Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo

Bucs Want Compensation for Tuna


Recommended Posts

With all the excitement today (and by the way, just WTF with the "too many men on the field" garbage?), I just wanted to post this interesting item in case folks missed it.


The Bucs are claiming that they have a signed contract from Parcells and that anybody else who talks to him about a coaching job is 1) tampering, and 2) owes them compensation.

Obviously, the league needs to do a full investigation and, at minimum, fine Jerry Jones at least a couple of draft picks for his "tampering" -- and then get to "compensation". :D

Heck, is there some way that Marty can claim Parcells now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the Parcells issue. Tampa Bay has no lien on him because they defaulted in their side of the contract.

If they did not uphold their pay schedule that surely was outlined in said agreement, then they have defaulted and thus the contract is void.

Further, they never turned the contract over to the league for approval. This will cause a multitude of problems for them to exact a tithe from the Cowboys for Parcells release.

Lastly, Jones may have a prima facia case for tortuous interference in that Tampa Bay is attempting by this action to stand between or disrupt the Cowboys doing business.

Further, any action, or non-action by the league could be seen as violating their anti-trust exemption. Which would be far more devastating than having the Glazer family cry foul.

Jones can have a restraining order against the league in about an hour if they choose to either sit on their hands or side with Tampa Bay on an issue that was made moot by both their non-payment of salary and not turning the contract over to the league for approval as per the league rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me see if I follow your argument (which sounds like a legal opinion):

Parcells signs a contract in which he promises to perform a job, for a salary. (And, to do so exclusively for the Bucs).

After signing the contract, but before the first day of work, he publicly announces that he's changed his mind, and has no intention of reporting for work.

And you claim he's released from his contract simply because the Bucs didn't pay him for not showing up?

And that the Bucs are liable if they attempt to "interfere" with his right to do something which he promised in writing not to do, by pointing out that he did, in fact, make the promise?

While I'd have no problem believing that there's some area of law that says (for example) a contract can be cancelled by either party, so long as neither party has fulfilled any of the obligations in the contract, I have problems with a claim that reneging on a contract is OK (if done soon enough), but mentioning that a contract might still be in effect is an offense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Further, any action, or non-action by the league could be seen as violating their anti-trust exemption.

WTF ?!?! The league acts and they are doomed. On the other hand if they do not act they are again doomed? Sounds like a Gordian Knot. Where is King Solomon when you need him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's impossible to know whether or not the contract would be valid without reading it.

As for NFL antitrust (and I have some personal experience with this) that sounds like the kind of superficial argument that the league has great success in disposing quickly of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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