NFLPA to file grievance for Hernandez' bonus

[BSR]

I disagree........the league along with Goodell are there to judge. The union needs to not judge or it will inevitably open the door to someone else to come in who does not judge to support the players.....I don't think it should be the unions job to question the people who pay. did they toss rae carruth? I'd be willing to bet that OJ still benefits in some way.

in order to fully assess the strengths and weaknesses of the process, one will have to wait until the legal proceedings are over.

I'll leave it with you that I respectfully disagree. I realize you think this opens some sort of door to weakening the union but I think it could be done in a way so it doesn't. In fact I think it can help strengthen them.

 

[BSR]

As to money owed Hernandez, if he was on the team, and had otherwise met all his contractual liabilities at the time the bonus was due, then the team is obligated to pay him. If the Patriots are exempted from this, then it calls into question the validity and enforceability of ALL other contracts. It's an issue of trust. Either a contract means what it says, or it doesn't, and if it's the latter, then why have any contracts at all?

Contracts aren't perfect. They are often subject to interpretation nor do they foresee every contingency. Agreements are often adjusted. Somehow this hasn't caused our contract law to crumble as you describe.

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

A win win would be to put that $87,000 if the Pats have to pay it,into a trust fund for Hernandez baby girl's college future.....his daughter didn't ask for a father who was an apparent murderer and idiot...let something good come out of this.

 

[IllegalContact]

I'll leave it with you that I respectfully disagree. I realize you think this opens some sort of door to weakening the union but I think it could be done in a way so it doesn't. In fact I think it can help strengthen them.

Simply put, it's not the unions job, and I don't think there's any way that dumping certain dues payers can help them. Between the legal principles you want to ignore, and wanting to turn money away, I don't exactly think your business savvy is showing beyond some snazzy hyperbole.

This is the real world......how would the union be strengthened?

 

[IllegalContact]

A win win would be to put that $87,000 if the Pats have to pay it,into a trust fund for Hernandez baby girl's college future.....his daughter didn't ask for a father who was an apparent murderer and idiot...let something good come out of this.

Unfortunately, the world doesn't work that way......the most likely resting place is Hernandez's legal fund.....

Either way, lawyers get rich and AH will be broke

 

[IllegalContact]

Contracts aren't perfect. They are often subject to interpretation nor do they foresee every contingency. Agreements are often adjusted. Somehow this hasn't caused our contract law to crumble as you describe.

Contracts are only 'adjusted' due to an agreement by both sides. Contracts correctly written, have teeth

 

[BSR]

Simply put, it's not the unions job, and I don't think there's any way that dumping certain dues payers can help them. Between the legal principles you want to ignore, and wanting to turn money away, I don't exactly think your business savvy is showing beyond some snazzy hyperbole.

This is the real world......how would the union be strengthened?

Keep in mind that I am suggesting the Union amend its constitution to include a standard of conduct for existing members. I feel the benefits would be as follows:

- Could lead to decrease in arrests/player incidents
- Helps them lose the perception of representing thugs in the public eye
- Can use self-policing measures as a negotiating point in CBA discussions.

Also, I'd be curious to know what legal principles I am ignoring since Unions are allowed to expel members and the NFLPA has the power to change their constitution to do the same.

As for my business savvy and snazzy hyperbole, why don't you leave the snide remarks out of it as I have done.

 

[BSR]

Contracts are only 'adjusted' due to an agreement by both sides. Contracts correctly written, have teeth

So then you agree that contracts can be fluid and the entire contract system won't crumble if the Patriots don't have to pay the bonus money? I'm not exactly sure what your point is otherwise.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

They had a legal obligation to pay him and then chose not to. Its an apt comparison.

No it isn't.

They had the legal obligation to pay him if he was under contract. And the contract gave the Patriots the right to unilaterally terminate the contract. They chose to exercise that contractual right.

The union has a legal obligation to represent Hernandez and its constitution does not give it any right to terminate that obligation. Big difference.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

So then you agree that contracts can be fluid and the entire contract system won't crumble if the Patriots don't have to pay the bonus money? I'm not exactly sure what your point is otherwise.

His point is that contracts aren't "fluid". The adjustments you refer to are one or more of three things:

• Superseding new contracts, mutually agreed upon
• Amendments to existing contracts, mutually agreed upon
• Adjustments done persuant to the mutually agreed upon terms in the original contract that allow for such adjustments.

If either side didn't agree to such things, none of those "adjustments" could be done.

 

[BSR]

No it isn't.

They had the legal obligation to pay him if he was under contract. And the contract gave the Patriots the right to unilaterally terminate the contract. They chose to exercise that contractual right.

The union has a legal obligation to represent Hernandez and its constitution does not give it any right to terminate that obligation. Big difference.

No they had the legal obligation to pay him if he did the offseason workouts, which he did. They don't have an out per the contract for the bonus BECAUSE they cut him. If they had waited until a guilty verdict only then would they have been able to recoup the bonus. Its all right there in the original article to this thread:

The Patriots could have easily recouped portions of Hernandez’s signing bonus by keeping him on the roster. Per the collective bargaining agreement, teams can recoup prorations of signing bonuses for as long as a player is incarcerated. It was an important part of the 2011 CBA negotiations for the owners, and they got their wish.

The problem for the Patriots is they released Hernandez in an attempt to limit the distraction of having him on the roster. Therefore, by the letter of the CBA, they seemingly forfeited any right to recoup any future signing-bonus money.​

And to clarify, I was not directly comparing it to the NFLPA-Hernandez situation but rather to your general statement regarding when morality take precedent over legal obligations as follows:

If you've entered into a contract that imposes legal obligations and does not give you an "out" for morality, then the answer damned well better be "never".

I said that it isn't always "never" and gave the Patriots cutting Hernandez and refusing to pay his bonus as an example. I think the example appropriate.

 

[BSR]

His point is that contracts aren't "fluid". The adjustments you refer to are one or more of three things:

• Superseding new contracts, mutually agreed upon
• Amendments to existing contracts, mutually agreed upon
• Adjustments done persuant to the mutually agreed upon terms in the original contract that allow for such adjustments.

If either side didn't agree to such things, none of those "adjustments" could be done.

Where did I argue against anything above?

My point to Gwedd was that the entire contract system wasn't going to fall apart if the Patriots breach their contract to Hernandez. He stated:

As to money owed Hernandez, if he was on the team, and had otherwise met all his contractual liabilities at the time the bonus was due, then the team is obligated to pay him. If the Patriots are exempted from this, then it calls into question the validity and enforceability of ALL other contracts. It's an issue of trust. Either a contract means what it says, or it doesn't, and if it's the latter, then why have any contracts at all?

Contracts are prone to all sorts of ambiguity and interpretation. If the Patriots somehow convince a judge that they don't have to pay Hernandez his workout bonus do you really thing it questions "the validity and enforceablity of all other contracts"? I sure as hell don't.

 

[IllegalContact]

So then you agree that contracts can be fluid and the entire contract system won't crumble if the Patriots don't have to pay the bonus money? I'm not exactly sure what your point is otherwise.

based on the wording of the CBA and the contract, either the $$ has to be paid or it doesn't.......some arbiter will decide if the current wording bears whether it should be paid or not........I'm not sure what you mean about the contract system crumbling, but if people don't have to honor contracts as they are written, then the crumbling is already over.

and the only way a contract can be fluid is if BOTH parties agree to it being fluid, something I am sure is not going to happen in this instance. the pats are refusing to pay, and the union is looking into whether this is a breach of contract. they are and should always do this job regardless of their clients transgressions......if breach of contract becomes an acceptable occurance in our society, then I'm buying myself some guns

 

[IllegalContact]

BSR's real point is that he believes the NFLPA should develop some form of moral higher ground. I can understand that notion, however, they're not going to get paid for that additional characteristic, so I don't see why they would ever buy into it......where is the revenue to offset the lost income going to come from when players start to get bounced for their crimes? I ask that because one thing should be made clear......the NFLPA is only about MONEY (as it should be since that's why they are there)

Morals and behavior is something that is and should continue to be controlled by the league only.

 

[BSR]

based on the wording of the CBA and the contract, either the $$ has to be paid or it doesn't.......some arbiter will decide if the current wording bears whether it should be paid or not........I'm not sure what you mean about the contract system crumbling, but if people don't have to honor contracts as they are written, then the crumbling is already over.

To clarify Gwedd said, and I am paraphrasing, that if the Patriots end up not having to pay Hernandez then all contracts are worthless and we might as well not even have contracts. As I've said before I don't think the Patriots will win this case, but if they do manage to find some loophole or interpretation in their favor that it won't led to all contracts becoming worthless.

 

[IllegalContact]

To clarify Gwedd said, and I am paraphrasing, that if the Patriots end up not having to pay Hernandez then all contracts are worthless and we might as well not even have contracts. As I've said before I don't think the Patriots will win this case, but if they do manage to find some loophole or interpretation in their favor that it won't led to all contracts becoming worthless.

without knowing the wording of the contracts in place, then there's no way to know. The pats may well win.....based on the amount, I'm seeing this as more of a message than anything else.....who knows how much of this is merely symbolic

to me, even though its none of my business, I would like the wording of any existing contracts to have their teeth and have it correctly followed, regardless of what hernandez has done

 

[BTTA]

BSR, I'm curious about why you have so much passion and time for this issue, here. This has become like a part time job for you.

 

[MassPats38]

Or it means that the lawyer is willing to walk away from an unethical situation.

Again, the NFLPA is there to help a player deal with issues relating to CBA not help them with their murder charges. They should have dumped him as soon as he was charged with murder.

What type of lawyers do you believe simply fire clients? Are you referring to lawyers in ongoing court cases, criminal or civil, or some generalized family lawyer who achieves that status by history rather than contract? It doesn't happen in ongoing court cases without a judge's permission (motions to withdraw as counsel), and most judges I have seen don't grant them without a very good reason (e.g., "my client isn't paying me" or "I don't like this client now" tends not to be enough if the case is past the early stages).

With regard to the thread, the NFLPA agreed to represent the players in contractual matters specific to the NFL. The NFL has plenty of real scumbags as players, people you would hate if you got to know them, and people may commit crimes that do not go to trial (see Big Ben and his rape case) or receive lesser charges for a serious crime. Others may be charged with a crime and be acquitted. What you appear to be proposing is some subjective "I don't like this guy" standard invoked by an employee (the union is the player's employee, not vice versa) by which you choose not to do your job when it suits you. If the players didn't bargain for it (and Hernandez is still an active player to my knowledge with contractual rights for the agreement he signed unless that agreement is invalidated by legal means), then the NFLPA does what it agreed to do. They do not make moral judgments and opt out of duties, or the whole system fails under the subjective "here's what I think" standard rather than an objective assessment of the bargained for agreement.

 

[BSR]

BSR, I'm curious about why you have so much passion and time for this issue, here. This has become like a part time job for you.

Its better than the alternative (Tebow Talk). I'm really not that passionate about it. I just find it interesting.

 

[BSR]

What type of lawyers do you believe simply fire clients? Are you referring to lawyers in ongoing court cases, criminal or civil, or some generalized family lawyer who achieves that status by history rather than contract? It doesn't happen in ongoing court cases without a judge's permission (motions to withdraw as counsel), and most judges I have seen don't grant them without a very good reason (e.g., "my client isn't paying me" or "I don't like this client now" tends not to be enough if the case is past the early stages).

I don't know, are you suggesting a lawyer has never resigned because of ethical differences? I find that hard to believe.

With regard to the thread, the NFLPA agreed to represent the players in contractual matters specific to the NFL. The NFL has plenty of real scumbags as players, people you would hate if you got to know them, and people may commit crimes that do not go to trial (see Big Ben and his rape case) or receive lesser charges for a serious crime. Others may be charged with a crime and be acquitted. What you appear to be proposing is some subjective "I don't like this guy" standard invoked by an employee (the union is the player's employee, not vice versa) by which you choose not to do your job when it suits you. If the players didn't bargain for it (and Hernandez is still an active player to my knowledge with contractual rights for the agreement he signed unless that agreement is invalidated by legal means), then the NFLPA does what it agreed to do. They do not make moral judgments and opt out of duties, or the whole system fails under the subjective "here's what I think" standard rather than an objective assessment of the bargained for agreement.

What I am suggesting is that the players come together and create and vote on their own standards for union membership including some sort of personal conduct policy (other than retired NFL retires which already have such standards). I'm not suggesting they conform to my standards, but rather create a policy so that they at the very least give the appearance that they are taking on some responsibility for this problem among NFL players. To my knowledge many other unions have such language.