upstater1 said:
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.