Why it's IMPOSSIBLE for Chayut to win the grievance...

[Pats726]

You can't have it both ways. You can't say the Patriots did the right thing and the NFLPA has it in for the Patriots, because you have to take all this into account. The Patriots are now embroiled with the NFLPA in a legal skirmish, and though the Patriots are right and the NFLPA will lose, it just about destroys any hopes you had of having Branch play for you ever. There''s only one way that this story ends: Deion will be traded, either in the next week or right before the draft.

Branch hasn't wanted to play for the Patriots...case closed.

 

[Mike the Brit]

Do you have a link?

The rumormill at profootballtalk (http://www.profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm)

I didn't bother to give the link because it doesn't tag individual stories and I assume that most of us have PFT bookmarked (like Reiss's blog!)

 

[Patriot Games]

That's a good thought, but the "consideration" for a valid contract doesn't have to flow from Branch, it can come from a 3rd party source. So if the Patriots and Branch reached a verbal contract whereby the Pats agreed to trade Branch if Branch could find a good deal and a fair trade could be worked out, the consideration flowing to the Pats would be the compensation (draft picks, players, money, etc.) that the Pats had determined was acceptable.

Seems to me that in order for the Pats to trade Branch there were two conditions that needed to be met: 1. Branch find a team to offer him an acceptable contract and 2. The Pats and the other team reaching agreement on fair compensation. Looks like the 1st condition was met and the 2nd one was not. So no deal.

The only problem is if there were fraud on the part of the Pats in that they took steps to prevent one of the conditions from coming to fruition. But that would be very difficult to prove and that seems like a bunch of BS to me.

Brach is going to lose this arbitration hearing if it ever gets to that point.

Florio at PFT explains it pretty clearly. If Branch is going to win a grievance it will have to be for breach of contract.

But there are two difficulties. First of all, it is very unlikely that the terms of any verbal agreement (if there was one) would be sufficiently clear for there to be a contract. Secondly, one of the principles of contract law is that there is only a contract where there is "consideration" (something given in return). But even if the Pats promised to let Branch take a decent offer if one came along, there would be no consideration because Branch did not offer anything in return.

Florio is a lawyer and knows about this stuff. I'm not but it smells of b*llsh*t to me.

Florio's view is that the idea of letting Branch seek a trade has blown up in the Pats' faces because, whatever the legality, the fact that there are offers in excess of what the Pats have offered will reinforce Branch's sense of grievance. That's an interesting and plausible interpretation, it seems to me.

 

[Miguel]

It was speculated by several on this board that the Patriots gave Branch permission to seek a trade in return for Branch ending his holdout if he could not get a better offer. If those posters are right, that promise by Branch may be considered "consideration".

 

[Mike the Brit]

It was speculated by several on this board that the Patriots gave Branch permission to seek a trade in return for Branch ending his holdout if he could not get a better offer. If those posters are right, that promise by Branch may be considered "consideration".

This is one of those (rare) times that I regret I didn't go to law school, but I don't think it works like that.

"Consideration" means, I think, in return for me doing A, you do B. But in this case it would be "in return for you looking for a trade but not finding one that is appropriate, you come back in" rather than "in return for you GETTING a trade, you come back in". In other words, if Branch gets the benefit (namely a trade) he doesn't give anything back -- there's just the hypothetical: he would have given something if he hadn't got the benefit.

Obviously, I may well be wrong about this!

 

[Miguel]

I did not go to law school, either.

I was just pointing out the possibility that Branch may have promised to end his holdout if he could not find a better offer. Several posters made that point.

 

[Gopats!!!]

It seems to me regardless of rules/laws/etc an arbitrator can rule however he wants.

I've sen cases where it seemed to make no sense, but an arbitrator ruled for the players. I beleive that is how it usually goes (I could be wrong). We just have to hope that we get an arbitrator that doesn't automatically rule for the player.

Again, I could be wrong, but wasn't the guy who was going to rule for owens an eagles fan???

 

[NE39]

It was speculated by several on this board that the Patriots gave Branch permission to seek a trade in return for Branch ending his holdout if he could not get a better offer. If those posters are right, that promise by Branch may be considered "consideration".

Agreeing to honor and existing contract is not consideration for a new contract.