Patriots | Arbitrator dismisses Branch's grievance

[Chris]

Patriots | Arbitrator dismisses Branch's grievance
Thu, 7 Sep 2006 12:54:54 -0700

Updating a previous report, ESPNews reports New England Patriots WR Deion Branch has had his grievance against the team revoked. The grievance, which was filed on Branch's behalf by the NFL Players Association, was dismissed by an arbitrator. Final word on Branch's situation will come from the special master Thursday, Sept. 14.


Patriots | Branch has grievance revoked
Thu, 7 Sep 2006 12:49:12 -0700

ESPNews reports New England Patriots WR Deion Branch has had his grievance against the team revoked

 

[RAWKY]

GREAT news TY

 

[T-ShirtDynasty]

I can just see Jason Chayut turning red in the face and stomping his widdle feet.

 

[Kdo5]

Haha, Patriots 1 Branch & Chayut 0.

:rocker:

 

[bakes781]

thanks

now fire your agent already Deion!

 

[CTPatsFan]

The coke-head Michael Irvin is on Dan Patrick's show now, after hearing about the arbiter's decision, saying that the "great" BB lost and is trying to play tough. WTF? Clearly he's on the coke again/still. I don't see how this can be viewed as a positive for Twig.

 

[patchick]

REVOKED, not lost? So does this mean that the Patriots succeeded with their claim that the arbitrator never had jurisdiction?

 

[BelichickFan]

Well the Patriots have moved on, getting Gabriel and with Jackson progressing. So sit at home, good buddy.

 

[patsox23]

I don't get why this has to be dragged out until September 14th! I thought this was due to be settled by Saturday. How busy is this "Special Master" and, what, they can't have someone who's a bit more available? Good Lord.

 

[desi-patsfan]

great news and not toally unexpected.

 

[QuiGon]

The coke-head Michael Irvin is on Dan Patrick's show now, after hearing about the arbiter's decision, saying that the "great" BB lost and is trying to play tough. WTF? Clearly he's on the coke again/still. I don't see how this can be viewed as a positive for Twig.

What the crackhead should be saying is... "Deion Branch got JACKED UP..!!!"

 

[patsox23]

"revoked?" "dismissed?" "lost?"

not sure if they're all the same thing. anyone?

 

[QuiGon]

"revoked?" "dismissed?" "lost?"

not sure if they're all the same thing. anyone?

Legally, "dismissed" and "lost" are not the same thing. However, for all practical intents and purposes, it is the same as losing from Branch's point of view.

 

[MrBigglesWorth]

Irvin is not the brightest bulb on the tree.

 

[SWelker]

Don't listen to anything Irvin says, for your own good.

 

[pats1]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2577984

Updated: Sep. 7, 2006, 4:02 PM ET
Sources: Arbitrator dismisses Branch grievance

ESPN.com news services

Arbitrator John Feerick of Fordham Law School has dismissed a grievance filed by the NFL Players Association on behalf of Patriots hold-out wide receiver Deion Branch, NFLPA sources told ESPN's Chris Mortensen on Thursday.

Feerick did not give a reason why, but said he would not grant relief to either party. He had tentatively been scheduled to hear the grievance Saturday.

In the grievance, Branch contended the Patriots reneged on a verbal promise to trade him if he reached a contract agreement with another team, and that team made a fair trade proposal to the Patriots.

...

After the grievance was filed on behalf of Branch, the Patriots filed a motion questioning whether Feerick had jurisdiction over that grievance.

Sources told Mortensen that a conference call was held Wednesday night between the sides and there was a discussion regarding the Patriots' claim that Feerick did not have jurisdiction, but Feerick did not address that issue in his decision on Thursday.

Branch has also filed a second grievance, contending the Patriots have not bargained with him in good faith. That grievance will go forward, with a hearing set next Thursday and Friday before special master Stephen Burbank of the University of Pennsylvania Law School.

 

[Pujo]

The grievance hearing never took place, only the jurisdiction hearing did (via conference call), so "revoked" in this case seems to be the equivilant of "dismissed with prejudice" (meaning it's been dismissed and can't be refiled).

There is only one Special Master (that person is named and supervised by the Federal District Court that dealt with the NFL anti-trust case prior to the CBA being signed in the 90's). Decisions of the Master can be appealed to District Court (and ultimately to Circuit Court and even the Supreme Court), so this will now drag out, which is what the Pats want (their hand won't be forced anytime soon).

 

[QuiGon]

The grievance hearing never took place, only the jurisdiction hearing did (via conference call), so "revoked" in this case seems to be the equivilant of "dismissed with prejudice" (meaning it's been dismissed and can't be refiled).

There is only one Special Master (that person is named and supervised by the Federal District Court that dealt with the NFL anti-trust case prior to the CBA being signed in the 90's). Decisions of the Master can be appealed to District Court (and ultimately to Circuit Court and even the Supreme Court), so this will now drag out, which is what the Pats want (their hand won't be forced anytime soon).

And then after that, they have to settle it all with a mean game of rock-paper-scissors (best 2 of 3). Of course, by the time we get to that point, Branch will be in his mid-40's

 

[RAWKY]

Irvin is not the brightest bulb on the tree.

I might phase it in this instance as "Irvin is not the brightest bulb on the Branch"

 

[SVN]

"Feerick did not give a reason why, but said he would not grant relief to either party"
what does this mean ?