I guess the agent's point of view was, if the Patriots made an offer they(the fins) would have had to make an offer substantial enough the Dolphins would not have matched and this whole process was averted. Also I don't understand why people say "4 games in Miami and entire contract is guaranteed" The Patriots play the dolphins twice in the regular season and if they played again in the playoffs and the SB was held in Miami.. yeah.. anyway.
But if the Patriots made an offer it 'could' have included the "poison pill" which Miami cannot match anyway, which has been deemed legal.
It's not Welker's agent. It the players union, the NFL Agents Association, looking to accuse the owners of collusion for NOT using poison pill contracts. Their position is that the owners all agreed not to use poison pills -- collusion. The Welker deal is their best vehicle for stirring it up, because the media reported an offersheet that was never signed.
Welker's happy with the deal. The Pats are happy with the deal. The Fins are happy with the deal. This is just a sideshow that doesn't have much to do with the deal itself. It's political.
It's not Welker's agent. It the players union, the NFL Agents Association, looking to accuse the owners of collusion for NOT using poison pill contracts. Their position is that the owners all agreed not to use poison pills -- collusion. The Welker deal is their best vehicle for stirring it up, because the media reported an offersheet that was never signed.
Welker's happy with the deal. The Pats are happy with the deal. The Fins are happy with the deal. This is just a sideshow that doesn't have much to do with the deal itself. It's political.
The source added that the NFLPA's interest in the matter stemmed from complaints made by Welker's agent, Vann McElroy, regarding the devaluation of his client because of possible violations.
The article says that Welker's agent has complained that Welker trade violates the CBA which prohibits the Patriots from bribing Miami not to match an offer sheet.
Here is the relevant CBA section:
NFLPA said:
No Consideration Between Clubs. There may be no consideration of any kind given by one Club to another Club in exchange for a Club’s decision to exercise or not to exercise its Right of First Refusal, or in exchange for a Club’s decision to submit or not to submit an Offer Sheet to a Restricted Free Agent or to make or not to make an offer to enter into a Player Contract with a Restricted Free Agent. If a Club exercises its Right of First Refusal and matches an Offer Sheet, that Club may not trade that player to the Club that submitted the Offer Sheet for at least one calendar year, unless the player consents to such trade.
It seems pretty clear that this section was violated, but I don't see how it hurt Welker (who appears to have received the same five year deal as was originally rumored).
The article says that investigations like this usually go nowhere, but usually collusion is hard to prove. In this case, the collusion seems pretty obvious. I wonder if the NFLPA can afford to ignore an obvious violation with negligible consequences. In the future there may be an obvious violation where the player does suffer, and they wouldn't want to set a negative precedent.
Although I didn't like the idea of giving up a pick for nothing, I don't fault the Patriots for playing at the edge of the CBA.
I just wish that playing it fast and loose had earned us a material advantage.
Actually the poison pill hasn't really been tested through arbitration yet and it's entirely possible that it wouldn't stand up. This may be a major reason the Patriots traded instead of using it.
Re: NFLPA Accuses Patriots, Fins of violating CBA on Welker
What is the worse that could happen? Does the trade get reversed and the picks returned? Or do the Patriots keep Welker and Miami keeps the picks but they both get fined?
What is the worse that could happen? Does the trade get reversed and the picks returned? Or do the Patriots keep Welker and Miami keeps the picks but they both get fined?
The CBA is supposed to protect the players, and the penalties in the anti-collusion section are focused on paying actual and punative damages to the affected players. But I'm not entirely sure that the penalties in the anti-collusion section are applicable to this type of violation.
Either way, the actual damages to Welker are negligible, so it makes sense that the penalty should also be negligible.
It's not Welker's agent. It the players union, the NFL Agents Association, looking to accuse the owners of collusion for NOT using poison pill contracts. Their position is that the owners all agreed not to use poison pills -- collusion. The Welker deal is their best vehicle for stirring it up, because the media reported an offersheet that was never signed.
Welker's happy with the deal. The Pats are happy with the deal. The Fins are happy with the deal. This is just a sideshow that doesn't have much to do with the deal itself. It's political.
If the NFLPA wants to challenge the disuse of poison pills, this deal is the wropng test case.
The claim here is that by giving up a seventh round draft pick, the Pats were effectively bribing Miami not to match.
If the NFLPA wants to allege collusion over the disuse of poison pills, several other RFA offer sheets will offer the NFLPA a good test (if PFT is to be believed). I don't think that the seven day match period has expired on those offers yet, so we'll have to wait and see what the NFLPA does. I imagine that their lawyers will wait for a team to actually match one of these offers before filing a complaint.
The article says that Welker's agent has complained that Welker trade violates the CBA which prohibits the Patriots from bribing Miami not to match an offer sheet.
It seems pretty clear that this section was violated, but I don't see how it hurt Welker (who appears to have received the same five year deal as was originally rumored).
Actually in order for the that to be the case, wouldn't there have to actually been an offer sheet? According to SP, there was never an offer sheet signed, so there is not way that NE could have "bribed" Miami not to sign it.
What should have been stated in that article, repeatedly, was that it was an 'alleged' offer sheet - not one that existed in reality.
Scott Pioli, in possibly an attempt to head this off at the pass, went on the record in his recent interview (in Reiss's blog) to say that no offer sheet had bene submitted - and that it was simply a case of media chinese whispers.
The CBA is supposed to protect the players, and the penalties in the anti-collusion section are focused on paying actual and punative damages to the affected players. But I'm not entirely sure that the penalties in the anti-collusion section are applicable to this type of violation.
Either way, the actual damages to Welker are negligible, so it makes sense that the penalty should also be negligible.
The actual damages to Welker are minimal as you state because even though the original contract would have been $20 mil more, he would never have seen those last 2 years of it.
Kraft actually got 2 more years out of Welker's contract by offering that 7th rounder as a "peace" offering to the Fins. Cagey owner that he is, who is he trying to fool?
What should have been stated in that article, repeatedly, was that it was an 'alleged' offer sheet - not one that existed in reality.
Scott Pioli, in possibly an attempt to head this off at the pass, went on the record in his recent interview (in Reiss's blog) to say that no offer sheet had bene submitted - and that it was simply a case of media chinese whispers.
I totally agree,there was never an offer sheet signed so the teams simply worked out a trade after Welker had officially signed his 1 year tender. At that point he was traded to the Pats who then signed him to an extension. So the provision below never comes into play and even if it's argued it does come into play the player consented to the trade.
"If a Club exercises its Right of First Refusal and matches an Offer Sheet, that Club may not trade that player to the Club that submitted the Offer Sheet for at least one calendar year, unless the player consents to such trade."
Actually in order for the that to be the case, wouldn't there have to actually been an offer sheet? According to SP, there was never an offer sheet signed, so there is not way that NE could have "bribed" Miami not to sign it.
Even if an arbitrator or special master could be convinced to buy into your interpretation, (very doubtful IMNSHO) the NFLPA would just turn it around and say that the trade compensated the Patriots for deciding NOT to extend the poison pill offer sheet.
They'd be right. The Patriots did not extend an offer sheet BECAUSE the Phins agreed to a trade.
Even if an arbitrator or special master could be convinced to buy into your interpretation, (very doubtful IMNSHO) the NFLPA would just turn it around and say that the trade compensated the Patriots for deciding NOT to extend the poison pill offer sheet.
They'd be right. The Patriots did not extend an offer sheet BECAUSE the Phins agreed to a trade.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
