Welcome to PatsFans.com

Branch files 2 Grievances???

Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by Pats726, Sep 3, 2006.

  1. Pats726

    Pats726 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    9,800
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    From PFT....http://www.profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm



    BRANCH HAS FILED TWO GRIEVANCES

    Ron Borges of the Boston Globe reports that Pats receiver Deion Branch has filed two separate grievances against the team. One grievance relates to the team's failure to trade him once Branch received offers from the Jets and the Seahawks. The other grievance alleges that the Patriots failed to negotiate in good faith regarding an extension of Branch's contract, which expires after the 2006 season.

    Maybe we're missing something here, but does any team have an obligation of any kind to negotiate with a player at a time when the player is still under contract?

    Our guess is that Branch has opted for the two-pronged approach in order to put the Pats in a position that what they say about the matter in the first grievance can be used against them in the second grievance, and vice-versa. If the team thinks he merits a first-round pick or more in trade, then the argument in the second grievance will be that he should have been offered at least as much as what the Colts paid Reggie Wayne. If the Pats think he's worth substantially less than Wayne financially, then the argument in the first grievance will be that the team should be willing to let him go for, as reported, a second-round pick.

    Meanwhile, it appears that the offers made to Branch were legitimate, despite speculation from late Friday that was driven by the absence of any statements or other evidence suggesting that the Jets and Seahawks had made offers to the player, or to the team. The Jets now acknowledge that they offered a second-round pick for Branch, and that the Patriots made no response before the 4:00 p.m. EDT deadline on Friday. "They didn't ask for anything," Jets G.M. Mike Tannenbaum told Borges.

    Stay tuned, folks. This one is getting good.
  2. sarge

    sarge Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    1,382
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Wasn't it Branches own agent who refused to negotiate until the Pats promised not to franchise him?
  3. BradyisGod

    BradyisGod Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    1,051
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Does anyone have ESPN Insider? It appears they have new news about the situation, but it might just be an old link. It says "branch staying put?"
  4. Murphys95

    Murphys95 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    793
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Yes, 2 grievances. That news came out yesterday - at least that's what I thought we have been discussing all along. :)
  5. Pats726

    Pats726 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    9,800
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    I must have missed that which thread that was looked in a number of them and Didn't see a mention od TWO....This should be merged...
  6. PlattsFan

    PlattsFan Rookie

    Joined:
    May 25, 2006
    Messages:
    423
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    No new information on that ... just a rehash that the Seahawks remain interested but couldn't work out a deal, blah, blah ...
  7. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    40,851
    Likes Received:
    90
    Ratings:
    +151 / 3 / -19

    Neither one of these sound like violations of the NFL CBA, I don't get it...sounds like Chayut is alleging that the pats violated a side agreement, not the CBA. Particularly the latter, he is still under contract so how could this be argued.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>