Welcome to PatsFans.com

What will a magistrate rule???

Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by Pats726, Sep 1, 2006.

  1. Pats726

    Pats726 Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    9,800
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    Does anyone have any idea about past rulings and the laws involved??? What kind of preceedeny will be served by upholding Branch's claim?? Any player who thiks he is underpaid can stay out indefinitely and demand a trade at any time...I do NOT think so!!! Even if there had been fair negotiatingm which it totally wasn't... NO WAY does Branch win this one..a TOTAL joke!!!
    The Pats sign a player and move on..Branch's 83 is given to the new receiver..Branch is dead to the Pats.
     
  2. pats1

    pats1 Moderator PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    May 28, 2005
    Messages:
    13,261
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

  3. NE39

    NE39 Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2006
    Messages:
    1,056
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    There probably won't even be a grievance hearing, so there will be no ruling.

    They are asking for a special master, who would hold a meeting immediately and rule right away. That is different from a standard grievance, which may take months before anything happens.

    The NFLPA gets to request a special master to immediately arbitrate a hearing a few times a year. Thus, they use them in their biggest cases. I'd be willing to bet the NFLPA denies Branch the special master, and instead tells him to use the standard grievance procedure. That would take months.
     
  4. Sundayjack

    Sundayjack On the Game Day Roster

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2006
    Messages:
    444
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    I'm not so sure this is even a proper issue to grieve. That is to say, the "contract" at the core of the dispute isn't the CBA, it isn;t the player's contract, and it isn't the League Constitution or By-Laws. The "contract" Jason Chayut alleges was breached is an oral contract to accept any "reasonable offer." If I'm the Patriots, my first argument is that the special master lacks any jurisdiction to decide the issue and thereby impose a new contract on the Patriots. It's a matter for the courts.

    But there's a wildcard. Roger Goodell, in his very first week on the job, and one week before the start of his first season, isn't going to want any rankling of NFL order. I'd be willing to bet Jason Chayut is now trying to prompt the new commissioner into stepping-in and maintaining order before it devolves further.

    Roger, for his part, would probably not be all that keen on stepping on the toes of his earliest and biggest sponsors in Robert and Jonathan Kraft. On the other hand, Woody Johnson was also an early Goodell supporter.

    The twists, and turns, and drama. . . oh my.
     
  5. Justice

    Justice On the Roster

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2006
    Messages:
    70
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I just don't know how anyone can think that this particular agent has a leg to stand on. What would constitute a "reasonable offer" to him is totally different to what it could be to the Pats. He's only thinking about Branch, the Pats need to think about not only the other 52 men on the roster, but also the future of this franchise.
     
  6. old 55

    old 55 PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    406
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +27 / 0 / -2

    #87 Jersey

    Once again the agent shows his ineptitude

    If you have an agreement with the Pats to work out a trade for "reasonable compensation," the first thing you do is define what that means to the Patriots.

    Had the agent done that, he could have avoided wasting everyone's time.

    He's trying to make this a Poor Deion situation in order to break a valid contract.
    The dollar figures offered by the other teams (reportedly) show that the Pats were right there with their offers. The only difference is that the agent wants to break the contract and cash in a year earlier than the contract allows.

    Branch is an idiot for sticking with this loser and damaging his own reputation in the process.
     
  7. DCPatriot

    DCPatriot On the Roster

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2004
    Messages:
    53
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    The grounds on which the grievance was filed (or not) are murky, to say the least. The status of the CBA itself is in limbo; the version in effect dates from 1998, but it has been amended in principle by the term sheet of a few months ago. It's not clear which of these new provisions are effective, or if an understanding exists on how the 1998 CBA will be interpreted while the amended CBA is hashed out. My guess is that this "grievance" will be handled by the Special Master under the CBA (in whatever form) since the remedy sought can only be obtained under the CBA, in whatever form.

    Barring a surprise, the grounds for the grievance appear frivolous and are likely intended to put pressure on the Pats, particularly in the press. What is concerning for me, as someone who believes that a compromise was in reach, is that Chayut will likely allege bad faith, which represents a point of no return. I don't know what the Pats' end-game was when they announced the trade window, but I doubt it included giving Chayut an opportunity to grieve bad faith and reframe the debate (from a "holdout" to "unfair treatment").

    I am now pessimistic for the first time. I had thought the Pats wanted to reach a compromise with a proven, reliable player. Now the player may be far less important than the precedent set by their handling and resolution of the dispute. In a few days, the value of Deion Branch to the organization will be in showing current and future players what happens when you do not play out your contract.
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>