Sauerbrun NFLPA grievance hearing held today

[pats1]

http://www.bostonherald.com/blogs/patriots/?p=1117

April 17th, 2007
Sauerbrun hearing held
Posted by Albert Breer at 3:03 pm

A special master’s hearing was held today in Boston to sort out Todd Sauerbrun’s future. The punter, signed prior to Week 16 of last season, agreed to terms with the Broncos on a one-year deal worth as much as $1.4 million 12 days ago, which was matched by the Patriots as part of a right-of-first-refusal arrangement six days later.

At issue is the placement of the right-of-first-refusal. According to agent David Canter, the provision was put in the language of the contract Sauerbrun signed in December, which is against the guidelines of the league’s collective bargaining agreement. The CBA states that any right-of-first-refusal must be signed in a stand-alone document, seperate from the contract itself.

An NFLPA official represented Canter and Sauerbrun today at the hearing. A decision may come as early as tomorrow morning, and should certainly be arrived at no later than draft day, according to the agent.

 

[SeanBruschi54]

Re: Sauerbrun hearing held today



If this lasts all the way until draft day then we're not getting a pick in return for him.

 

[BelichickFan]

Re: Sauerbrun hearing held today

Sounds like he has a pretty decent case - no that it really makes a big difference but I'd like to screw the Donkeys if only in a tiny way.

 

[Seymour93]

Re: Sauerbrun hearing held today

We should've sent Sauerbrun to NFL Europa.

 

[SeanBruschi54]

Re: Sauerbrun hearing held today

Sounds like he has a pretty decent case - no that it really makes a big difference but I'd like to screw the Donkeys if only in a tiny way.

Did the agent not look over the contract at all?

 

[DefenseRules]

Re: Sauerbrun hearing held today

At issue is the placement of the right-of-first-refusal. According to agent David Canter, the provision was put in the language of the contract Sauerbrun signed in December, which is against the guidelines of the league’s collective bargaining agreement. The CBA states that any right-of-first-refusal must be signed in a stand-alone document, seperate from the contract itself.

Um did his agent not read the contract before it was signed? How did he miss that part? How did the NFLPA miss that?

 

[SeanBruschi54]

Re: Sauerbrun hearing held today

Um did his agent not read the contract before it was signed? How did he miss that part? How did the NFLPA miss that?

Beat you too it. Look up.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

Re: Sauerbrun hearing held today

Did the agent not look over the contract at all?

I would assume he did. I also would assume that he might have seen the problem right away.

A lawyer for one side is under no obligation to tell the other side that they've stepped in something. If the patriots goofed, the agent on the other side was perfectly free to say absolutely nothing, sit back, and say, "hmm, looks like this is unenforceable and I have myself a gotcha if my player doesn't want to go back to New England."

 

[SeanBruschi54]

Re: Sauerbrun hearing held today

I would assume he did. I also would assume that he might have seen the problem right away.

A lawyer for one side is under no obligation to tell the other side that they've stepped in something. If the patriots goofed, the agent on the other side was perfectly free to say absolutely nothing, sit back, and say, "hmm, looks like this is unenforceable and I have myself a gotcha if my player doesn't want to go back to New England."

But at the same time you can make the argument that the wording is already in the contract.

You need that other sheet, i know. But if they could have worded it like "by signing this contract you waive the right to sign any other documents yada yada yada."

Could something like that still pass?

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

Re: Sauerbrun hearing held today

But at the same time you can make the argument that the wording is already in the contract.

You need that other sheet, i know. But if they could have worded it like "by signing this contract you waive the right to sign any other documents yada yada yada."

Could something like that still pass?

Maybe. I'm not sure what the CBA says or what the contract says.

I think what you're asking is whether the parties, by contract, can alter terms of the collective bargaining agreement. I would think the answer would be no, but it's really just a guess on my part. Surely you couldn't try to override something important and substantive, but maybe the law makes a difference between procedural and substantive protections.

All that said, I think it's highly unlikely the contract really does say something like that. If the patriots had spotted the issue well enough to put in that language, I'm sure they simply would have just had him sign a separate document. My guess is that either they thought the separate-document rule did not apply in this situation or they goofed. If the former, they probably have a good shot with the special master. If the latter, they'll probably lose.

Either way, I'm not sure it matters much. If Sauerbrun is such a baby that he needs to kick 8 games a year in the thin air, he can go f himself.

 

[Armen Da Pats Fan]

Re: Sauerbrun hearing held today

Um did his agent not read the contract before it was signed? How did he miss that part? How did the NFLPA miss that?

Doesn't the NFLPA ratify all contracts before they are finalized?

If so, what case is there?

 

[RayClay]

Hard to believe if the Pats did this. Unless they were trying to slip one in and got caught.

Now the old Patriots. remember when they forgot to send out the option letters, (a formality) and the whole team was technically free agents?

"The first major event of my tenure was the league meeting held in Palm Beach in March 1971. Before I left, I instructed my staff to send out option letters, an automatic procedure by which every team renews the options of each player under contract. Back from Florida a week later, I got a call from the attorney for Phil Olsen, a former first-round-pick defensive lineman who had previously told me he wanted to leave the team.

"Thanks, Upton," said the attorney. "It's wonderful that Phil's a free agent."

"What do you mean?" I said. "He's under contract."

"No. He never got his option letter, so I'm declaring him a free agent."

Turned out it wasn't only Olsen's letter that had not been sent. None of them had. And with the deadline past, every player was technically a free agent. The whole team. I had been in Boston for barely a month, and my entire team was gone. The saving grace was that, as far as I could tell, the only player who recognized this was Olsen.

Bucko Kilroy was hired from the Cowboys to run my scouting, and when I told him the situation, he was speechless. "If we send them an option letter now," I said, thinking aloud, "it will call it to their attention. Why don't we just send them all new contracts?" So we did, even giving some players a little bonus, which shocked more than a few since the Patriots franchise wasn't exactly known for its generosity. The whole thing took three months. Ninety days of getting up each morning wondering if this was the day the gaffe would blow up. But it never did."

http://www.redsoxnation.net/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t966.html

 

[spacecrime]

Re: Sauerbrun hearing held today

Um did his agent not read the contract before it was signed? How did he miss that part? How did the NFLPA miss that?

Who says he missed it? Where is it written that the agent must help the team write a proper contract?

He sees that Pats made a mistake. So what does he do? Say, "Hey, Mr. Kraft, the way you worded this, my client will be a free agent. If you want to hold my client hostage, here is how you must se up the contract."

Ri-ight. He says nothing. If the Pats don't match, no harm done. If the Pats do match, he knows he can grieve it and spring his client.

 

[DefenseRules]

Re: Sauerbrun hearing held today

Who says he missed it? Where is it written that the agent must help the team write a proper contract?

He sees that Pats made a mistake. So what does he do? Say, "Hey, Mr. Kraft, the way you worded this, my client will be a free agent. If you want to hold my client hostage, here is how you must se up the contract."

Ri-ight. He says nothing. If the Pats don't match, no harm done. If the Pats do match, he knows he can grieve it and spring his client.

But I thought that contracts were reviewed by the league office before they become official. It just seems strange that it was missed at the time the deal was made official. That's all.
Oh well, we'll find out soon enough if he has a case.

 

[zippo59]

I hate the Donks as much as anyone but I'm kind of thinking this bozo isn't worth the hassle.

 

[pats63]

Hey,maybe their is more to this If we win the grievance maybe a trade for Sauerbrun.....maybe a 2nd pick

 

[solman]

What the CBA says

The CBA requires that any player voluntarily agreeing to restrictions on his future mobility sign a waiver specifying the rights that he is giving up.

Sauerbrun unquestionably signed a waiver. His agent likely made one (or both) of the following arguments:

1. The waiver was part of the contract (not a separate document as the CBA says) and therefore invalid. I think there is very little chance that Sauerbrun prevails on this argument.

2. The waiver did not fully specify the terms of the right of first refusal. If, for example, the waiver says "Player agrees to give club a right of first refusal" and the contract specifies a substantially more limiting form of first refusal (for example, the rules used for RFAs) then this would (in my opinion) be a slam dunk for Sauerbrun.

Unfortunately, we know neither what it says in the waiver nor in the contract. If I am right, the arbitrator will first have to determine if the absence of non-material terms from the waiver is sufficient to void the right of first refusal. I doubt he will do this (the form of the waiver is specified in the CBA, and it is a short form, not really suitable for containing detailed contractual specifications). But if the arbitrator does rule this way, the Patriots will almost surely lose.

If he decides that omissions from the waiver DO have to be material, then he will have to decide whether or not the omissions from this particular waiver WERE material. I can't even speculate on this without seeing the waiver.

It will be a (small) black mark for Pioli if Sauerbrun is able to squirm free because we didn't dot our Is and cross our Ts.

 

[solman]

Re: Sauerbrun hearing held today

But I thought that contracts were reviewed by the league office before they become official. It just seems strange that it was missed at the time the deal was made official. That's all.
Oh well, we'll find out soon enough if he has a case.

At some point, each potentially ambiguous element of the CBA has to get arbitrated. This is one such provision, and the Patriots get to be the Guinea pigs.

I imagine that the league thought they had received a valid waiver. This arbitration will serve to define what actually constitutes a valid waiver.

 

[spacecrime]

Re: What the CBA says

Unfortunately, we know neither what it says in the waiver nor in the contract.

Well, yeah, sure. But that shouldn't stop us from having strong opinions about it

 

[Jimke]

Our NFL Europe punter, Malone, had a good start averaging 45 yards per kick.

In a few more weeks we may not even remember Sauerbrun.