Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by Chris, Sep 7, 2006.
I hope you're right.
I think people are assuming that he has the Jason Chayut Red Phone.
Here is somethng that Borges does have right and he inadvertantly mentioned it.
The NFL does not want this thing to go the distance. They don't want this to be a precident
I think that before next Saturday they will try to force a deal on both the Patriots and Branch. I only hope that they do not force a deal with the Jests for reasons that I've stated a few times before. But, I just want Branch gone.
God forgive me for posting on another Branch thread. He's already dead to me.
Thanks. It just fascinates me that the two stories could be SO different. I'm inclined to believe ESPN because they don't have the anti-Patriot bias that Wrong has.
Maybe not, but he certainly has his blue balls.
On second thought, maybe they aren't so blue.
Mortenson and Borges articles cannot be reconciled. Mortenson clearly states Feerick "dismissed a grievance filed by the NFL Players Association..." Borges claims the issues has been delayed "...[Feerick] will likely not hear arguments on that issue until after Burbank rules on Branchâ€™s second claim."
It will be interesting to discover whose sources were accurate and who made a mistake. I guess we won't know until one of the two revises their article.
Not to get off topic here but Wrong Bogus apparently on TV accused the Pats of not giving into Branch's demands because they are racists. (I guess he forgot about Richard Seymour) so the reference maybe in bad taste but it's kind of relevant.
That's not how I understood it at all.
The NFL had argued that this arbitrator either had no right or qualification to hear the grievance. The arbitrator decided that he does have the right to here the grievance, but will postpone the hearing. Probably until after the other hearing with the MASTER is heard and ruled on first.
......................................................................or I could be wrong.
ESPN changed its story. Borges appears to be correct and it is on hold.
Sources: Arbitrator delays Branch grievance.....
its now "on hold" according to ESPN...
Of course they are racist. Absolutely no way they would ever sign a black player like say Roosevelt Colvin or Rodney Harison. Hell, the next time they draft an African-American in the first round will be the first.
oh great that's the last time I trust ESPN.
Everybody knows they're sizist. Colvin, Seymour and Brady are all much taller than Branch and Vinatieri. Oh, and Big Willie shrank.
Yeah, how else would Hill have lasted this long on the roster.
ESPN's story now says "Arbitrator John Feerick of Fordham Law School has reserved judgment on 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."
I'm no legal expert but it sounds to me like the arbitrator is saying he is not going to rule on the grievance at this time but is reserving the right to decide on it later.
Note that the Mortenson's source for this report is "NFLPA sources" so it perhaps should be taken with a grain of salt.
Oh i can't stand it that WRONG was right, that has totally ruined my "hooray football starts tonight!" mood
I followed a link posted earlier in the thread and note that the ESPN story is evolving....My apologies to Ian and ESPN for posting the earlier version and the update in their entirety to document how the story has changed.
The earlier version comes up when you use ESPN's print formatting option - the updated story apparently hadn't been linked to "print" when I read it.
This is the link to the update: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2577984 Pats1 had it in his post: http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/showpost.php?p=180979&postcount=16
Here is the updated version, it seems the arbitration is postponed until after the Special Master hears the second grievance.
Reading various stories about the grievance, there was speculation that Branch's camp was using the result of the first grievance to create a case for themselves in the second, with this reversed I wonder how that affects their second grievance...
This would make sense if he felt that this claim were dependent on the claim being heard by the special master--e.g. if the grievance would only make sense if the team were judged guilty of negotiating in bad faith. My uninformed guess is this ruling is a mild positive for the Patriots.
I believe that's exactly what he is saying.
Separate names with a comma.