Will the Pats send a 5-day letter?

[NE39]

Under terms of the CBA, a team sends a letter to a holdout player informing him that, if he does not report within 5 days, he will be placed on a Reserve List for the season. If the deadline is missed, the player's contract is tolled and he is out for the year (just like I/R). He returns the next season, still under contract.

The Pats tried to do this with Terry Glenn in 2001, who was placed on the Reserve List when he failed to report within the 5 days. However, Glenn won an arbitration case to return because the arbitrator ruled the Pats should have sent the letter at the start of his holdout (they waited until he was out for a while). He ended up returning and playing in the San Diego game, before faking an injury and not playing for NE again.

I wonder if the Pats will send the letter to Branch at the start of camp, thereby starting the 5 days. The risk is the player will come back disgruntled. He also may not come back at all and is out for the year. However, it would force him back right away or bring him back another year. In Branch's case, it is hard to imagine he wouldn't return to camp and miss out on free agency after the season.

With Adam Schefter reporting Branch is digging in for a long holdout that might last until week 10 anyway, the 5 day letter becomes a possibility, IMO. It forces him to return to camp, or makes him come back next year.

 

[sarge]

I say yes.

Had his agent gone the route of Seymours agent and kept his mouth shut, then maybe not. Had his agent kept the negotiations between himself and the team, then perhaps not.

But considering that the agent has turned this into a media spectacle, I don't see how the Pats don't do this.

I say send it. And send it now!

At this point I have prepared myself for a season without Branch.

 

[Pats726]

No..not yet..right now the agent is yapping and..no reason to do that now...in a bit maybe..NOT sure how far they are dug in it all..

 

[sarge]

No..not yet..right now the agent is yapping and..no reason to do that now...in a bit maybe..NOT sure how far they are dug in it all..

But if I understood NE93's post, the reason the Pats lost in arbitration over the Terry Glenn issue was because they waited.

If they wait now, wouldn't they essentially be putting themselves in the identical situation?

 

[NE39]

Branch isn't Seymour, and the Seymour negotiations were civil all the way through. He never complained about the team being "unfair" or "not doing right by him". He separated the business part of it from the football part, and he ended up benefitting in the long run.

I think they have to send the letter right away for it to be an option. That was what came out of the Glenn ruling, where they waited to send it. If you are going to use it, then it must be sent at the start of the holdout.

 

[PATSNUTme]

Are you kidding me? They are not even close to doing that yet.

Ask the same question in three weeks if this goes on that long.

Good to bring up the info but way premature to ask the question as it applies to Branch right now.

 

[Aldogg]

I say send it. It is a drastic move, but I think with everything being in the press now, it might send a message to Branch's agent that we are not joking either.

 

[sarge]

Are you kidding me? They are not even close to doing that yet.

Ask the same question in three weeks if this goes on that long.

Good to bring up the info but way premature to ask the question as it applies to Branch right now.

But remember. If they don't send it now, it isn't an option later per the Glenn ruling.

 

[Tunescribe]

I am so sick of this Branch fiasco I say send the letter now. If he doesn't report within the five days I hope he's traded his first day of eligibility upon returning next year.

 

[PATSNUTme]

But remember. If they don't send it now, it isn't an option later per the Glenn ruling.

OK. Then I say do not send it. I think the $14,000 per day is punishment enough. If he holds out all of TC that's a cool $500K, that just won't happen.

Dion is not Glenn there has not been any trouble with him ever. This is business-that's all.

 

[Pujo]

The five day letter rule doesn't apply if a player does not report to training camp - it only applies to players who report to training camp and then leave without permission.

 

[patsfan13]

The five day letter rule doesn't apply if a player does not report to training camp - it only applies to players who report to training camp and then leave without permission.

To clarify, does this mean the team can send the '5day letter' anytime ir only if he reports then leaves?

 

[NE39]

I believe it applies to any player who is under contract but fails to report any time after the start of training camp.

 

[Clonamery]

NE39 is right.....you have to report and then leave for the five-day letter to apply.

I remember last year seeing something on it when everyone was contemplating what Seymour would do with his holdout.

 

[NE39]

OK, I stand corrected. I thought is was procedural, based on placing a player on the Reserve-Did Not Report list.

However, it is clear that Belichick is going to take a hard-line with this one based on his comment on Branch (from Reiss' blog):

“I’m here to talk about football, to coach the team. I’ll talk about the players that are here this year.â€

 

[Clonamery]

That's just Belichick-ese for...'I don't want to comment about someone who isn't here.'

 

[Pujo]

To clarify, does this mean the team can send the '5day letter' anytime ir only if he reports then leaves?

Only if he reports & leaves.

 

[Gopats!!!]

I would hate for their to be bad blood between Branch and the team, but at the same time, the team can't allow this to be a trend.

Personally, I can't stand it when a player tries to bleed the team for everything they can. I know I'm not in their position, but I'll repeat the question Tedy Bruschi asked, "How many millions of dollars do I need?" The Patriots are going to make him super rich, all Branch is doing is hurting the team.

So far, what I understand is this:

If a player shows up to camp, then splits, you can send a letter, but it has to be immediatly.

If the player does not show up at all, he can be fined, but that's it.

 

[Pujo]

So far, what I understand is this:

If a player shows up to camp, then splits, you can send a letter, but it has to be immediatly.

If the player does not show up at all, he can be fined, but that's it.

Right, and if a player continues to hold out into the start of the season he can be placed on "Reserve/Did Not Report", which would open up his roster spot (as with any reserve list) and allow the team to withold his entire pay (though I believe teams can't go after signing bonuses under the new CBA, as Miami could have done to Ricky Williams under the old CBA - and I understand Ricky's situation was different because it was a retirement and not a case of being AWOL).

 

[Gopats!!!]

Right, and if a player continues to hold out into the start of the season he can be placed on "Reserve/Did Not Report", which would open up his roster spot (as with any reserve list) and allow the team to withold his entire pay (though I believe teams can't go after signing bonuses under the new CBA, as Miami could have done to Ricky Williams under the old CBA - and I understand Ricky's situation was different because it was a retirement and not a case of being AWOL).

I would absolutely put Branch on the "Reserve/Did Not Report" list and hold his pay. I know if he doesn't report by the 10th game he is not eligible for free agency. If we put him on the Reserve/Did Not Report list is he eligible for free agency? I would think not, but I don't know.