I can understand anyone not wanting to read Borges, but this article is based on an interview with Branch and it does contain some interesting information: http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/articles/2006/09/12/out_pattern/ Considering the circumstances and the biases of the person who is writing the piece, Deion comes off as a lot less bitter than you might expect. There seem to be two main aspects to Branch's side of the story. First, the emphasis is on the guaranteed money -- the article states that the Seahawks offer was hugely different from the Pats'. Second, Branch very much resents the fifth year of his rookie deal. He claims that he was set to sign a four-year deal but was forced into a five-year deal because of his play in rookie camp. He says that he was the one taking the decisions, not Chayut. Oh, and the basis for the "not negotiating in good faith" grievance was that the Pats apparently urged Branch to fire Chayut. Finally (this is especially for I-May-Or-May-Not-Be-Ron-Borges-But-I'll-Try-To-Be-Just-As-Irritating) did anyone else who read the article spot the Borges trademark elementary grammar mistake?