- Joined
- Sep 13, 2004
- Messages
- 9,344
- Reaction score
- 7,932
PatsFan37 said: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 ...