andyman Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 from Redskins.com Statement On Arrington's Arbitration Hearing July 12, 2005 Redskins Director of Football Administration Eric Schaffer issued a statement upon learning of the request for postponement of LaVar Arrington's arbitration hearing: "I heard about the request for postponement and was disappointed. And while we agreed to the postponement, I think it is very important to finalize through arbitration that the Redskins did nothing wrong to our highest paid player. I also feel strongly that the business ethics of the agent should be questioned and looked into." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
refuze Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 Just wondering. If he gets his money, how does this affect the salary cap? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dexter's Better Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 Zing..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoDannyBoy Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 You would think that Mr. Redskin would want to get this over with? How long can it go on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 :doh: Thanks andy. Sooner or later these folks are going to have to get this over with. Probably just delaying the inevitable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
englitdaudelin Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 :doh: What kind of doofuses (doofii?) are his reps? It seems like something he'd want out of the way... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarhog Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 I can't say I blame them. If all I had to look forward to was an arbitrator saying 'maybe you should've read the freaking contract before you signed it', I wouldn't be in any hurry either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iheartskins Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 Just so it's clear, not reading a contract is VERY VERY VERY rarely a viable defense. This is why you hire agents [and lawyers]. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyman Posted July 13, 2005 Author Share Posted July 13, 2005 Originally posted by iheartskins Just so it's clear, not reading a contract is VERY VERY VERY rarely a viable defense. This is why you hire agents. Just so it's clear, if you had followed this bogus matter you'd know that his agent says he didn't read the contract before advising LaVar to sign it. LaVar is stuck here because he has believed his agents, who have absolutely no proof that there was supposed to be another bonus. And no explanation for why his agents have perpetuated this charade. This is at least the fourth time they have requested a postponement of this case. Why, you might ask, don't they want this resolved? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 Sometimes I feel like Lavar isn't happy unless he has something to ***** about. Things like this don't help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iheartskins Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 Andy, I don't know why you're being hostile to me--and maybe I'm just misreading your post. Anyway, I agree and was only echoing what Tarhog said above. I think Lavar's agents are total jackasses. I think that much is painfully clear and their malpractice or purposeful fraud is having a substantial negative impact on one of our most important players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarhog Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 Bottom line, IMHO, is that Arrington knows damn well he screwed up, whether by signing something he hadn't read, and/or by misplaced belief and trust in his agents. Either way, he's not a kid. He knows in any business, you better damn well be responsible for what you put your name on. I lost a lot of respect for the guy as a result of this whole fiasco. Man up Arrington. Pretending the Redskins somehow 'snuck one by you' when the paper was staring you in the face begging to be read? Thats just ridiculous. And to let it drag on and on, when theres not a chance in hell an arbitrator is going to weigh in in your favor, thats even more ludicrous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyman Posted July 13, 2005 Author Share Posted July 13, 2005 Originally posted by iheartskins I think that much is painfully clear and their malpractice or purposeful fraud is having a substantial negative impact on one of our most important players. Who gives a poop about LaVar (questionably one of our most important players), what about the substantial negative impact this has had on the organization ... with LaVar's blind compliance. That's the problem here, not LaVar's psyche. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flexxskins Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 Originally posted by andyman I also feel strongly that the business ethics of the agent should be questioned and looked into." Thems fighten words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 Cage match: Dan Snyder and Karl Swanson -vs- the Postons. Let's settle this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 The Postons :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iheartskins Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 I'm not saying the important issue is just on Lavar but it's also in the indirect substantial negative impact on him that trickles down, as you say, through the rest of the organization. In any case, I do think he's one of the most important players at least because he demands such an enormous salary, totally irrespective of his contributions (or lack thereof) on the field. I lost a lot of respect for the guy as a result of this whole fiasco. Man up Arrington. Pretending the Redskins somehow 'snuck one by you' when the paper was staring you in the face begging to be read? Thats just ridiculous. And to let it drag on and on, when theres not a chance in hell an arbitrator is going to weigh in in your favor, thats even more ludicrous. That's all I'm trying to say--that the failure to read something you've signed is an absurd defense. If you reread what I wrote, I think you'll see that I'm on your side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarhog Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 There can be only one REAL defense. You want to know who made Arrington sign that contract? Ahhh yes. The Church Lady Defense. 'If Satan done spoke, you must revoke!' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyman Posted July 13, 2005 Author Share Posted July 13, 2005 Originally posted by iheartskins That's all I'm trying to say--that the failure to read something you've signed is an absurd defense. The frustration here is that over time, and perhaps through persistent presentation of LaVar and the case through the media, it has been reduced to this. And this is not what it is about. LaVar's agents, and by extention LaVar, claimed the final contract he signed did not contain a second $6.5 million bonus. The falsehood is that there was never a second bonus. To reduce it to "didn't read the contract" implies the team put one over on him. The team has consistently said, and there is no reason to doubt them, that there never was a second bonus. The team has consistently said every document exchanged with the agents is available for examination, and every document was initialed by the agents throughout the negotiation. None contain the second bonus. That is the issue, not whether a contract was read. Clearly the agents have hoped that "public pressure" would force the team to make a settlement with LaVar. Witness the regular articles from Nunyo raising the issue of a potential settlement. Since this is very simply a "paper case" (read the documents and decide) the agents are scared to death of this coming to examination. If, or when, they lose....they are decertified and LaVar (who they convinced was hoodwinked out of $6.5 million) sues them. If you were the agent, would you want this brought to conclusion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 Originally posted by Tarhog There can be only one REAL defense. You want to know who made Arrington sign that contract? Ahhh yes. The Church Lady Defense. 'If Satan done spoke, you must revoke!' I thought it was this guy: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iheartskins Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 I totally see what you are saying Andy, and if I were closer to the dispute as you are, I'm sure my frustration with the situation would be far greater. But this does come down to either (a) fraud and/or misrepresentation on the part of Lavar's agents/lawyers/representatives in trying to force the 'Skins to fork over something that wasn't a part of this contract or ( these agents never read the documents, but notwithstanding their failure to read, promised Lavar that the documents contained something that they didn't--which is still close to fraud, but the parties would be different (i.e., Lavar v. Poston instead of Lavar v. 'Skins). The thing is this contract probably had what's called a "merger clause" such that the document itself was the final agreement of the parties and no oral modifications could come into court or in an arbitration. From what you've written, it sounds like the Postons are trying to get in what they allege to be an additional term to the contract that wasn't actually in there in violation of the merger clause. But here's where the fact that this dispute is in arbitration is so frustrating... The thing about arbitration, having practiced in a few arbitrations, is that the outcomes can be totally arbitrary. The rules of evidence are a guide not the rules--so how the panel or single arbitrator comes down could be totally different than what we think is right and how it would come down in a formal judicial proceeding. And the worst part, to get an arbitration award overturned (or vacated) requires an incredibly high showing by the moving party. So how that arbitrator comes down will likely be the final outcome--meaning that the right side and that which the arbitrator thinks is right could be totally different things and there's nothing the 'Skins can do about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarhog Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 I understand the distinction you're making, and its a good one. And I think theres truth in the notion that if you repeat a falsehood enough times, pretty soon, it starts to sound reasonable. From my own point of view, I've simply distilled what occured down to its most basic component: that its impossible to be 'bamboozled' in a contract situation, providing you read the contract. I don't think that position necessarily implies anything ominous or backhanded was done by the team here. I think thats such a basic and intuitive truth that even his most hardcore fans are going to continue to find Arrington's position here a little pathetic. And while I know the release was directed at Arrington's representatives, the truth is Lavar could have put this to bed a long time ago. And should have. Sometimes players overestimate fans. We're loyal. We're not blind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 Originally posted by andyman The frustration here is that over time, and perhaps through persistent presentation of LaVar and the case through the media, it has been reduced to this. And this is not what it is about. LaVar's agents, and by extention LaVar, claimed the final contract he signed did not contain a second $6.5 million bonus. The falsehood is that there was never a second bonus. To reduce it to "didn't read the contract" implies the team put one over on him. The team has consistently said, and there is no reason to doubt them, that there never was a second bonus. The team has consistently said every document exchanged with the agents is available for examination, and every document was initialed by the agents throughout the negotiation. None contain the second bonus. That is the issue, not whether a contract was read. Clearly the agents have hoped that "public pressure" would force the team to make a settlement with LaVar. Witness the regular articles from Nunyo raising the issue of a potential settlement. Since this is very simply a "paper case" (read the documents and decide) the agents are scared to death of this coming to examination. If, or when, they lose....they are decertified and LaVar (who they convinced was hoodwinked out of $6.5 million) sues them. If you were the agent, would you want this brought to conclusion? If I were Lavar I would already have someone on it making sure to cover all bases and tell me WHO to sue. If the case is as cut and dry as you say, I would have a new agent and lawyer suing the p*ss out of the Postons. But that isn't happening obviously. I don't understand why Lavar (the person/player) would just allow this to continue to drag on like this. It's not doing any side good. It brought the Skins down to a certain degree, yes, but I just don't see how any persistance on their (LaVar's side) part makes their case more damaging you know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laurent Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 I'm surprised Arrington still hasn't figured out that he's on the receiving end of some very dubious advise. The fact that Arrington still has the Postons as his advisors honestly makes me question Arringtons intelligence. Let's assume for a second that the Redskins did in fact ommit bonus money that they had agreed upon, aren't the agents getting paid to make sure that these type of things don't happen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westbrook36 Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 LA is getting some really bad advice. The Poston's target players of low intelligence, do they not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.