Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by mikey, Sep 1, 2006.
All those senseless trees that have to die for the paper in this waste of a grievance.
1. Culpepper has never been super bowl MVP.
2. Culpepper is coming off a very difficult knee injury to rehab.
3. Culpepper was not traded within the division.
4. A player may exceed his draft status.
Could the NFLPA and Branch's agent please make this a little more difficult to defend?
:rofl: A crippled QB in rehab is the equivalent of Deion's worth! :rofl:
5. Culpepper had an absolutely terrible year statistically.
If Upshaw and the NFLPA get their way, then the facts of this grievance are completely irrelevant. They want to take down the Pats a notch, no question.
Interesting so they are saying Branch isn't worth a first round pick but he is worth a top 10 salary?
Didn't the Pats get **** about this exact same thing. The only difference is the Pats own his rights for atleast two seasons so they can ask and offer what ever they choose.
What a couple of dumbasses.
What I find so weird about this, is that Branch and his agent are trying to give arguments trying to diminish his value in terms of what a team should get in return for a trade, yet also tries to argue that he is valueable enough to be paid as one of the best WR in the NFL. Seems like Mr. Branch wants it both way.
Ack you're too quick for me.
Great minds think a like. Or maybe its just the beer.
I'm an NFL GM. Note to self: never give a player under contract the right to seek a trade partner because the union will file a grievance.
Brilliant lawyers, eh?
6. After the love boat incident, the Vikings owner was a motivated seller.
I don't know if this has already been posted in other threads, but PFT brings up a good point about the legitimacy of the "verbal agreement" between the Pat's about Branch giving him permission to seek a trade.
Branch was the last player selected in the 2nd round in 2002. He got that wrong.
But the crux of the grievance lies in this comment,
If they have such an agreement in writing, then they may have an argument. If this is just their interpretation of the Patriots statement allowing Branch to seek a trade, then it is a stretch.
As for consideration, maybe Branch had agreed to come in from the cold, which would explain Kraft and Branch's comments earlier this week.
That's giving up something for nothing.
In the meantime, they would have to argue over proper compensation. The Patriots would probably refer back to the Galloway trade.
theres no way they could ever agree in favor of the players union.. this would ruin all teams ability to trade.. basically it would say that if a player thinks he should be traded for a 2nd then it goes.. no way will this grievance go anywhere.. waste of time
If the union won this then it would only come into play if a team agrees with a player that they will trade that player for certain compensation before actually negotiating any trades. It wouldn't mean that if one team decides to trade a player that that player can in anyway dictate the compensation that teir former team will receive.
Let the NFLPA check in and assert that a valid contract exsits between and among the three parties, the Patriots, Branch and NY Jets. Let teh NFLPA assert that a verbal contract exsits and should be binding on all three parties.
I am more and more sure that arbitration will lead to two #1 picks from the Jets to the Patriots in return for the services of Branch at the agreed negotiated compensation rate! The NFLPA apparently agrees! Concurs that a implicit verbal contract amomgst the parties exists and is enforceable !!!!
Woo Hoo !!!
There is no other compensation than that prescribed in the collectively bargained compensation. That is 2 #1s for a player payed at the "franchise rate" for a WR. And both the Pats and Jets have made offers at that rate or equivalent.
A pair of busted knee players Walker and the Miami QB are not equivalent to a healthy SB MVP WR.
See my post on the legal Consequences to the NY Jets.
Goody Goody Goody!!!
If the Patriots think Branch equals 2 #1's, then why are they not willing to give him the pay of 2 #1's??
Is the NFLPA required to file a grievance on behalf of a player no matter how ridiculous it is? Or can they tell a player that it's stupid and end it there?
Separate names with a comma.