NFLPA wants inquiry on Welker deal?

[Metaphors]

Here you go:

LINK



That is how it went down.

I think you copied the wrong link. I can't find any of your quote in the referenced article.

 

[hwc]

That's actually pretty interesting.

It sets up an interesting issue. (Though while I say interesting, I wouldn't be surprised if there already are several labor law opinions directly on point.)

Can the patriots claim uncertainty over the legality of a poison pill as a reason for offering the 7th? That would undercut the challenge.

This whole thing has nothing to do with Welker. It's a game, a choreographed waltz, that is being played out between the union and the league.

The league recognized that the ridiculous poison pill provisions are ugly for everyone involved: the teams, the fans, and ultimately the players because they make a mockery of restricted free agency.

The League tried to work out language with the union to close the poison pill loophole. The union refused because...well...that's what unions do.

So, now the owners and the union are stalking around each other in the ring, looking for opportunities to throw a little jab here, dance back to the ropes, there. Neither side is thinking about a knock out punch. It's all just probing and sparring.

The owners have clearly decided not to use the poison pill option against each other. Collusion? Fear of retribution in an escalating game of ugly "gotcha"? Just plain common sense? Honoring the spirit of the rules? Fear of having the poison pill tossed out by an arbiter as non-material provisions in a contract (which could very well happen)? Call it what you want.

The union has clearly decided to yap incessantly and bite at the owners ankles on this issue. That's all this is.

 

[patchick]

The articles you cite were written before the arbitration hearing. At the actual hearing, the Seahawks surprised "the pundits" and did not argue the legitimacy of poison pill offers. The only thing they argued was the Hutchinson was then the highest paid lineman on their team and, therefore, they were able to match the provisions of the offer sheet, including the poison pill provision. The arbiter ruled that Hutchinson was not the highest paid player on the team at the time of the RFA offer.

Thanks, useful info (and thanks to NE39, too). I can't recall the timing of the hearing, but probably the Seahawks backed off their core challenge to protect their boneheaded revenge signing of Nate Burleson?

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

The owners have clearly decided not to use the poison pill option against each other. Collusion? Fear of retribution in an escalating game of ugly "gotcha"? Just plain common sense? Honoring the spirit of the rules? Fear of having the poison pill tossed out by an arbiter as non-material provisions in a contract (which could very well happen)? Call it what you want.

I hope you're not the league's lawyer. Because I would call that "illegal."

 

[Metaphors]

I'm not trying to be flip, but I am certain of it.

I know. I can't recall the specifics but I am also pretty certain that as a result of the Hutchinson fiasco, it was determined that guarantees are a material part of an offer sheet (and must be matched) but salary escalations are not. Everything I've read seems to indicate that came out of the Hutchinson arbitration hearings, but I'll concede that it could have come out of some tangential proceedings.

So rather than quibble about the specifics of the Hutchinson hearing, I am confident that an offer sheet with guarantees as a "poison pill" will not be challenged because that issue has already been ruled as being legal under the current CBA.

 

[solman]

This all seems rather "above board" to me. Not sure how collusion can happen with the player being involved.

First, Welker really wasn't hurt by this process. Right up until Kraft stepped in, the RFA process when exactly as it ws supposed to.

Here is an alternative narative in which Welker would have been hurt: [THIS IS NOT WHAT HAPPENED. IT IS AN ALTERNATIVE NARRATIVE FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY]

1. Pats determine that they want Welker, and that only a few teams, including his current team, are willing to pay for him. (Even UFAs usually only have a handful of interested teams.)

2. They agree in principal with the Dolphins that if they can work out a deal with Welker in the next week or so, the Dolphins will trade him for a 2nd and a 7th.

3. Knowing that the Dolphins will no longer compete with them (in exchange for the payment) the Patriots negotiate with Welker. With less demand for his services, Welker agrees in principle to accept the best offer out there, a Patriots offer which is lowered by the reduced number of suitors.

4. The Patriots trade for Welker.

5. Welker voluntarily accepts the deal.

 

[Jimke]

Tempest in a teapot. See Reiss column.

 

[zippo59]

Reiss has clarified this:

Carl Francis, the director of communications from the NFL Players Association, clarified the situation regarding Wes Welker today.

Francis said the NFL Players Association is not seeking a review of the process in which Welker was traded from the Dolphins to the Patriots. He added that the association is not concerned that the collective bargaining agreement might have been violated as part of that process.

Instead, Francis said the association had sent a letter of inquiry to the management council seeking details on the contract signed by Welker.

"It had nothing to do with the way the deal went down," said Francis, adding that it wasn't an official grievance, and that Welker and his representatives did not ask the association to pursue any course of action.

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/reiss_pieces/

 

[hwc]

I hope you're not the league's lawyer. Because I would call that "illegal."

Only if someone can prove that the owners actually discussed a group agreement to not make poison pill offer sheets. If the owners independently decided to structure their offers without poison pills, it's not collusion. Or, even if they discussed it, you would have to prove that they did so.

 

[Jimke]

I think all the journalists are out to give us Pats' fans ulcers!

 

[Sorna]

Reiss has clarified this:



http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/reiss_pieces/

So, can we take this as being the 100% truth? Why would one source say otherwise and this guy says nothing is being investigated? Could this Carl Francis just be using the old lie to the media trick until after the investigation?

 

[zippo59]

So, can we take this as being the 100% truth? Why would one source say otherwise and this guy says nothing is being investigated? Could this Carl Francis just be using the old lie to the media trick until after the investigation?

I think it helps the NFLPA to bring more attention to their cause and lieing to the media in this way would not do that.

 

[solman]

So, can we take this as being the 100% truth? Why would one source say otherwise and this guy says nothing is being investigated? Could this Carl Francis just be using the old lie to the media trick until after the investigation?

Admittedly, they're not likely to give a straight answer, but one thing that will likely make this a lot easier is the strong relashionship between the NFL and NFLPA.

There is a fundamental understanding that they are partners as much as adversaries.

I hope that survives Upshaw's departure, which will apparently be before the next labor deal.

 

[Sorna]

Admittedly, they're not likely to give a straight answer, but one thing that will likely make this a lot easier is the strong relashionship between the NFL and NFLPA.

There is a fundamental understanding that they are partners as much as adversaries.

I hope that survives Upshaw's departure, which will apparently be before the next labor deal.

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?

 

[solman]

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?

The only honest answer is that nobody knows (that includes the NFL), but voiding a trade in this circumstance would be unprecedented and seems very unlikely.

 

[arrellbee]

The misconceptions and invention of terms of the CBA in this thread discussion are amazing.

First and foremost is the mechanics of the "offer" [sheet]. The offer is NOT given to the player's present club by the offering club - at all. The offer is given to the player directly. If (and only if) the player signs the offer (thereby COMMITTING to the exact terms of the offer as a new contract), HE then gives the signed offer sheet to the prior club. There is no discussion, negotiation, or ANYTHING between the two clubs prior to this point. The player now has a valid contract proposal. His current club has NO OPTIONS other than to exercise their right to match and thereby become obligated to reach a contract with the player that is at LEAST as favorable to the PLAYER as the offer sheet. Specifically, there is no provision or option for the current club to negotiate some other kind of deal with the offering club. In point of fact, there are NO discussions or arrangements between the two clubs AT ALL. PERIOD. under EITHER scenario of them matching or failing to match the offer.

All of this speculation about discussions between the Patriots and Dolphins with regard to a RFA offer is totally senseless and meaningless. There is nothing for the two clubs to have talked about.

Solman: Thanks for the excerpt from the CBA. It is good information for the discussion. To repost your excerpt:

Originally Posted by NFLPA
No Consideration Between Clubs. There may be no consideration of any kind given by one Club to another Club in exchange for a Club’s decision to exercise or not to exercise its Right of First Refusal, or in exchange for a Club’s decision to submit or not to submit an Offer Sheet to a Restricted Free Agent or to make or not to make an offer to enter into a Player Contract with a Restricted Free Agent. If a Club exercises its Right of First Refusal and matches an Offer Sheet, that Club may not trade that player to the Club that submitted the Offer Sheet for at least one calendar year, unless the player consents to such trade.

How you then go on to conclude that this section was 'violated' is beyond me. Let's break it down.

1.

There may be no consideration of any kind given by one Club to another Club in exchange for a Club’s decision to exercise or not to exercise its Right of First Refusal

Totally inapplicable because there was NO offer made !! There has to be an offer MADE for there to be an issue of exercising or not exercising the ROFR. And an offer was NOT NOT NOT made because if it had been, that was a legal process that elliminated any possible other discussions or actions. Any possibility that the Patriots were internally considering making an offer is really incredibly meaningless in the extreme.

2.

or in exchange for a Club’s decision to submit or not to submit an Offer Sheet to a Restricted Free Agent or to make or not to make an offer to enter into a Player Contract with a Restricted Free Agent.

Obviously, this means the Dolphins would have given the Patriots something so that they would not make an offer. The Dolphins didn't give the Patriots ANYTHING. In fact, as Metaphors pointed out, it's just the reverse, The Dolphins got something from the Patriots. No violation here in any way, shape, or form.

3.

If a Club exercises its Right of First Refusal and matches an Offer Sheet, that Club may not trade that player to the Club that submitted the Offer Sheet for at least one calendar year, unless the player consents to such trade.

I include this for completeness. Since there wasn't even an offer much less an exercise of ROFR, there is nothing in this sentence that remotely applies.

So how you say anything in the section was violated is beyond any content in the quote.

PatsFaninAz:
Clearly RFAs are subject to normal trade procedures (commented on by Jimke also). There is nothing in the CBA that says otherwise or attaches any prejudice to a trade versus extending an offer. The choice of whether to do either or the choice as to WHICH path to pursue is the sole discretion and right of the club.

So your whole argument boils down to the premise: The Patriots were obligated to pursue an RFA offer rather than a trade because that would have been more advantageous to Welker. That is pure fabricated NONSENSE and has nothing whatsoever to do with the CBA under which this whole situation is governed.

I'll even go so far as to say that even if the Patriots had discussed the possible terms of an offer sheet with Welker/agent, this would in NO way prejudice their rights to either proceed with an offer or NOT at their sole discretion. There is NOTHING in the CBA that sets up some exotic rules that if a team discusses an offer with a player that they are obligated to make an offer ! Much less being obligated to make an offer if they were 'thinking' about it. That whole notion is ludicrous and inventing 'requirements' that don't even come close to existing.

Essentially you are saying that Pioli lied and that the media reports were factual. I have a rather large personal problem with that kind of assumption. And the media has really earned that kind of credibility ?? Not even close.

Even moreso, none of this passes even the slightest common sense test. Why would Pioli waste even one minute on some offer package before checking the simple possibility of a trade ? It makes NO sense whatsoever unless you want to believe in complicated machievellian schemes just for the sake of scheming. The trade IS the most straightforward for the Patriots because if Miami agrees, the Patriots have Welker for next season for a fabulous price no matter what. And they are able to negotiate without any complications or loss of time with Welker for a longer term deal. So straightforward and practical. And it costs nothing more in the way of time or energy than making the call. And if the answer is no, then you already have gained a perspective that the Dolphins may really rather have Welker than a draft pick and you can plan your offer around that AFTER having checked on the trade.

---------------

I recommend reading NE39's posts for additional perspectives and reflections on some of the notions expressed in this thread.

---------------
Personal note: PatsFaninAz. There is nothing in the slightest personal about my comments about this particular situation. I have enjoyed very much and respect the many many thoughts and contributions that you make here. My thanks.

 

[solman]

There may be no consideration of any kind given by one Club to another Club in exchange for a Club’s decision to exercise or not to exercise its Right of First Refusal

Totally inapplicable because there was NO offer made !! There has to be an offer MADE for there to be an issue of exercising or not exercising the ROFR. And an offer was NOT NOT NOT made because if it had been, that was a legal process that elliminated any possible other discussions or actions. Any possibility that the Patriots were internally considering making an offer is really incredibly meaningless in the extreme.

The language that you quoted makes no mention of an offer. It says no compensation can be given to a club for not exercising its ROFR. This is true even if no offer is ever made.

If the NFLPA were to accept your interpretation, then this clause would lose all meaning, because any possible "compensation" can be worked into the terms of a trade.

I'm all tapped out on this thread.

 

[hwc]

Even moreso, none of this passes even the slightest common sense test. Why would Pioli waste even one minute on some offer package before checking the simple possibility of a trade ?

Not to mention that, in this particular case, there didn't have to be any collusion (or even discussion) for both parties to negotiate a trade knowing full well the options that would be available if a trade did not happen.

In fact, those unspoken parameters probably drove the thinking on the trade. If NE were to submit a successful offersheet, the Dolphins would get a 2nd round pick this year and probably a very late 7th round compensation pick next year. So they came out ahead of the game by getting the nearly worthless late 7th round pick this year.

 

[solman]

Not to mention that, in this particular case, there didn't have to be any collusion (or even discussion) for both parties to negotiate a trade knowing full well the options that would be available if a trade did not happen.

In fact, those unspoken parameters probably drove the thinking on the trade. If NE were to submit a successful offersheet, the Dolphins would get a 2nd round pick this year and probably a very late 7th round compensation pick next year. So they came out ahead of the game by getting the nearly worthless late 7th round pick this year.

Collusion does NOT require communication between the parties involved.

I again refer you to the MLB collusion cases.

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.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

1. Totally inapplicable because there was NO offer made !! There has to be an offer MADE for there to be an issue of exercising or not exercising the ROFR.

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.