Welcome to PatsFans.com

If Branch wins the greivance, the NFL is ruined

Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by R_T26, Sep 3, 2006.

  1. R_T26

    R_T26 Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Messages:
    1,428
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    If Branch seriously some how wins this greivance, and the Pats are forced to trade their best reciever to a divison rival for a 2nd round pick, I believe the NFL will eventually fall apart. In no way should the league be able to tell what a team has to take for a guy under contract. Now guys who are under contract will be able to force teams to trade him, with the NFL establishing the compensation. Then whose to say a loophole cant be discovered where teams say an unrestricted free agent cant be overpayed by another team because a guy with similar stats was payed x amount, will the NFL say that that player has to play for his original team under the money payed to players of simialr stature. Basically meaning a team cant overpay in FA. This just does not seem legal.

    P.s. Screw mangini and Curtis martin part II Deion.
     
  2. shatch62

    shatch62 Practice Squad Player

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2004
    Messages:
    231
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    This already started when T.O. left the 49ers.
    Owens agent -David Joseph- missed the deadline to void the final years of his contract with the 49ers.
    San Francisco traded Owens to the Baltimore Ravens for a second round pick in the 2004 draft.
    Owens challenged the 49ers' right to make the deal. Owens states that he would become a free agent on March 3, and did not believe that the earlier deadline was applicable.
    The NFL Players Union filed a grievance on his behalf.

    Before the arbitrator could make a ruling on Owens's grievance, the NFL and the three teams involved in the controversy reached a settlement because the league was afraid what would happen if Owens won his case.

    Funny thing is all three teams ended up getting screwed. Baltimore, thinking they had Ownes didn't pursue any other WR in free agency and by the time the trade was undone it was too late.
    49ers - even though they had every right to trade him - only got a 5th and a crappy D-lineman.
    Eagels got a great "talent" but I think we all know how that worked ouot for Philly.

    The league is going to hell because the inmates are beginning to run the asylum.
     
  3. Jimke

    Jimke In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2006
    Messages:
    3,750
    Likes Received:
    18
    Ratings:
    +51 / 3 / -2

    This is why I stated on another post that the NFL is probably

    putting pressure on the Pats to settle this thing before Saturday.
     
  4. Jacky Roberts

    Jacky Roberts 2nd Team Getting Their First Start

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2005
    Messages:
    1,614
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I agree. If Branch was "franchised" this year, it could make sense. Seeing how he's still under contract, forcing a trade would be disasterous for the NFL.
     
  5. PatsFanSince74

    PatsFanSince74 PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2005
    Messages:
    10,018
    Likes Received:
    68
    Ratings:
    +165 / 3 / -1

    The logic of a decision in favor of Branch would be that the NFL office can set the conditions under which a player under continuing contract can be traded. If Branch prevails, then any time a team makes a trade and salary offer for a player under continuing contract and the team for which the player plays rejects that offer, the player can then file a claim to have the rejection overturned if he thinks he'll get a better deal or wants to make a move for other reasons. I just don't see that happening and so I don't think that Branch will prevail.
     
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2006
  6. Patsfanin Philly

    Patsfanin Philly Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2005
    Messages:
    6,761
    Likes Received:
    30
    Ratings:
    +77 / 0 / -0

    #95 Jersey

    I don't see it happening for two reasons that I posted elsewhere.
    1) The Jets/Seahawks are not parties to this action. There are due process violations for an arbitrator/Special Master to require those teams to give up a pick and sign a player with its cap implications (what if there is no room?) without them being able to represent/defend themselves.

    2) One remedy listed in the CBA is that the arbitrator can void a player's contract. That is what Branch has to be hoping for so that he can create a bidding war for his services on or before week 1 of the season. It wouldn't shock me if Chayut has convinced Deion that this is a likely outcome (in his opinion) of the grievance.

    Not a legal opinion, just my $0.02,
     
  7. lobster

    lobster On the Game Day Roster

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2004
    Messages:
    481
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Excellent point, in other words the Pat's should have allowed Branch to seek a trade without ever mentioning "fair and reasonable" compensation. If a club was interested in discussing a trade with Chayut they could contacted the Pat's to find out what kind of compensation might be expected.

    Bob Kraft may regret leaving the Branch problem to Belichick and Pioli to resolve.
     
  8. lobster

    lobster On the Game Day Roster

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2004
    Messages:
    481
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    The players union filed grievances against the NFL, which the Jets and Seahawks couldn't join. However there appears to be some cheerleading for the players union from one anonymous GM who was quoted by Chayut's press agent - Ron Borges.
     
  9. patchick

    patchick Moderatrix Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    11,800
    Likes Received:
    413
    Ratings:
    +1,130 / 9 / -2

    #11 Jersey

    I guess I'm in the minority, but I think the result would be relatively minor--and the parties hurt most would be players in Deion's situation.

    What the grievance claims is that by granting a player under contract the right to seek a trade, the team is promising to accept in return compensation at a "fair and reasonable level" -- and that outside parties may determine that level against the team's wishes.

    So what's the result if that's upheld? Very simple: no player under contract is ever allowed to seek his own trade ever again. End of story. The Branches, Walkers and Lelies of the world who hope to talk their way out of town would be out of luck.
     
  10. Jacky Roberts

    Jacky Roberts 2nd Team Getting Their First Start

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2005
    Messages:
    1,614
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Bottom line is the NFL cannot force a team to trade a player who is under contract because he's disgruntled. He's under contract to NE and no one else. So at any time if a player gets pissed, hates his coach, etc, he can file a grievance and allow the NFL to force his team to trade him? No way.
     
  11. Sundayjack

    Sundayjack On the Game Day Roster

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2006
    Messages:
    444
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    This thread is the biggest overstatement in the HISTORY of the UNIVERSE!!!!
     
  12. patchick

    patchick Moderatrix Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    11,800
    Likes Received:
    413
    Ratings:
    +1,130 / 9 / -2

    #11 Jersey

    Sorry for repeating myself, but that's not what the grievance claims. It claims that IF you give a player the right to seek a trade, then you have a good-faith obligation to accept anything that vaguely resembles a fair trade. I can't possibly imagine this idea will be be upheld, but if so the situation simply won't ever come up again. No team will ever put itself at risk by letting the player find his own deal.
     
  13. Sundayjack

    Sundayjack On the Game Day Roster

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2006
    Messages:
    444
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    And it was a great point when you first said it, also. Short sightedness by the NFLPA, but that's what years of dues paying buys you, I suppose.
     
  14. PatsFan37

    PatsFan37 2nd Team Getting Their First Start

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    1,516
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -1

    #37 Jersey

    I haven't read the grievance, but doesn't it hinge on the team's agreement to accept a "fair and reasonable offer". So if the NFL upholds the grievance, then teams could still allow players to seek a trade as long as they reserve the right to determine compensation.

    It doesn't seem like a big deal.
     
  15. upstater1

    upstater1 Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    13,041
    Likes Received:
    35
    Ratings:
    +69 / 4 / -3


    That's my reading too. If the Patriots lose, it would end any discussion of trades except by front offices.
     
  16. upstater1

    upstater1 Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    13,041
    Likes Received:
    35
    Ratings:
    +69 / 4 / -3

    But the arbitrator will have ruled that teams don't have the right. I mean, the Patriots reserved that right. And if the arbitrator rules against them, that right will be worthless. Anyone can invoke the right, but if the ultimate "decider" cans it, then there is no such right.
     
  17. emoney_33

    emoney_33 Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2005
    Messages:
    5,194
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0


    Hmmm, so they are in a lose-lose situation with this grievance... Ahh the brat camp completely screwed themselves on this one lol
     
  18. PatsFan37

    PatsFan37 2nd Team Getting Their First Start

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    1,516
    Likes Received:
    10
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -1

    #37 Jersey

    No, the Patriots said 'fair and reasonable'. That's not reserving the right, that's opening yourself to arbitration.
     
  19. RI Pats Fan

    RI Pats Fan Practice Squad Player

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    206
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    If Branch wins the case, the world will implode and time will cease to exist.


    (I win?)
     
  20. patman52

    patman52 On the Game Day Roster

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2005
    Messages:
    441
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 1 / -0

    TOs situation was totaling different. When he signed his contract his conrract stated that he couid void out after the official start of free agency which at the time was say March 1 if he notified the team. After that contract was signed the NFL which wasit right swithched the date to two weeks earlier. TOs contract said "March 1st start of free agency" Two weeks after the new league wide date to declared that he wanted to void out. The niners said he missed the date he then grieved it.
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>