, just like any player. They then signed him to an extension.

How is that violating the CBA?

 

[patchick]

Re: NFLPA Accuses Patriots, Fins of violating CBA on Welker

The best argument I've heard you make is one that would go like this -- A club can decide that uncertainty about whether another team will match a contract with a poison pill is sufficient for it to give more in trade than the tender-level pick.

How about a timing-based argument? E.g., let's say that...

In the early days of a particularly competitive FA season, it was extremely valuable for the Patriots to solidify a deal with Welker and know the exact cap hit immediately. Sure, they could have pried away Welker with a poison pill, but the Fins would then have 7 days to sit on the contract. A bottom-of-the-draft pick was a tiny price to pay to eliminate the waiting period.

In fact, they did end up signing 2 more WRs during the period they otherwise would have been waiting on Miami's final response. And both of those additional contracts were elaborately structured to ensure a low up-front payment, which might be said to be a reaction to the bonus money allotted to Welker.

Worth a try, anyway.

 

[NE39]

http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?p=518682

"A league spokesman and an attorney for the NFL players' union confirmed that a special master ruled against Seattle earlier Monday, saying a provision guaranteeing all of the $49 million in the offer sheet Hutchinson signed with Minnesota should he not be the team's highest-paid offensive lineman is valid."

They never challenged whether it violated the CBA, they challenged whether it was valid after renegotiating Jones Contract

See this story:

The Seahawks had argued that because they recently re-negotiated Pro Bowl left tackle Walter Jones' seven-year contract by adding an eighth, voidable year, Jones' team-best lineman deal now has an annual value below that of Hutchinson's offer.

After the re-negotiation, Jones' annual base salary would dip to $6.81 million -- just below Hutchinson's $7 million annual average had Seattle matched Minnesota's offer. Thus, the Seahawks argued they should not have to guarantee the rest of Hutchinson's new deal.

Berthelsen said Burbank did not elaborate in his ruling.

But Berthelsen said the decision validated the NFLPA's stance that the conditions at the time Hutchinson signed the offer sheet with the Vikings are the conditions Seattle must match -- meaning Hutchinson wasn't the highest-paid Seahawks lineman then, so Seattle must guarantee all of the Vikings' deal to match it.

"They wanted to put in additional language to make it from any point from now until the end of the 2006 league year," Berthelsen said. "That is contrary to the intent of the wording that was in the contract.

"And the special master agreed."

Seattle never challenged whether the CBA allowed "poison pills". That has never been arbitrated.

 

[spacecrime]

What I'd like to know is this:

If you are the agent, why are you letting Welker sign the contract to begin with if you have a problem with it?

First you get the most money you can. Once that is safely in the bank, you go for more money.

 

[arrellbee]

Bastiches!

On the face of it, this is a totally ridiculous action on the part of the NFLPA.

If there had been an offer sheet, it goes to the agent - and he would have been plenty eager to let the world know. Since we can be pretty sure that there was never an offer sheet given to the agent, the idea that an 'intended' offer sheet has any bearing on anything is ludicrous - and even more-so the suppostion that media 'rumors' have any bearing on anything whatsoever.

Pure horseradish.

Without an offer sheet, any discussion about intentions or possible poison pills or anything else is meaningless.

If the Patriots had not signed a new contract with Welker, there might have been some questions about whether he was still a restricted free agent - now with the Patriots rather than Miami - and whether another team might have still been able to come in with an offer sheet to the Patriots.

 

[spacecrime]

Re: NFLPA Accuses Patriots, Fins of violating CBA on Welker

The guy had a 1 Year contract, which he willingly signed. The Pats traded for that contract, then signed an extension, which he willingly signed.

All this offer sheet crap is clouding the issue. There was never an offer sheet executed. The Pats traded for a player under contract, just like any player. They then signed him to an extension.

How is that violating the CBA?

Ah, the voice of logic and reason.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

Re: NFLPA Accuses Patriots, Fins of violating CBA on Welker

How about a timing-based argument? E.g., let's say that...

In the early days of a particularly competitive FA season, it was extremely valuable for the Patriots to solidify a deal with Welker and know the exact cap hit immediately. Sure, they could have pried away Welker with a poison pill, but the Fins would then have 7 days to sit on the contract. A bottom-of-the-draft pick was a tiny price to pay to eliminate the waiting period.

In fact, they did end up signing 2 more WRs during the period they otherwise would have been waiting on Miami's final response. And both of those additional contracts were elaborately structured to ensure a low up-front payment, which might be said to be a reaction to the bonus money allotted to Welker.

Worth a try, anyway.

That's not too bad, actually. If it's true.

Bottom line is that people are going to have get under oath and testify if it comes to that. I love some of the comments earlier in this thread that simply assume people will lie or say whatever their lawyers tell them to, regardless of whether it's perjury.

The reality is that Welker knows whether or not poison pill contracts were discussed, as do the FO and the dolphins. They also know why and when they did or didn't do certain things.

I think it strains credibility for some to suggest that the poison pill was never part of the equation here or that this was simply a straight trade from the outset. Someone on the dolphins is going to get asked the question straight out -- but for the poison pill threat, would you have done this trade for these picks? Maybe the truthful answer is yes. I wonder. I also wonder if there are e-mail or conversation with Welker that say otherwise. The most likely set of true facts, which are clear I think to anyone but a revisionist, is that the concept of the poison pill is what got this deal done. The poison pill threat was floated, the economic terms agreed to, and then a poison-pill avoiding solution was reached perhaps in response to intervention from an owner. Given that's likely what happened here, or at least possibly what happened, I don't think we can act too surprised that the NFLPA is seeking to pursue a grievance.

 

[spacecrime]

I guess the agent's point of view was, if the Patriots made an offer they(the fins) would have had to make an offer substantial enough the Dolphins would not have matched and this whole process was averted. Also I don't understand why people say "4 games in Miami and entire contract is guaranteed" The Patriots play the dolphins twice in the regular season and if they played again in the playoffs and the SB was held in Miami.. yeah.. anyway.

Four games a YEAR in Miami.

 

[solman]

Have you ever been in a union? When the union says you are complaining, you are complaining.

You're right hwc.

Welker didn't lose any money, but this same tactic could be used to take millions away from players in the future.

If the union thinks that there is any possibility of the NFL taking the position that NE39 has advocated, they HAVE to challenge this.

That said, I think Upshaw and Goodell can handle this (and would prefer to handle it) with a phone call in which Goodell promises that it won't happen again. I think its clear to everyone that the intent and effect of this deal wasn't to screw the player.

 

[Metaphors]

They never challenged whether it violated the CBA, they challenged whether it was valid after renegotiating Jones Contract

See this story:



Seattle never challenged whether the CBA allowed "poison pills". That has never been arbitrated.

Just because Seattle challenged on the basis of the renegotiated contract, you are making the assumption that Seattle ONLY made that ONE challenge. That was actually Plan B if the guarantee provision held up under arbitration:

http://proxy.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=clayton_john&id=2387043

"The Hutchinson deal effectively kills the use of the transition tag. Each year, teams are given the use of the franchise or the transition tag as a way to keep their best unsigned player. Thanks to Hutchinson, any team can create a poison pill that won't be matched because a special master isn't going to veto a guarantee. If the clause triggers a salary escalation, the deal doesn't have to be matched. But guarantees are a different story."

Should have referenced this orginally since I think it sums it up nicely.

 

[Metaphors]

Welker didn't lose any money, but this same tactic could be used to take millions away from players in the future.

Can you explain how a team pursuing a RFA can use draft picks/money/favors to "take millions from players"? I think it has been stated that this tactic only works if the player willingly participates...and I doubt they would willingly allow a team to "take millions" from them.

 

[NE39]

Just because Seattle challenged on the basis of the renegotiated contract, you are making the assumption that Seattle ONLY made that ONE challenge. That was actually Plan B if the guarantee provision held up under arbitration:

http://proxy.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=clayton_john&id=2387043

"The Hutchinson deal effectively kills the use of the transition tag. Each year, teams are given the use of the franchise or the transition tag as a way to keep their best unsigned player. Thanks to Hutchinson, any team can create a poison pill that won't be matched because a special master isn't going to veto a guarantee. If the clause triggers a salary escalation, the deal doesn't have to be matched. But guarantees are a different story."

Should have referenced this orginally since I think it sums it up nicely.

Oh, it is out there to use, no doubt. However, it has never been challenged before an arbitrator whether it is allowed by the CBA. Seattle had the chance, but instead chose to challenge that the clause was no longer valid because the had restructured Jones contract. A curious decision on their part.

This issue came up before in the CBA after the Curtis Martin/Will Wilford signings and language was added to deal with it, but it is murky. I'm not sure which direction it would go if challenged, but it would be an interesting case.

 

[Metaphors]

Oh, it is out there to use, no doubt. However, it has never been challenged before an arbitrator whether it is allowed by the CBA. Seattle had the chance, but instead chose to challenge that the clause was no longer valid because the had restructured Jones contract. A curious decision on their part.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2375444

"Seattle representatives at the hearing will contest that the guarantee provision in the contract is not a principal term of the deal. They will argue that the Seahawks should be able to match the financial terms of the contract, and to retain Hutchinson, who was designated a transitional player last month. Hutchinson and the Vikings, who will be primarily represented by NFL Players Association attorneys, will contest that the clause is a valid one and is not an attempt to circumvent the collective bargaining agreement."

http://www.profootballweekly.com/PFW/Features/Free+Agency/2007/franchisetags.htm

"When the Vikings signed him to an offer sheet that contained a poison-pill guarantee provision that Seattle was unwilling to match — and after an arbitrator had rejected the Seahawks' appeal of the guarantee clause — Hutchinson officially signed with Minnesota, a blow to the Hawks' offensive line from which the team never fully recovered last season."

You seem to be pretty sure this hasn't been challenged in spite of all the credible references stating that it has. Do you have any references that specifically say that Seattle didn't challenge the guarantee clause that may be more accurate or recent than what I'm reading?

 

[solman]

Can you explain how a team pursuing a RFA can use draft picks/money/favors to "take millions from players"? I think it has been stated that this tactic only works if the player willingly participates...and I doubt they would willingly allow a team to "take millions" from them.

The RFA provision of the CBA is supposed to encourage offering teams to make a high offer out of fear that the current team will match.

If the offering team doesn't have to worry about the current team matching, then they can make a lower offer.

The current team gets extra compensation. The offering team pays less money, and the player loses.

Its actually just a specific case of generic collusion. If teams A,B,C and D bid against each other for a player's services, the player might get $X. If team A offers teams B, C and/or D compensation for not bidding on the player (potentially contingent on team A signing the player), then the pool of bidders is reduced from 4 to 3, 2 or 1. Fewer bidders potentially results in a much lower price for the player.

 

[NE39]

You seem to be pretty sure this hasn't been challenged in spite of all the credible references stating that it has. Do you have any references that specifically say that Seattle didn't challenge the guarantee clause that may be more accurate or recent than what I'm reading?

I'm not trying to be flip, but I am certain of it.

The Seahawks and the NFL ran a bait-and-switch. They brought the case claiming that the "guarantee" provision was not a "principal term." At the hearing they dropped that argument and said it didn't matter because they redid Walter Jones' contract and Hutchinson was no longer the highest-paid guy.

The NFLPA argued that the guarantee still stood because he wouldn't be the highest paid player at all points during the league year (in other words it was already too late to redo Jones' deal) and they won.

Whether the "poison pill" is valid to match, was never addressed. I'll try to find articles from that time, but it is a common misconception that the "poison pill" was addressed at the time. The arbitrator never heard anything about that.

 

[NE39]

Here you go:

LINK

The Seahawks produced a surprise this morning during a hearing to determine the future of Hutchinson.

During a hearing in front of Stephen Burbank, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, the Seahawks did not argue the legality of a so-called "poison-pill" clause that would guarantee all of Hutchinson's $49 million offer sheet if he does not have the highest annual average salary of any offensive lineman on his team in 2006.

Instead, the Seahawks revealed they had renegotiated the contract of left tackle Walter Jones, according to NFLPA General Counsel Richard Berthelsen, who represented Hutchinson at the hearing. Jones' contract now averages less than $7 million annually -- a move the Seahawks argued would allow them to match the offer sheet without triggering the clause. Jones' contract previously averaged $7.5 million a year.

But Burbank decided that the changes the Seahawks were attempting to make would have changed a principal term of the offer sheet.

That is how it went down.

 

[hwc]

You seem to be pretty sure this hasn't been challenged in spite of all the credible references stating that it has. Do you have any references that specifically say that Seattle didn't challenge the guarantee clause that may be more accurate or recent than what I'm reading?

The articles you cite were written before the arbitration hearing. At the actual hearing, the Seahawks surprised "the pundits" and did not argue the legitimacy of poison pill offers. The only thing they argued was the Hutchinson was then the highest paid lineman on their team and, therefore, they were able to match the provisions of the offer sheet, including the poison pill provision. The arbiter ruled that Hutchinson was not the highest paid player on the team at the time of the RFA offer.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

The articles you cite were written before the arbitration hearing. At the actual hearing, the Seahawks surprised "the pundits" and did not argue the legitimacy of poison pill offers.

That's actually pretty interesting.

It sets up an interesting issue. (Though while I say interesting, I wouldn't be surprised if there already are several labor law opinions directly on point.)

Can the patriots claim uncertainty over the legality of a poison pill as a reason for offering the 7th? That would undercut the challenge.

Then again, that seems like a pretty large loophole that management could always use to get around virtually any provision in a CBA in a dispute with labor, which is why I say a labor lawyer would probably tell us the law already has an answer for that argument.

 

[Metaphors]

The RFA provision of the CBA is supposed to encourage offering teams to make a high offer out of fear that the current team will match.

If the offering team doesn't have to worry about the current team matching, then they can make a lower offer.

The current team gets extra compensation. The offering team pays less money, and the player loses.

You are missing the point. The player has to consent to this process. You are proceeding under the assumption that Welker has no control. He gave up his free agency rights to go to New England.

Its actually just a specific case of generic collusion. If teams A,B,C and D bid against each other for a player's services, the player might get $X. If team A offers teams B, C and/or D compensation for not bidding on the player (potentially contingent on team A signing the player), then the pool of bidders is reduced from 4 to 3, 2 or 1. Fewer bidders potentially results in a much lower price for the player.

I agree with your description but it isn't related to this case. Let's play "what did they know and when did they know it":

Pats - We want Welker and we'll give up the 2nd round pick, but the dolphins may match. We could insert a "poison pill", but they are bad for business and we would still have to wait a week. Let's talk to Welker's agent about trade possibilities.

Dolphins - New England wants Welker and we probably won't want to or be able to match their offer sheet. We thought this might happen when we gave him a 2nd round tender instead of something higher, so I guess we will be getting the Patriots 2nd round pick.

Welker - New England wants me and the money is what I'm looking for, but they don't want to go through the RFA crap. I'll sign the Dolphins tender with the understanding that they will work out a trade and I'll get the contract that I expect in New England.

Dolphins - So New England and Welker have worked out contract details and if we agree to trade him once he signs his tender, we get an extra 7th beyond what we were already expecting? Sounds like a plan.

This all seems rather "above board" to me. Not sure how collusion can happen with the player being involved.