NavyDave Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 Good thing I'm not the arbitrator because I'd say earn your signing bonus on the field and not from the hype. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 Originally posted by andyman Who gives a poop about LaVar I do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ntotoro Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 Originally posted by Destino If one freely agrees to the postponement then one shouldn't complain about it. If the skins want to get this over with they need to say "no more postponements we want this done now." That's the one thing I don't understand. While the 'Skins don't need to rush this (it doesn't harm or help either way), they also don't need to just let it drag along. There's no sense to it, unless maybe they're just waiting to see if they can get out of the contract for medical reasons... ? Not likely, but I don't know. Nick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard saunders Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 Do the Skins actually have any say on the postponement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 Originally posted by andyman 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? or is something else going on like finding a way to get lavar off the team, his injury has been a little strange all along and how they are dealing with it, if the skins and his reps could come to an agreement to void the contract would they, and could they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 In a dream world we could the contract voided, and dump Lavar and all his exorbitant cap space. The guy has great heart, but nobody not named Peyton or Brady deserves to take up as much cap space as he does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ntotoro Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 Originally posted by Riggo-toni The guy has great heart, but nobody not named Peyton or Brady deserves to take up as much cap space as he does. Might want to qualify that... :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimster Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 Originally posted by Destino If one freely agrees to the postponement then one shouldn't complain about it. If the skins want to get this over with they need to say "no more postponements we want this done now." I believe Arrington just hired a new lawyer, so they used the excuse that they need to get prepared. - I guess the last year of doing nothing wasn't enough time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwsleep Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 The interesting development is that Lavar, according to the Post, hired "a new lawyer to investigate the incident." Further, according to another of La Canfora's unamed sources: "Arrington hopes to meet with Redskins owner Daniel Snyder to rectify the situation rather than pursue the arbitration process, according to a source with knowledge of his thinking." Maybe Lavar is beginning to wake up to the fact (about time!!!) that the Postons are screwing him, has hired someone new to check things out, and has been basically told he's got nothing here. He should quietly drop the complaint, and loudly fire the Postons. Of course, he'll probably hire Rosenhaus and begin his obligatory holdout... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iheartskins Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 Originally posted by ntotoro 1) In the Commonwealth of Virginia, where the contract was signed, the burden of proof in a case like this lies on the plaintiff. The Postons/LaVar have no such proof. The 'Skins don't just need to cave by giving any consessions. If they do, the terrori... err... the Postons win. Nick Nick, you're right about this. However, as SkinsNatsFan commented and I wrote earlier, this controversy is proceeding in an arbitration so burdens of proof, rules of evidence and other procedural and substantive formalities that always surround a judicial proceeding sometimes fall away. That's the scary part of arbitration. Speaking slightly more generally, the burden is almost always on the moving party in a contract case to show why the remedy they request should be granted. As you wrote (correctly,) that is true here in Lavar's case as well. Originally posted by richard saunders Do the Skins actually have any say on the postponement? I would imagine that they do, however the arbitrator will likely decide this. Both parties likely filed some form of motion or legal memorandum emphasizing the reasons that the motion should (or shouldn't) be granted. Then, based on those motions, and any oral argument if the arbitrator wants--this can sometimes be in the form of a conference call, the parties agree to a new arbitration date. Clearly, this arbitrator has found in favor of Lavar on each of these occasions for whatever reason. I'd have to see the documents and listen to a recording or read a transcript to give you the reasons why the continuances have been continually granted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tr1 Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 Originally posted by jimster I believe Arrington just hired a new lawyer, so they used the excuse that they need to get prepared. - I guess the last year of doing nothing wasn't enough time. I hope he got a lawyer to sue the Postens... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pocono Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 Originally posted by andyman 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? http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=98511&perpage=15&display=&highlight=Arrington&pagenumber=1 "Arrington also accused the Redskins of delaying the grievance he filed over a $6.5 million bonus that he claims was supposed to be a part of the nine-year, $68 million contract signed near the end of the 2004 season. A hearing scheduled for November was postponed, with no new date set. "You guys use your common sense," Arrington said. "Why do think they keep pushing it back? … Why do you guys think they keep pushing it back for such a non-winnable situation and an asinine thing for me to do, why do you think it keeps getting pushed back? But I could care less about anything else other than my knee right now." Gibbs said he was under the impression that the Redskins had no control over the grievance process. The coach said he would address the contract matter further at a Tuesday news conference." ......... I didn't see any post by Andyman after this story stating it was Arrington's people delaying the hearing and I didn't see any comment by the official team spokesman now that LaVar's side has been responsible for the delays before this postponement so evaluate for yourself. I think this is a smart move by LaVar who probably wants to see how his knee progresses before he goes into a hearing and calls the Skin's FO liars and cheats. He has to know that whether he wins or loses he's not going to see that 6.5M[which would carry his cap hit to 19M for 06] after last season which proved they could do just fine on D without him. If the knee responds and he's primed for a big year he'll go through with the hearing and raise a big stink and hope they release him after this season. If he has serious doubts in a few months about his career he'll be quiet as a churchmouse and wisely drop the grievance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 Originally posted by Pocono I didn't see any post by Andyman after this story stating it was Arrington's people delaying the hearing and I didn't see any comment by the official team spokesman now that LaVar's side has been responsible for the delays before this postponement so evaluate for yourself. http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=105858 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyman Posted July 14, 2005 Author Share Posted July 14, 2005 Originally posted by Pocono http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=98511&perpage=15&display=&highlight=Arrington&pagenumber=1 A hearing scheduled for November was postponed, with no new date set. "You guys use your common sense," Arrington said. "Why do think they keep pushing it back? … Why do you guys think they keep pushing it back for such a non-winnable situation and an asinine thing for me to do, why do you think it keeps getting pushed back? But I could care less about anything else other than my knee right now." Gibbs said he was under the impression that the Redskins had no control over the grievance process. The coach said he would address the contract matter further at a Tuesday news conference." ......... I didn't see any post by Andyman after this story stating it was Arrington's people delaying the hearing and I didn't see any comment by the official team spokesman now that LaVar's side has been responsible for the delays before this postponement so evaluate for yourself. The hearing has been scheduled four times. It has been postponed once (the November hearing mentioned above) because the NFL lawyer had a family conflict. It has been postponed every other time at the request of LaVar's representatives. The "common sense" LaVar refers to in the above might best be addressed to why he doesn't know what his representatives are doing in the matter. Gibbs is correct. The Redskins have no control over this process, which is governed by the NFL-NFLPA labor agreement. Since LaVar brought the grievance, he in essence controls the scheduling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimster Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 Originally posted by Pocono so evaluate for yourself. your wishful thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.