Metaphors
In the Starting Line-Up
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2005
- Messages
- 3,670
- Reaction score
- 0
I think you copied the wrong link. I can't find any of your quote in the referenced article.
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.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.
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.
The owners have clearly decided not to use the poison pill option against each other. Collusion? Fear of retribution in an escalating game of ugly "gotcha"? Just plain common sense? Honoring the spirit of the rules? Fear of having the poison pill tossed out by an arbiter as non-material provisions in a contract (which could very well happen)? Call it what you want.
I'm not trying to be flip, but I am certain of it.
This all seems rather "above board" to me. Not sure how collusion can happen with the player being involved.
Carl Francis, the director of communications from the NFL Players Association, clarified the situation regarding Wes Welker today.
Francis said the NFL Players Association is not seeking a review of the process in which Welker was traded from the Dolphins to the Patriots. He added that the association is not concerned that the collective bargaining agreement might have been violated as part of that process.
Instead, Francis said the association had sent a letter of inquiry to the management council seeking details on the contract signed by Welker.
"It had nothing to do with the way the deal went down," said Francis, adding that it wasn't an official grievance, and that Welker and his representatives did not ask the association to pursue any course of action.
I hope you're not the league's lawyer. Because I would call that "illegal."
So, can we take this as being the 100% truth? Why would one source say otherwise and this guy says nothing is being investigated? Could this Carl Francis just be using the old lie to the media trick until after the investigation?
So, can we take this as being the 100% truth? Why would one source say otherwise and this guy says nothing is being investigated? Could this Carl Francis just be using the old lie to the media trick until after the investigation?
I am just worried that this whole deal will fall apart. What is the worst thing the league could do to the Dolphins and Patriots?Admittedly, they're not likely to give a straight answer, but one thing that will likely make this a lot easier is the strong relashionship between the NFL and NFLPA.
There is a fundamental understanding that they are partners as much as adversaries.
I hope that survives Upshaw's departure, which will apparently be before the next labor deal.
I am just worried that this whole deal will fall apart. What is the worst thing the league could do to the Dolphins and Patriots?
Originally Posted by NFLPA
No Consideration Between Clubs. There may be no consideration of any kind given by one Club to another Club in exchange for a Club’s decision to exercise or not to exercise its Right of First Refusal, or in exchange for a Club’s decision to submit or not to submit an Offer Sheet to a Restricted Free Agent or to make or not to make an offer to enter into a Player Contract with a Restricted Free Agent. If a Club exercises its Right of First Refusal and matches an Offer Sheet, that Club may not trade that player to the Club that submitted the Offer Sheet for at least one calendar year, unless the player consents to such trade.
Totally inapplicable because there was NO offer made !! There has to be an offer MADE for there to be an issue of exercising or not exercising the ROFR. And an offer was NOT NOT NOT made because if it had been, that was a legal process that elliminated any possible other discussions or actions. Any possibility that the Patriots were internally considering making an offer is really incredibly meaningless in the extreme.There may be no consideration of any kind given by one Club to another Club in exchange for a Club’s decision to exercise or not to exercise its Right of First Refusal
Obviously, this means the Dolphins would have given the Patriots something so that they would not make an offer. The Dolphins didn't give the Patriots ANYTHING. In fact, as Metaphors pointed out, it's just the reverse, The Dolphins got something from the Patriots. No violation here in any way, shape, or form.or in exchange for a Club’s decision to submit or not to submit an Offer Sheet to a Restricted Free Agent or to make or not to make an offer to enter into a Player Contract with a Restricted Free Agent.
I include this for completeness. Since there wasn't even an offer much less an exercise of ROFR, there is nothing in this sentence that remotely applies.If a Club exercises its Right of First Refusal and matches an Offer Sheet, that Club may not trade that player to the Club that submitted the Offer Sheet for at least one calendar year, unless the player consents to such trade.
Totally inapplicable because there was NO offer made !! There has to be an offer MADE for there to be an issue of exercising or not exercising the ROFR. And an offer was NOT NOT NOT made because if it had been, that was a legal process that elliminated any possible other discussions or actions. Any possibility that the Patriots were internally considering making an offer is really incredibly meaningless in the extreme.CBA said:There may be no consideration of any kind given by one Club to another Club in exchange for a Club’s decision to exercise or not to exercise its Right of First Refusal
Even moreso, none of this passes even the slightest common sense test. Why would Pioli waste even one minute on some offer package before checking the simple possibility of a trade ?
Not to mention that, in this particular case, there didn't have to be any collusion (or even discussion) for both parties to negotiate a trade knowing full well the options that would be available if a trade did not happen.
In fact, those unspoken parameters probably drove the thinking on the trade. If NE were to submit a successful offersheet, the Dolphins would get a 2nd round pick this year and probably a very late 7th round compensation pick next year. So they came out ahead of the game by getting the nearly worthless late 7th round pick this year.
1. Totally inapplicable because there was NO offer made !! There has to be an offer MADE for there to be an issue of exercising or not exercising the ROFR.