Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Uh Oh TO


skinstzar

Recommended Posts

I think the Eagles wanted to make a statement in all this... not just deactivating him, or suspending him with pay, or benching him, etc... but making it a 4 game suspension without pay, after which he still won't be invited back. :wtf: is the point of that? Just deactivate him for chrisakes.

I think there are egos involved... not just TO's... and unfortuantely it will come back to bite them. The players union will give them all they can handle.

(and before anyone starts, I am not defending TO... so BACK OFF!!! :) )

.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the Eagles wanted to make a statement in all this... not just deactivating him, or suspending him with pay, or benching him, etc... but making it a 4 game suspension without pay, after which he still won't be invited back. :wtf: is the point of that? Just deactivate him for chrisakes.

I think there are egos involved... not just TO's... and unfortuantely it will come back to bite them. The players union will give them all they can handle.

(and before anyone starts, I am not defending TO... so BACK OFF!!! :) )

.......

Stop with the defending dude.

j/k

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the Eagles wanted to make a statement in all this... not just deactivating him, or suspending him with pay, or benching him, etc... but making it a 4 game suspension without pay, after which he still won't be invited back. :wtf: is the point of that? Just deactivate him for chrisakes.

I think there are egos involved... not just TO's... and unfortuantely it will come back to bite them. The players union will give them all they can handle.

(and before anyone starts, I am not defending TO... so BACK OFF!!! :) )

.......

Suspension = no $$$

Also, I think they get to recoup sb money in the case of suspension (I think that's how his contract is, but I can't completely remember, may be misremembered).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They may pay him but Tony Kornheiser mentioned something yesterday on the sports reporters that I think may be the kicker in whole situation. Incentives. If you prevent a player from making his incentives then you give leverage to the players association. The PA has specific rules governing againt such tactics. If TO becomes a free agent. I believe every team in the playoff race will concider him. He would make a pretty good Chief I think. Vermeil could smooth talk him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Suspension = no $$$

Also, I think they get to recoup sb money in the case of suspension (I think that's how his contract is, but I can't completely remember, may be misremembered).

I understand that... but why invite those headaches. Now they've got the players union up their asses... they'll have tons of legal costs, drama, etc.

Why? I think none other to make a point. And that's where I think they will shoot themselves in the foot in the long run.

I think Gruden did the better thing in simply deactivating meshaun... much less drama, and no grievance by the union. Achieved the desired result... cut the cancer out... but maybe this course wouldn't send the 'message' that the Eagles FO wanted to send?

That is ultimately my point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Eagles deactivate him, he is still getting paid. SAME EXACT situation as the Keyshawn deal.

Players Association can't make the Eagles do anything.

Then I guess Gene Upshaw doesn't know what he is talking about right? Read the article. They have ground to stand on. It may not be the most solid ground, but as long as this is going on in the background it will be a distraction to an already distracted team. Cut the man loose and let him corrupt another team. Or do the Eagles know that they botched this whole thing???????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then I guess Gene Upshaw doesn't know what he is talking about right? Read the article. They have ground to stand on. It may not be the most solid ground, but as long as this is going on in the background it will be a distraction to an already distracted team. Cut the man loose and let him corrupt another team. Or do the Eagles know that they botched this whole thing???????

Cutting him loose would be giving Owens what he wants, and that's the last thing the Eagles want to do. They are suspending him before deactivating him because that's the only way to recoup almost 2 million $$.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saw this on PFT... yeah, I know... but hey... it's one take on it...

PFT take on the upcoming greivance

POSTED 9:35 a.m. EST, November 10, 2005

UNION'S T.O. ARGUMENTS OFF BASE

The NFL Players Association says that it plans an aggressive attack against the actions taken by the Eagles as to receiver Terrell Owens.

According to The Philadelphia Inquirer, the union will advance three arguments at the November 18 hearing. First, the NFLPA will contend that the four-game unpaid suspension is excessive. Second, the NFLPA will argue that the five-game deactivation following the four-game suspension violates the disciplinary procedures set forth in the CBA. Third, the union will claim that the one-game suspension imposed for the Redskins game makes the punishment complete, and that no further sanction is permitted.

Let's take a look at each of these claims, setting aside for now the quasi-journalist hat and donning the cap of a practicing lawyer who deals with issues of this nature virtually every day.

1. The Four-Game Suspension.

Article VIII, Section 1 of the CBA permits a maximum fine of one week's salary and/or a suspension not to exceed four weeks, without pay, for conduct detrimental to the team. (The maximum sanction, then, isn't a four-game suspension but a four-game suspension and a one-game fine.)

The union primarily plans to argue that Owens' punishment is more severe than the penalties imposed by other teams in other circumstances.

"This isn't necessarily about one player and one team," NFLPA General Counsel Richard Berthelsen told The Inquirer.

"Wrong!" the Eagles should shout in response. Section 3 of Article VIII plainly states: "Discipline will be imposed uniformly within a Club on all players for the same offense; however, the Club may specify the events which create an escalation of the discipline, provided the formula for escalation is uniform in its application." (Emphasis added.) This means, in English, that what another team does or doesn't do under similar circumstances is completely and totally irrelevant.

Sure, it would be helpful if the Eagles had promulgated internal rules stating that publicly dissing the quarterback and generally acting like a butthole is punishable by a four-week suspension. But the real question is whether the Eagles have been uniform in their imposition of discipline. The challenge for the union and T.O., then, will be to prove that other Eagles players engaged in similar behavior without similar consequence.

Good luck with that.

Our guess is that the union will nevertheless point to other players on other Clubs in support of the notion that the conduct of T.O. wasn't sufficiently detrimental to the Eagles to merit a four-game suspension -- or that it wasn't detrimental conduct at all. But since the CBA does not attempt to codify the specific levels of punishment or the behaviors that will trigger action, the matter is left to the discretion of the Club, and the only requirement for the Club is to be uniform in its imposition of discipline for conduct detrimental to the team.

This means, in English, that the union doesn't have a leg to stand on.

As to the potential argument that the conduct wasn't detrimental, we can sum up the technical legal response in one word.

Please.

Not detrimental? Look no farther than Paragraph 2 of Owens' contract with the team, which states: "He agrees to give his best efforts and loyalty to the Club, and to conduct himself on and off the field with appropriate recognition of the fact that the success of professional football depends largely on public respect for and approval of those associated with the game."

Game, set, suspension.

2. The Five-Game Deactivation.

All due respect, the union's argument that a five-game deactivation constitutes "punishment" simply makes no sense.

Article XXXIII of the CBA expressly contemplates that there will be 53 players under contract, and that 45 of them will be active for any given game. This means that eight of the players, at any given time and for any reason, will be inactive.

The CBA contains no mechanism for challenging a decision to deactivate a player, and sets forth no rules for making this decision. Thus, the decision falls within the discretion of the team, and it should not be subject to second-guessing.

With that said, the union might be able to argue that Owens should be permitted to attend practices and to work out at the facility. Article XXXIII, Section 3 states that "Inactive List players will receive the same benefits and protections as Active List players." The question is whether the phrase "benefits and protections" refers only to issues like salary and pension rights, or whether the "benefits" include access to the team and the facilities.

The problem with this argument is that the term "benefits" is defined by Article I, Section 3 as the "specific benefits paid to players." (Emphasis added.) Thus, the Eagles should argue that, if Owens is getting his game checks during the period of deactivation, he is getting his "benefits."

The union also argues in this regard that the deactivation prevents Owens from "earning any additional incentives" or from proving to other teams that "he's worthy of playing for them next year." But couldn't every player on the inactive list raise this same argument?

The Eagles have decided that, notwithstanding T.O.'s objective ability, the team will perform better as a unit without him on the field or in the locker room. Nothing in the CBA prevents a team from making that decision.

As to the argument that Owens can't earn any additional incentives, the only additional incentive in his contract is a $250,000 payment for being elected to the Pro Bowl squad. Again, if one player can challenge a team's decision to make him inactive on the basis that it would keep him from making it onto the Pro Bowl roster, then every player could make that argument.

Bottom line -- it looks like the union's attack on the decision to deactivate will fail. Badly.

3. The "Double Penalty" Argument.

This contention is based on the notion that by suspending Owens for the game against the Redskins, the penalty was imposed and nothing more could be done to him.

It's a real stretch.

On Saturday, the team announced that Owens was suspended "indefinitely." The Eagles never said it was a one-game suspension followed by a three-game suspension. It was and is, in the end, a four-game suspension, and the union should worry about losing credibility in the eyes of the arbitrator by arguing otherwise.

Really, both of the final two points raised by the union don't hold much water, in our view. We believe that the NFLPA is simply aiming as high as possible in the hopes that recovery of the four game checks will then seem like an acceptable middle ground to the arbitrator.

The union also might be going as far as it is in order to avoid any possible argument by Owens that the union didn't do enough to help him.

But, as we see it, no one can help him now. He clearly engaged in conduct detrimental to the interests of the Club -- why else would the Club be so adamant about not utilizing the services of one of the best players in the league? And if the arbitrator applies the CBA as written, and if there's no evidence of other current or former Eagles engaging in similar behavior with no punishment, Owens should lose his grievance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PFT misses more than they hit. I really only read them for entertainment.

If I was an Eagles fan I'd be sick of hearing about this all day long.

yeah, that's why I prefaced it w/

"Saw this on PFT... yeah, I know... but hey... it's one take on it...

and I am sick of it... but what am I supposed to do ? Work all day.. :cool:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cutting him loose would be giving Owens what he wants, and that's the last thing the Eagles want to do. They are suspending him before deactivating him because that's the only way to recoup almost 2 million $$.

Well unfortunately for the Eagles it is more about what they did wrong then what they WANT from this situation. Andy Reid should have never mentioned deactivation after suspension. It is a violation of the CBA. Oh by the way. The arbitrator in this case is a Redskins season ticket holder. The Eagles are going to have to play him or release him after the four game suspension.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...