From PFT, Pats argue that Arbitrator has no jurisdiction..

[DarrylS]

Actually PFT is quoting Borges, the Pats are claiming that the Arbitrator has no jurisdiction... interesting, have contended all along there is no violation of the NFL CBA...

http://www.profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm
Ron Borges of the Boston Globe reports that the New England Patriots and the NFL have filed a motion to dismiss one of Deion Branch's grievances on the grounds that there is no jurisdiction to arbitrate the claim.

The motion will be argued in a Wednesday evening conference call, and at that time the team and the league will explain that there's no basis for the grievance because there's no language in the Collective Bargaining Agreement that applies to this specific situation.

Based on our review of the CBA, we agree. Like most union contracts, the agreement between the NFL and the NFLPA contains a broad "Management Rights" clause. Section Article II, Section 3 of the CBA states: "The NFL Clubs maintain and reserve the right to manage and direct their operations in any manner whatsoever, except as specifically limited by the provisions of this Agreement."

This basically means that NFL teams can do whatever they want, and that their activities are limited only by specific provisions of the CBA.

 

[RayClay]

He can dispute this agreement, (contract).

He's not disputing the contract. He signed it and has played under it a number of years.

"As explained below, we believe that the dispute directly involves an interpretation and application of the NFL Standard Player Contract"

No it doesn't. It involves a separate supposed verbal contract.

He's not saying he didn't sign it, he's been accepting checks based on it for years.

No no no no. There is not any dispute about the NFL Standard Player Contract. Period.

 

[sarge]

Do we know which one they are trying to get thrown out?

 

[RayClay]

Do we know which one they are trying to get thrown out?

The verbal contract to trade him for a reasonable offer. This has nothing to do with the signed contract so no jurisdiction.

"interpretation and application of the NFL Standard Player Contract"

That's the wording in the CBA.

 

[IpaqMan]

Further down in the same article is the following:

Appendix C of the CBA sets forth the standard NFL Player Contract. Paragraph 21 of the standard NFL Player Contract, dubbed "Other Agreements," states as follows: "This contract, including any attachment to it, sets forth the entire agreement between Player and Club and cannot be modified or supplemented orally." (Emphasis added.)

This should indicate that Branch has no right to arbitrate an oral change to the CBA.

 

[Sundayjack]

"As explained below, we believe that the dispute directly involves an interpretation and application of the NFL Standard Player Contract"

No it doesn't. It involves a separate supposed verbal contract.

He's not saying he didn't sign it, he's been accepting checks based on it for years.

No no no no. There is not any dispute about the NFL Standard Player Contract. Period.

That's the part of the PFT thing that caught me, too. I'm with you 100%. In fact, the PFT piece is a little strange. He starts the article by citing the motion to dismiss, and then says, "Based on our review of the CBA, we agree." Then, at the end of the piece, he makes the leap to construe this as a dispute over a Player Contract. That's a pretty big leap, and it's inconsistent. I get the feeling he wanted to get into his "no oral modification" research, and he couldn't get there unless he disposed of the jurisdictional question.

Kessler's best chance is to make the argument that this is an oral modification to the Player Contract. But that's a tough tough case to make, because because of the absence of consideration.

On another note, I'm thinking that this phone conference between the parties and John Feerick is happening right now.

 

[PatsFan37]

You'll find a complete discussion of this same topic in here:
http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/showthread.php?t=40772

 

[MDPATSFAN]

The verbal contract to trade him for a reasonable offer. This has nothing to do with the signed contract so no jurisdiction.

"interpretation and application of the NFL Standard Player Contract"

That's the wording in the CBA.

What about the "verbal contract" he made with the fans when he exclaimed that he would honor his current contract? Can we slap a class action suit on him?

Sounds just as plausible.

 

[sarge]

He can dispute this agreement, (contract).
"As explained below, we believe that the dispute directly involves an interpretation and application of the NFL Standard Player Contract"

No it doesn't. It involves a separate supposed verbal contract.

He's not saying he didn't sign it, he's been accepting checks based on it for years.

No no no no. There is not any dispute about the NFL Standard Player Contract. Period.

I think what PFT is getting at is that because it isn't a standard player contract, then the arbitrator has no jurisdiction. I think that is why they agree.

I think they are saying that because it is not a standard player contract being disputed, that is why they agree there is no jurisdiction.

 

[sarge]

Anyone know when we will get the results on this?

 

[Hoodie]

Anyone know when we will get the results on this?

That's why I logged on. No news so far.

 

[sarge]

That's why I logged on. No news so far.

How sweat would it be to be able to log into that conference call?

 

[sarge]

Still no news on this???

 

[Clonamery]

Still no news on this???

I would guess no news is good news from a Pats/League view. I would guess that there would be major leakage if the agent/NFLPA made headway with the conference call. But that's all speculation as well.