arrellbee
Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job
- Joined
- May 11, 2005
- Messages
- 1,084
- Reaction score
- 0
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.arrellbee said:Bob Lobell just reported that the Patriots are seeking not only the training camp fines but also preseason fines and 20% of Branch's original siging bonus.
Upwards of 800K according to Lobel.
Completely agree.betterthanthealternative said:They are only asking for what they are rightfully owed from the contract that Branch signed with them. Nothing more. And if they don't ask for it, they will be setting a precedent that will make it very difficult to ever hold a player to this, and other, contract terms.
arrellbee said:Bob Lobell just reported that the Patriots are seeking not only the training camp fines but also preseason fines and 20% of Branch's original siging bonus.
Upwards of 800K according to Lobel.
TOO LATE TO FINE BRANCH?
Ron Borges of the Boston Globe reports that the New England Patriots have filed a grievance against receiver Deion Branch for $518,000 in fines resulting from his training camp holdout, plus recovery of 20 percent of his $1 million rookie signing bonus.
But it's possible that Branch might not have to pay the $518,000. According to Borges, there's precedent for a finding that any such grievance must be filed while the player is still on the roster. Borges points to a 1997 case involving former Panthers defensive end Kevin Greene, who racked up more than $150,000 in holdout fines before he was released. The Panthers filed a grievance regarding the fines after cutting him, but the arbitrator found that the fines could not be collected because he was no longer on the team at the time the grievance was filed. Per Borges, the arbitrator also observed that payment of the fines could have been made to be an express condition for his departure.
The plain language of the CBA, however, seems to contradict this result. Article IX, Section 2 of the CBA states that "[a] player need not be under contract to a Club at the time a grievance relating to him arises or at a time such grievance is initiated or processed."
But the reality of binding arbitration is that an arbitrator can enter whatever decision the arbitrator deems appropriate, with no opportunity for the losing side to appeal the outcome. As a practical matter, then, arbitrator rulings are driven more by the facts of the current case, and not by the outcomes in prior cases.
In Greene's case, the decision of the Panthers to cut him makes little sense, since he could have been parked indefinitely on the "reserve-did not report" list, without taking up a roster spot. In Branch's case, an arbitrator could conclude that Branch was in the wrong for holding out and ultimately forcing a trade, prompting the arbitrator to focus on Article IX, Section 2 in finding that it doesn't matter whether the player is still on the team when the grievance is filed.
If the Patriots initiated the trade, they would have had no claim to any recovery of signing bonus. However, in this case, Branch obviously was the one requesting (demanding) the trade (according to his own filed grievances), so that's him chosing to not live up to his contract so according to NFL contracts, he should be liable to return that portion of the signing bonus. As long as there are no other technical issues or as long as an arbitrator isn't 'arbitrary' about how he rules, the training camp fines should be collectible no matter whether the Patriots or Branch forced the trade since they related to Branch not living up to the requirements of his contract at the time..lobster said:They traded Branch so how could he possibly play a 5th season for the Pat's, unless there is something in the CBA?
lobster said:They traded Branch so how could he possibly play a 5th season for the Pat's, unless there is something in the CBA?