Patriots | Arbitrator dismisses Branch's grievance

[patsox23]

Why would you assume Borges is right?

Borges is basically saying that the arbitrator had a conference call with the two parties and then told them today that his schedule had changed and he now too busy on Saturday and didn't know when his schedule would allow him to hear the "oral promise" greivance. That makes no sense at all.

I hope you're right.

 

[patchick]

Why would you assume Borges is right?

I think people are assuming that he has the Jason Chayut Red Phone.

 

[PATSNUTme]

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.

 

[Hoodie]

The two articles are quite different, and I don't know what to believe. Both ESPN and Borges have a reputation for getting stories wrong almost as often as they get them right.... ESPN especially tends to go with breaking news as soon as they get it, truth be damned...

FWIW, I always considered September 14 and the ruling of the Special Master to be the most important part of this whole grievance process, so I am not sure today's news really means much of anything anyway.

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.

 

[Oswlek]

I think people are assuming that he has the Jason Chayut Red Phone.

Maybe not, but he certainly has his blue balls.

On second thought, maybe they aren't so blue.

 

[SBPatsFan]

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 Branch’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.

 

[Hoodie]

Forgive me, i found this post to be in very bad taste.

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.

 

[Slagathor]

Why would you assume Borges is right?

Borges is basically saying that the arbitrator had a conference call with the two parties and then told them today that his schedule had changed and he now too busy on Saturday and didn't know when his schedule would allow him to hear the "oral promise" greivance. That makes no sense at all.

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.

 

[SBPatsFan]

ESPN changed its story. Borges appears to be correct and it is on hold.

 

[Va_Pats_Fan]

Sources: Arbitrator delays Branch grievance.....

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


its now "on hold" according to ESPN...

 

[Oswlek]

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.

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.

 

[bakes781]

ESPN changed its story. Borges appears to be correct and it is on hold.

oh great that's the last time I trust ESPN.

 

[RayClay]

nm...........

 

[patchick]

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.

Everybody knows they're sizist. Colvin, Seymour and Brady are all much taller than Branch and Vinatieri. Oh, and Big Willie shrank.

 

[Oswlek]

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.

 

[PromisedLand]

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.

 

[patsacolachick]

ESPN changed its story. Borges appears to be correct and it is on hold.

Oh i can't stand it that WRONG was right, that has totally ruined my "hooray football starts tonight!" mood

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

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

Thursday, September 7, 2006
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.

On Aug. 25, the Patriots granted Branch permission, through Sept. 4, to seek a trade. The Seattle Seahawks and New York Jets reached deals with Branch, but neither team could satisfy the demands of the Patriots, and Branch remained under contract to New England.

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.

©2006 ESPN Internet Ventures.

Here is the updated version, it seems the arbitration is postponed until after the Special Master hears the second grievance.

Updated: Sep. 7, 2006, 4:49 PM ET
Sources: Arbitrator delays Branch grievance
ESPN.com news services

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.

Feerick said he would not rule until a second grievance is heard by a special master. Freerick 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.

On Aug. 25, the Patriots granted Branch permission, through Sept. 4, to seek a trade. The Seattle Seahawks and New York Jets reached deals with Branch, but neither team could satisfy the demands of the Patriots, and Branch remained under contract to New England.

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 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.

©2006 ESPN Internet Ventures.

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...

 

[patchick]

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.

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.

 

[PromisedLand]

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.