If Branch wins the greivance, the NFL is ruined

[mb6592]

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

Of course the Patriots reserved their right. Did they mean "fair and reasonable" as determined by Branch's agent? The NFLPA? This is lawyer speak and not especially clever lawyer speak.

 

[upstater1]

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

You're wrong. Read the stories this morning. The Patriots never said they would accept fair and reasonable compensation. Did you read the articles? That was what Kessler said. The Patriots gave him permission to seek a trade. Nothing more. Kessler went out of his way to quote the Patriots press release as evidence. The press release said nothing about fair and reasonable compensation.

I'm on EBAY sometimes. OCcasionally, I dangle a Gibson Historic Les Paul at an outrageous price just to see if anyone will bite. It costs me $6 every time I do it. I know the chances of someone meeting my price are pretty slim, but I do it anyway.

Why? Because it costs me only $6, and the guitar is worth a LOT more.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

If this thing were in court before a judge, the Patriots couldn't possibly lose. There are way too many hurdles. The first and most significant to me is that even if you pretend the Patriots made the implied promise they supposedly made, it's not enforceable. Branch didn't give up anything to get it. It was a gift. The patriots were under no obligation to let him seek a trade. In legal contract language, the supposed promise was unsupported by "consideration."

Then there is the problem that Branch is claiming that a 2d round pick was so much to offer that the Patriots acted unreasonably by not taking it. That's a little hard to square with his argument that he deserves to be paid and a contract like a superstar.

That's assuming that you can even enforce some vague "fair and reasonable" language that apparently was never even uttered by the Pats but instead is supposedly implied in their offer.

Bottom line, this one would be a laugher in court. Unfortunately, this isn't court.

 

[upstater1]

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

As a matter of fact, you mightt even say they have already LOST-LOST. Would you give the player the right to seek a trade now that the grievance has been filed? I know I wouldn't. Too many variables. Let's say the arbitrator rules in favor of the Patriots but agrees that the terms of the grievance are valid (in other words, he agrees that the Patriots were bound to complete a trade for reasonable compensation, but that he feels a 2nd was not enough value to meet the standard). If the arbitrator makes a ****amamie ruling like that, then in the future it will be up to an arbitrator to determine trade value.

I think the NFLPA has already made a lot of offices think twice with this grievance. Some of the damage is done already.

 

[upstater1]

ROFL, ****amamie as in ****adoodledoo as in Tom Brady did not re**** his arm on the Tuck rule.

 

[upstater1]

If this thing were in court before a judge, the Patriots couldn't possibly lose. There are way too many hurdles. The first and most significant to me is that even if you pretend the Patriots made the implied promise they supposedly made, it's not enforceable. Branch didn't give up anything to get it. It was a gift. The patriots were under no obligation to let him seek a trade. In legal contract language, the supposed promise was unsupported by "consideration."

Then there is the problem that Branch is claiming that a 2d round pick was so much to offer that the Patriots acted unreasonably by not taking it. That's a little hard to square with his argument that he deserves to be paid and a contract like a superstar.

That's assuming that you can even enforce some vague "fair and reasonable" language that apparently was never even uttered by the Pats but instead is supposedly implied in their offer.

Bottom line, this one would be a laugher in court. Unfortunately, this isn't court.

We talked about this "consideration" thing the other day. Branch might have agreed to return to the fold if no offers were made. That would qualify as consideration. Given the fact that Kraft and Branch alluded to the situation ending by the 1st, it could be that Branch made that agreement.

 

[Sundayjack]

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


(I win?)

Touché, my hyberbolic friend.

 

[hobbsownscoles]

Jason chayut is being a big *****

 

[RI Pats Fan]

Touché, my hyberbolic friend.

My middle name isn't Exaggeration for nothing

Yup, RI "Exaggeration" Patsfan

 

[PatsFan37]

You're wrong. Read the stories this morning. The Patriots never said they would accept fair and reasonable compensation. Did you read the articles? That was what Kessler said. The Patriots gave him permission to seek a trade. Nothing more. Kessler went out of his way to quote the Patriots press release as evidence. The press release said nothing about fair and reasonable compensation.

I'm on EBAY sometimes. OCcasionally, I dangle a Gibson Historic Les Paul at an outrageous price just to see if anyone will bite. It costs me $6 every time I do it. I know the chances of someone meeting my price are pretty slim, but I do it anyway.

Why? Because it costs me only $6, and the guitar is worth a LOT more.

You don't know what the Patriots said because they didn't make it public. And I *assumed* they said 'fair and reasonable' since it's been quoted so many times. So EXCUUUSE ME.

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

We talked about this "consideration" thing the other day. Branch might have agreed to return to the fold if no offers were made. That would qualify as consideration..

Actually it's only consideration if there were new promises involved. As Branch was under contract for this year and had an obligation to play this year for the Patriots, his promise to report and play is NOT consideration.

 

[Sundayjack]

BAH! I feel like I'm at a ****tail party with a bunch of law students.

 

[PatsFan37]

BAH! I feel like I'm at a ****tail party with a bunch of law students.

Yeah, really. What time's that game next week?

 

[patchick]

BAH! I feel like I'm at a ****tail party with a bunch of law students.

True enough. But most football bboards feel like you're at a kegger with a bunch of underage frat boys. I'll take patsfans.com any day.

 

[Sundayjack]

True enough. But most football bboards feel like you're at a kegger with a bunch of underage frat boys. I'll take patsfans.com any day.

I can't disagree. And, I'll say this much: this is probably the cleanest and most active board of any I've infested.


Just the same. . . . . . . . law students???

 

[Mike the Brit]

True enough. But most football bboards feel like you're at a kegger with a bunch of underage frat boys. I'll take patsfans.com any day.

Priceless! :rocker:

 

[PatsFan37]

Of course the Patriots reserved their right. Did they mean "fair and reasonable" as determined by Branch's agent? The NFLPA? This is lawyer speak and not especially clever lawyer speak.

Not being a lawyer, the only clever lawyer speak I remember is when they tell me their bill is 'fair and reasonable.'
:bricks:

 

[upstater1]

Actually it's only consideration if there were new promises involved. As Branch was under contract for this year and had an obligation to play this year for the Patriots, his promise to report and play is NOT consideration.

Is that the way an arbitrator would look at it? In any labor dispute (let's say a strike by a union) a promise to return to work is treated as a material concession even though the union still has a contract.

I hear what you're saying, but there are plenty of instances when unions have gone on strike with a contract, and any negotiation called on mutual concessions by both sides.

Arbitrators can take a lot more into account than a court of law can.

 

[upstater1]

You don't know what the Patriots said because they didn't make it public. And I *assumed* they said 'fair and reasonable' since it's been quoted so many times. So EXCUUUSE ME.

The Kessler quote this morning pointed to the PR statement as the piece of evidence in which the Patriots stated their intention. It said nothing about fair and reasonable. However, as everyone here knows, a trade is a trade and it's always assumed that a trade will be fair and reasonable unless either the Vikings or Al Davis are involved. :singing:

Kessler inferred from the Patriots press release that any mention of a trade involves the teams intention to trade the player when a decent offer comes along. But the Patriots never literally said that.

 

[PatsFan37]

The Kessler quote this morning pointed to the PR statement as the piece of evidence in which the Patriots stated their intention. It said nothing about fair and reasonable. However, as everyone here knows, a trade is a trade and it's always assumed that a trade will be fair and reasonable unless either the Vikings or Al Davis are involved. :singing:

Kessler inferred from the Patriots press release that any mention of a trade involves the teams intention to trade the player when a decent offer comes along. But the Patriots never literally said that.

Okay, okay, you made me read an article. So here's a question, and again, I'm not a lawyer ...
(quoting from the article) "the grievance says that the Patriots agreed they would trade him if he were comfortable with that contract and if the draft choice compensation for him 'was commensurate with what has been the value of similar players.'

So is the union complaining that the Patriots said that or that allowing Branch to seek a trade implies that? This is what I don't understand. Because if they said it, then that was kinda silly and all a team has to do in the future is not say that. If they implied it by merely allowing Branch to seek a trade, then it will stifle future players in this particularly narrow situation.

Which clearly will bring upon us the ruin of the NFL and by extension, western civilization. Makes sense.

So, are they claiming said or implied? Lawyers, please, weigh in.

P.S. I apologize for not finding the Kessler quote. One legalese article was my limit.