If Branch wins the greivance, the NFL is ruined

[Mike the Brit]

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.

If the Patriots actually said that -- or, even more unbelievably -- put it in writing, I would faint on the spot. It's the interpretation that these clowns are putting on the mere fact of allowing Branch to seek a trade, surely ...

 

[upstater1]

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.

Well, you were right before when you said I had no definitive answer to your question, but the fact that Kessler had to point to the press release as a damning piece of evidence tells me that he's just making stuff up about the fair and reasonable part.

 

[fgssand]

There may be more forces at work here than meets the eye. Let's face it Upshaw hates the Patriots. Many agents cannot deal with the Patriots way of doing business.

I think we may have a conspiracy at work here to "tuck" it to the Patriots.

 

[Sundayjack]

Alright law school flunkies, this is my own read: Someone keeps referring to this as an implied contract - it ain't. Rather, what we're looking at is the interpretation of an ambiguous express contract. Chayut was the one who made the statement that the Patriots agreed they would deal Branch if they received a "fair and reasonable" offer. There's nothing implied about that at all. Kessler is looking at this as an ambiguous contract, and is using parole evidence ( )- evidence of of what similarly situated players garner in trade - in order to clear the ambiguity. This is why, when we first heard from Berthelsen and Kessler, they were spinning the language from "fair and reasonable" to "comparable value".

So go stuff that in your Legalines and outline it!

At the core of this thing will be the testimony of one guy - Jason Chayut - who's going to sit in front of an arbitrator and tell all the wonderful things that Scott Pioli said to him over the phone. I'm sure the conversation was brief, and went something like this:

Chayut: You mean to tell me that you'll agree to a trade if I can find you something in trade that's fair and reasonable.

Pioli: That's what I'm telling you. You bring us a deal that works for us and we'll do it.

Chayut: Great. We'll talk again in a week.

Pioli: Whatever, Sugarbritches.​

 

[PatsFan37]

Well, you were right before when you said I had no definitive answer to your question, but the fact that Kessler had to point to the press release as a damning piece of evidence tells me that he's just making stuff up about the fair and reasonable part.

They're making stuff up in front of the media? No way!

I guess we'll have to wait 'till Saturday to find out whodunit.

 

[RPCity]

One thing that I have not yet seen mentioned in all of the threads discussing this issue.....

An arbitrator's ruling does not set precedent. Meaning that if Branch should SOMEHOW win this crazy greivance.....the Pats will be screwed, but future team's won't neccessarily be. Future players won't have the ability to cite "Branch v. NFL, New England Patriots, et al" or something to say "See? You have to trade me because the Pats had to trade Deion Branch!"

An arbitrator's decision is much different from a judge's decision in that way. While both judges and arbitrators rely on common sense and instinct as well as the letter of the law to determine decisions....in similar cases "Case Law" from arbitrary hearings holds little weight, and no binding weight. Future aribtrators or judges may take it into consideration, but its nothing like the legal standard that a judge's decision will have.

Now if the Pats lose and appeal the case....only to lose AGAIN. Only THEN will it become precedent. When it is decided by a judge in a court of law. The chances of that happening though are very slim. Not only of the team losing in this matter twice in light of the evidence as I see it, but of the team appealling the case after losing to allow the possibility of setting precident.

 

[RPCity]

At the core of this thing will be the testimony of one guy - Jason Chayut - who's going to sit in front of an arbitrator and tell all the wonderful things that Scott Pioli said to him over the phone. I'm sure the conversation was brief, and went something like this:

Chayut: You mean to tell me that you'll agree to a trade if I can find you something in trade that's fair and reasonable.

Pioli: That's what I'm telling you. You bring us a deal that works for us and we'll do it.

Chayut: Great. We'll talk again in a week.

Pioli: Whatever, Sugarbritches.​

Now there's something that makes sense. Well....not the sugarbritches part.....but everything else.

Of course none of the players that are being referenced are anything close to "comparable". And if we want, we can throw out Randy Moss as the most recent example of a number one WR being traded from one team to another. So this thing could go round in circles for hours.

What it comes down to is that its just like a baseball salary arbitration.....its completely subjective. Let's hope whoever they get isn't a Jets or Seahawks fan.....or a Colts fan for that matter.

 

[upstater1]

There may be more forces at work here than meets the eye. Let's face it Upshaw hates the Patriots. Many agents cannot deal with the Patriots way of doing business.

I think we may have a conspiracy at work here to "tuck" it to the Patriots.

I don't know why this would be true. The Patriots spend to their cap every year. They pay their players the same way every other team pays their players.

The maint hing we're seeing is that because the Patriots are the premier franchise in the league right now, you see a lot of jealous people trying to take them down a notch.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

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.

It's almost like a law school exam here on patsfans.

Anyway, that's correct. A promise to do something you're legally obligated to do is not consideration.

As to one of the other questions -- arbitrators are supposed to follow the law. But if they don't, there is no accountability because there's no appeal.