Patriots | Arbitrator dismisses Branch's grievance

[bakes781]

what ruling? according to the updated version there is NONE! :bricks:

 

[PromisedLand]

Wow!

ESPN's report and Borges's are TOTALLY different. Night and Day

I hate to say it but I think Borges's explanation will be the correct one. I hope I'm wrong.

Even a blind squirrel occasionally finds a nut, grasshopper.

Even a broken clock is right two times a day.

 

[FloridaPatsFan]

This is sounding more and more like a typical divorce proceeding between a man and his wife. In most cases, the person filing for divorce (Deion Branch), will eventually be granted a divorce but it will come at a great cost. (I'm sure some of you out there can relate). And the person who was not requesting a divorce (Patriots) get the house, boat, kids, etc.

Or maybe I have this all wrong.............

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

This is sounding more and more like a typical divorce proceeding between a man and his wife. In most cases, the person filing for divorce (Deion Branch), will eventually be granted a divorce but it will come at a great cost. (I'm sure some of you out there can relate). And the person who was not requesting a divorce (Patriots) get the house, boat, kids, etc.

Or maybe I have this all wrong.............

Just so long as New England gets to keep the house and kids.

 

[FloridaPatsFan]

Just so long as New England gets to keep the house and kids.

Thats what I'm thinking Box.......

 

[Lansdowne]

Michael Irvin will blindly defend any wide receiver because he's an idiot. Great player, DUMB guy.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

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.

Yes, this is the most likely explanation. I can think of three others.

1) This jurisdictional issue is a freaking morass and I can't figure it out, so I don't want to decide it unless I have to, and I don't have to if the second grievance goes against Branch, because then I can just decide against him on the merits and avoid taking any position that would have implications beyond this case.

2) The special master in the second grievance is going to be taking discovery, and who knows what will come to light, so I'll just keep my powder dry until I hear about that second grievance.

3) I'm really freaking busy, because I'm a fancy professor and the new semester has just started, and I have better crap to do and I have a theoretical justification for punting -- that there's a second grievance -- so I'm going to jump on it, particularly since these annoying lawyers kept me on the phone for 4 hours last night arguing some esoteric jurisdictional question, which makes me think that when we get to the actual merits these blow hards are going to eat up 2 whole days of my time when I could be hitting on the new young co-eds at the University.

 

[PonyExpress]

This is clearly spin by the tendentious Borges. Branch just got his @$$ kicked in open court, and once the negative news reached the press, the NFLPA lawyers began spinning to lessen the public embarrassment to them and Branch. What the NFLPA is really saying is, "yeah, so, everything really depends on the Special Master's decision", which is what the Pats petitioned for in the first place.

 

[patchick]

Yes, this is the most likely explanation. I can think of three others.

1) This jurisdictional issue is a freaking morass and I can't figure it out, so I don't want to decide it unless I have to, and I don't have to if the second grievance goes against Branch, because then I can just decide against him on the merits and avoid taking any position that would have implications beyond this case.

2) The special master in the second grievance is going to be taking discovery, and who knows what will come to light, so I'll just keep my powder dry until I hear about that second grievance.

3) I'm really freaking busy, because I'm a fancy professor and the new semester has just started, and I have better crap to do and I have a theoretical justification for punting -- that there's a second grievance -- so I'm going to jump on it, particularly since these annoying lawyers kept me on the phone for 4 hours last night arguing some esoteric jurisdictional question, which makes me think that when we get to the actual merits these blow hards are going to eat up 2 whole days of my time when I could be hitting on the new young co-eds at the University.

All good points. (Well, the first two anyway! Seriously, unlike the special master who is a specific individual, a guy who didn't want to take a case as an arbitrator could just say no.) Overall, I'd be willing to bet that if and when the SM rules that the Patriots showed no bad faith, this other grievance disappears.

If Team Branch loses at the SM level and tries to appeal through the courts, I wonder who'd be footing the legal bill?

 

[PATRIOTS-80]

This is clearly spin by the tendentious Borges. Branch just got his @$$ kicked in open court, and once the negative news reached the press, the NFLPA lawyers began spinning to lessen the public embarrassment to them and Branch. What the NFLPA is really saying is, "yeah, so, everything really depends on the Special Master's decision", which is what the Pats petitioned for in the first place.

Exactly....

Branch had two cases going because he wanted two "bites at the apple" (in other words, two chances). The Patriots wanted him only to have "one bite at the apple." The fact that it all really depends on the Special Master's decision is what the Patriots wanted.

 

[Digger44]

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

Fogive you???? No, you are right on. Why does this trash have to tolerated or posted here? This dude needs to take a hike.

 

[BelichickFan]

As long as the Patriots don't get their butts whacked (like the player being a UFA with no comp or tag - which won't happen, just an example), I really don't care. I've moved on and so has the team. If the worst case is a #2 pick, I'm fine with that as a worst case.

 

[Digger44]

Here is pft:

BRANCH GRIEVANCE DELAYED

Earlier this afternoon, there were conflicting reports regarding the status of Deion Branch's grievance against the New England Patriots. Chris Mortensen of ESPN had reported that the grievance was dismissed by arbitrator John Feerick. The Patriots contend the arbitrator has no jurisdiction over the grievance, in which Branch alleged that the team had reneged on an oral promise to trade him.

Meanwhile, confirmed Pats hater Ron Borges of the Boston Globe reports that the arbitrator denied the motion to dismiss the grievance for lack of jurisdiction, and that the matter is proceeding toward a hearing. The hearing apparently will be conducted after Branch's second grievance (which alleges that the team failed to negotiate a contract extension in good faith) is resolved.

Mort has since revised his story to indicate that the grievance has merely been delayed, not dismissed.

As to the first grievance, Borges astutely (hey, we give credit where it's due) acknowledges that the specific contents of written materials such as faxes and e-mails could be important to the question of whether any oral modification to the Standard Player Contract signed by Branch and the Pats had been sufficiently reduced to writing. Nevertheless, we still believe that a collection of writings that don't constitute an actual player contract cannot overcome the plain language of Article XIV, Section 5(a) of the CBA, which states that "[a]ny agreement between any player and any Club concerning terms and conditions of employment shall be set forth in writing in a Player Contract as soon as practicable."

As we see it, the failure of Branch and his agent to require the team to reduce to a formal writing the alleged agreement to trade him is fatal to the allegation that a valid agreement under the CBA existed.

But it's still unclear whether the first grievance has survived. Mort says it hasn't; Borges says it has.

From the team's perspective, it might be better to withdraw any argument that the grievance is not subject to arbitration, since this could unlock the door to the courthouse for Branch. Typically in situations of this nature, the employer argues that the CBA's grievance and arbitration procedure applies, and the employee looks for a way to circumvent the CBA and file suit. After further reflection on our part, it very well could be that NFLPA attorney Jeff Kessler's recent threat to seek compensation from the Pats if the pending grievances fail is a hint at a looming lawsuit.

As to the second grievance, we actually believe that Branch might be onto something -- if he can show that the Pats failed to negotiate in good faith. Initially, we believed that Branch had no recourse because, as a player currently under contract (and in violation of said contract due to his holdout) he could not credibly argue that the team had any duty to negotiate an extension. But Article XIV, Section 8 of the CBA states that "any Club or player engaged in negotiations for a Player contract . . . is under an obligation to negotiate in good faith."

Still, proving the absence of good faith could be a tall order, and we suspect that Branch will be required to produce a smoking gun or something pretty close thereto if he is to have any shot at showing that the team acted in bad faith. His best bet might be to harp on the allegedly broken promise to trade him; however, it seems to us that there was no negotiation of any kind occurring at the time that the team gave Branch a one-week window to work out a deal elsewhere.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Fogive you???? No, you are right on. Why does this trash have to tolerated or posted here? This dude needs to take a hike.

Okay, let's not go overboard on someone who made a bad choice for humor. You've informed him it was in bad taste, I'd recommend an apology on his part and gracious acceptance on yours - folks make mistakes all the time and society has a mechanism for resolving it short of war or banishment.

 

[Born_a_Patriot]

Just go away Branch.

Did anyone ever think that Branch would become the biggest Ahole in Patriots history.

Just go away. :bricks: :bricks: :bricks:

 

[RAWKY]

If Team Branch loses at the SM level and tries to appeal through the courts, I wonder who'd be footing the legal bill?

I have now seen this twice concerning Special Masters rulings being appealed to the federal court.

I thought it was the other way around an Arbitrater's ruling can be appealed but a Special Master's ruling could not.

At least i have read it that way on PFT and in at least one other news item which i can not put a handle on right now.

Then again i am a Brain Injury survivor so i can no longer say for sure i am correct on this.

 

[pats1]

Okay, let's not go overboard on someone who made a bad choice for humor. You've informed him it was in bad taste, I'd recommend an apology on his part and gracious acceptance on yours - folks make mistakes all the time and society has a mechanism for resolving it short of war or banishment.

I don't think there was all that much wrong with that post.

Not that I support the KKK or anything, but I don't get why people find offense in others simply using the name.

Dragda was fine. There wasn't a personal attack or anything of the like.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

I don't think there was all that much wrong with that post.

Not that I support the KKK or anything, but I don't get why people find offense in others simply using the name.

Dragda was fine. There wasn't a personal attack or anything of the like.

Perhaps, I'm not going to be too judgmental of other's feelings until they become irrationally over sensitive, where I do have a concern is maintaining some level of civil discourse here. This was a joke that prompted two posters to take offense, since it was a joke and not directly a part of the football discussion, make an apology and allow all parties to move on and enjoy themselves in the forum. No need for banishment or violent congressional-style diatribes - we can save those for NEM's play calling.

 

[Digger44]

Okay, let's not go overboard on someone who made a bad choice for humor. You've informed him it was in bad taste, I'd recommend an apology on his part and gracious acceptance on yours - folks make mistakes all the time and society has a mechanism for resolving it short of war or banishment.

i didnt suggest either, an apology would be all that is necessary.

 

[patsox23]

I am one of those dreaded progressives, but I think it's possible (and frequent) these days for people to cite the mere reference to something like race or the KKK and mistake it as ACTUALLY "racist" in nature when what is is "racial," in nature - there being a WORLD of difference between the two. In any case, hopping off my soap-box, let me say this:

Who cares - let's talk more BRANCH!!!