NFLPA wants inquiry on Welker deal?

[Sorna]

Well, Carl Francis lied:

An NFL Players Association source confirmed that the union has sent a letter to the NFL Management Council inquiring whether unethical dealings took place leading up to last week's trade between the Miami Dolphins and New England Patriots.

The inquiry could lead to the deal being nullified, although that seems unlikely. In essence, the Dolphins appear to have gotten a little more out of the deal and the Patriots had to pay a lot less.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=jc-welkerdeal031307&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

 

[MoLewisrocks]

I am just worried that this whole deal will fall apart. What is the worst thing the league could do to the Dolphins and Patriots?

Well, Carl Francis lied:

This appears to be a moot point according to the NFLPA's own Director of Communicatons. He's not some anonymous source blabbing to Yahoo. More likely that's probably the same guy who leaked the initial report.

From what I read earlier today though in a worst case scenario the penalties IF a violation had been found would be limited to damages incurred paid to Welker (somehow determined by the special master based on what I have no idea), which would count on this years cap, punative damages could also be assessed that would not (and Bob can afford those), and Welker would have the option at his discretion to void the deal. But all that would gain him is a return to his status as a RFA belonging to the Dolphins for $1.3M and we would get our #2 back. So he'd lose money.

The player said the Dolphins never approached him in the last 3 years about extending. They had no intention of retaining him past this season, if that, let alone on a poison pill deal. He was RFA'd at the mid level to facilitate his movement while retaining some compensation benefit to the Dolphins, period. And given the lag time between our rumored interest and his signing it would appear there was not another team chomping at the bit to sign him to an offer sheet or they easily could have - his value here is likely higher given we've had a player like him we used successfully for years we would love to replace. We are now past the early flush of FA signing period so getting a better deal would be a real stretch.

So after much handwringing and parsing legalese, this was much friggin ado about nothing. Probably fueled by Mike Florio's determination to push the poison pill crisis as an impending battle royal which he predicted weeks ago. Lawyers.

 

[arrellbee]

Collusion does NOT require communication between the parties involved.

You are certainly correct. What you are saying is referred to as: "antitrust doctrine of consious parallelism". In the MLB collusion case, there was also a phrase evoked by the arbitrator "common scheme for common benefit".

I again refer you to the MLB collusion cases.

However, you probably can't cite the MLB Collusion arbitration ruling as an example. Evidence was brought in the three successive hearings that there were verbal exchanges and information sharing that were indeed 'communications", although not written. So the rulings were not made on the basis of the abstract "conscious parallelism".

As PFT mentions today, if teams refuse to use the poison pill because they are afraid that other teams will retaliate, that is collusion (despite the absence of communication), and you'd better believe that the NFLPA will pursue it.

Arbitrators have a lot of latitude compared to strict judicial proceedings. But I think you are barking up the wrong tree here as is the whole discussion about the use of poison pills. The reason I say this is because it is not a matter of interest or benefit to the player. The player gets the SAME benefit (ie specific contract) no matter WHICH team ends up with his rights. So this is NOT a matter of player rights/benefits versus team. It's a team versus team issue which is outside the purview of the CBA with respect to the NFLPA. You might argue that there is a difference to the player as far as his preference or advantage with the offering team. But the CBA doesn't vest the player with any rights as to choice in the case of an RFA offer in the first place. All the rights as to choice are vested in the clubs. You can't ignore the CBA or add non-existent requirements to suit a notion of desirability or 'benefit' for the player outside of the offer provisions.

 

[arrellbee]

This appears to be a moot point according to the NFLPA's own Director of Communicatons. He's not some anonymous source blabbing to Yahoo. More likely that's probably the same guy who leaked the initial report.

From what I read earlier today though in a worst case scenario the penalties IF a violation had been found would be limited to damages incurred paid to Welker (somehow determined by the special master based on what I have no idea), which would count on this years cap, punative damages could also be assessed that would not (and Bob can afford those), and Welker would have the option at his discretion to void the deal. But all that would gain him is a return to his status as a RFA belonging to the Dolphins for $1.3M and we would get our #2 back. So he'd lose money.

The player said the Dolphins never approached him in the last 3 years about extending. They had no intention of retaining him past this season, if that, let alone on a poison pill deal. He was RFA'd at the mid level to facilitate his movement while retaining some compensation benefit to the Dolphins, period. And given the lag time between our rumored interest and his signing it would appear there was not another team chomping at the bit to sign him to an offer sheet or they easily could have - his value here is likely higher given we've had a player like him we used successfully for years we would love to replace. We are now past the early flush of FA signing period so getting a better deal would be a real stretch.

So after much handwringing and parsing legalese, this was much friggin ado about nothing. Probably fueled by Mike Florio's determination to push the poison pill crisis as an impending battle royal which he predicted weeks ago. Lawyers.

Not to mention the fact that if Welker/agent had submitted a signed offer sheet from another club to the Dolphins, that from that moment the Dolphins would have no right to execute a trade with the Patriots. Or that once the Dolphins had officially traded Welker to the Patriots any subsequent offer sheet would have had to be presented to the Patriots.

 

[arrellbee]

Well, Carl Francis lied:

An NFL Players Association source confirmed that the union has sent a letter to the NFL Management Council inquiring whether unethical dealings took place leading up to last week's trade between the Miami Dolphins and New England Patriots.

The inquiry could lead to the deal being nullified, although that seems unlikely. In essence, the Dolphins appear to have gotten a little more out of the deal and the Patriots had to pay a lot less.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slu...yhoo&type=lgns

Can you explain how you reach the conclusion that a "source" is so credible that an official spokesman's statement must be a lie ?? ?? ??

 

[hwc]

Collusion does NOT require communication between the parties involved.

How in the world is it collusion for the Dolphins to know that, if they did not hammer out a trade, the Patriots COULD file an RFA offersheet? That option is written in the CBA. Of course the Dolphins and the Patriots negotiated the trade knowing that an offersheet could be filed.

 

[arrellbee]

Nope.

To quote Jack Cates' boss in 48 Hours, just because you say it with conviction, don't make it so.

Also, there are (with apologies to Keegs) myriad other provisions of the CBA that apply here. Section 1 of Article 38 is even broader: "No Club, its employees or agents, shall enter into any agreement, express or implied , with the NFL or any other Club, its employees or agents, to restrict or limit individual Club decision-making as follows: . . . (e) concerning the terms or conditions of employment offered to any player for inclusion, or include, in a Player Contract." (Emphasis added)

Fact 1: The Patriots could have gotten Welker for only a 2 if they had used a poison pill.

Fact 2: They did not use a poison pill and gave a 7.

There is an explanation for these two facts that would plainly violate the CBA and the NLRA. There may be explanations for these two facts that would not.

I too am tapped out on this thread.

I can't fathom what you are reaching for or why you are trying to introduce all of these issues where none exist.

The Patriots had absolutely clear rights under the CBA to EITHER make an RFA offer or make a trade. Where for gosh sakes do you get any kind of notion that the Patriots even had the slightest obligation to make an RFA offer much less one with a poison pill ?? ?? They had ZERO obligation to do so.

Even more bizarre, you are essentially taking the position that teams are obligated to include poison pills now in RFA offers or they are violating a player's rights ?? ?? ?? I say this because you left out the obvious "fact" that the Patriots could have gotten Welker for an RFA offer without a poison pill.

 

[Lloyd_Christmas]

Probably it will all come to naught, but it looks like a pretty fair thing for the NFLPA to cry foul on.

Realistically, this was not an ordinary trade. The Pats and Dolphins worked together to sidestep the RFA process. Looking again at the CBA passage solman helpfully posted:

"There may be no consideration of any kind given by one Club to another Club...in exchange for a Club’s decision to submit or not to submit an Offer Sheet to a Restricted Free Agent..."

The fact that there was no formal offer sheet doesn't matter. The union can argue that Miami agreed to negotiate a trade if the Patriots would not submit an offer sheet and would sweeten the pot above the straight RFA level. The Patriots agreed to cough up the extra pick in order to not submit the RFA offer sheet, and the get the player quicker and cleaner. If that's how it went down, it does seem to be a no-no.

You are making a good point, but they still have to PROVE that NE bribed MIA with an extra pick while threatening to submit the "poisen pill" contract if they didn't play ball. NE could easily argue that before making an official offer, they decided to see if MIA would just trade the player. How do you prove that the alleged offer sheet ever came up in that negotiation?

This is not a major issue. It is a sideshow act that makes the NFLPA feel good... they might get to stick it to THE MAN!