alexhb said:
Perhaps that's why Borges's article seems to have been removed from the site. Your link worked...but if you go to the globe's site it doesn't have the article you mention. It's kind of odd.
It seems to be working fine for me... anyway, here is a cut-and-paste of the Borges article:
Branch hearings move slowly
The arbitrator in the Deion Branch case denied the NFL’s motion that the mediator had no jurisdiction in Branch’s dispute with the New England Patriots today and then informed both sides he would not be available to hear the first of Branch’s two claims against the team on Saturday as originally expected.
The discovery and deposition hearings are set for Monday and Tuesday in the second grievance procedure and will be argued before special master Stephen Burbank of the University of Pennsylvania Law School next Thursday and Friday. This testimony effectively postponed the original grievance hearing on the issue if the Patriots violated an agreement to trade Branch for at least a week.
Arbitrator John Feerick of Fordham Law School will likely not hear arguments on that issue until after Burbank rules on Branch’s second claim, a non-injury grievance in which he asserts the Patriots failed to bargain in good faith with him. The NFL has contended filing the two grievances on what they feel is essentially the same issue was an effort on the part of Branch’s legal team to take two bites at the apple.
Discovery, in which the two sides must produce any written material or other facts involved in the case, may be the key element because while the CBA prohibits any oral agreement from altering a written player contract faxes, e-mails and even a team press release announcing that Branch was being given a week to try and trade himself -- a right he did not have under the terms of his original contract without tampering penalties against any opposing teams who spoke to him -- could become a stumbling block for the league and the Patriots.
However, if such contact makes clear the Patriots’ had established a high asking price or states that they retain their right to accept or reject any trade it would likely be a high hurdle for Branch to overcome. It is expected under an expedited hearing request, that Burbank will rule quickly once the two sides complete their arguments a week from tomorrow. A ruling could come down as early as the following day or it might drag out over the season’s second weekend.
Losing the motion to make two grievance claims combined is not a sign of how the case will ultimately be decided but it is a reminder to both sides that once an arbitration or legal process begins, control leaves the hands of the disputing parties and is vested others who may see your argument in a far different light than you do.
Burbank was the special master in such a case in 2004 and is believed to have been ready to rule in favor of Terrell Owens in his dispute with the San Francisco 49ers. Before Burbank declared Owens a free agent the league stepped in and brokered a three-cornered trade between the 49ers, Eagles and Ravens that cost the Ravens Owens’ services after they had completed both a trade agreement with San Francisco and what they thought was a satisfactory contract with Owens. Before the trade was finalized Owens decided he preferred to play for the Eagles and filed a grievance arguing that he had followed the requirements of his contract in San Francisco and should be declared a free agent.
Unexpectedly, Burbank gave clear signs he was ready to rule for Owens but before he issued that order the three-way deal that sent a late round pick to the Ravens and Eagles’ defensive Brandon Whiting to the 49ers was made and Owens landed in Philadelphia without ever having him challenge the system
