The Evil Genius Posted March 14, 2003 Share Posted March 14, 2003 Quick question - what rule are we talking about here? The rule that Glazer said existed? Where is it? In the CBA? Why hasnt anyone been able to find it yet? Surely its not the one posted earlier is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy-the-Greek Posted March 14, 2003 Share Posted March 14, 2003 Thank you Golden and Bubba, and I forgot how funny that clown avatar is.:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: I just readded 980 and fatty to my favorites on this new pc thanks again guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hokieskin Posted March 14, 2003 Share Posted March 14, 2003 Originally posted by The Evil Genius Quick question - what rule are we talking about here? The rule that Glazer said existed? Where is it? In the CBA? Why hasnt anyone been able to find it yet? Surely its not the one posted earlier is it? I know I couldn't find it. But what if the Jets win this. That means Coles would still be a RFA for them and we would be penalized picks and/or fined. The jets wouldn't get our first rounder, we just wouldn't get one and they would have a VERY VERY upset star player. Sounds like a good move for the Jets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskin56 Posted March 14, 2003 Share Posted March 14, 2003 This is, in fact, a matter of causation and damages. These two issues, especially as manifested here, are often inextricably intertwined. This often occurs in situations where damages or harm is speculative -- distinguish the situation where damages or harm are certain but the extent of damages or harm are uncertain -- as is the case with newly formed businesses claiming economic injury. Very well put Goldenstar95. If we analyze this using a known value for damages, you certainly could come up with a quantifiable value. Obviously this isn't the case in this situation. Any violation of this rule (by anyone, I'm not saying the Redskins did) would result in some sort of administrative action by the NFL. They would not award the Jets any type of compensation for the one team or another violating the rule. They would penalize the offending party with either loosing draft picks or a fine. I think this is precisely the issue with the situation before us. There is no way to quantify any damages in a situation like this because it is specualtive in nature. Therefore the violation of the rule is punished by an administrative act and not compensation to another party who may have purportedly been harmed. When you parse through the semantics, it becomes clear that if the rules were followed, the result wouldn't have been different. And that, when I learned it way back when, was an issue of causation and not damages. I agree 100%. The end result wouldn't have been any different if there was any violation or not. The point here is that I don't think we can analogize this with a "Negligence" type analysis. Where there may have been a causation issue with how and when the Skins may have violated the rule, the end result is not measured by damages. It is measured as a punitive sanction for violating the spirit of the rule which is administered by the League which does not benefit the so called harmed team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rabblerouser Posted March 14, 2003 Share Posted March 14, 2003 All in all I like what the Dan has done is selecting FAs to fill our needs. *I could do without Morton though. But maybe he should get an assistant GM to keep him advised on legalities and technicalities. Not ensuring we had the correct 5th round draft pick to get Morton knocked us down in the 3rd round. That may or may not keep us from getting someone we really wanted. I hope we don't take it the shorts on this Coles issue because he couldn't control his exhuberance about acquiring Coles and giving him a jersey before the offer sheet had been sign.:twitch: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy-the-Greek Posted March 14, 2003 Share Posted March 14, 2003 Mike and the Mad dog on Wfan are now saying the Jets won't match the skins. They have quoted Bradway as saying he didn't want to pay Coles the 1.8 mill a season. Mike just said they won't match that offer and the Jets can find another top12-15 reciever in the 3rd rd. of the draft. This guy is such a pompous windbag. I just love to hate this guy. I hope we roll the Jets in the opener. I can't wait to hear what he says about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cskin Posted March 14, 2003 Share Posted March 14, 2003 I think this is just hype, and in the end will be dismissed as such. Coles SAYING he has agreed to a deal and his actual agent REVIEWING the contract and AGREEING with Coles that the deal is appropriate are two different things. Coles may have seen the bonus only, got jacked up by it, and then stated he had agreed to the deal. Only the agent would have had the certification and knowledge to understand whether the rest of the contract was valid and in his client's best interest. Didn't his agent fly in Weds. night to review the contract? If so.... this is all wishful nonsense. The Jets got pressed between a rock and a hard place and they're simply lashing out trying to feel better about their buffoon-like actions. They screwed up, both on the Morton deal and by not offering Coles the tender that would have made him less attractive to possible suitors. They're simply crying in their beer now...... murmuring things like.."This isn't fair....and..... why don't they draft their own players....." and crap like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinking Skins Posted March 14, 2003 Share Posted March 14, 2003 Didnt somebody do an article on Snyder (I'm thinking it was in the Post) talking about how he makes his free agents feel like they're wanted in DC by allowing them to fly on his personal jet, allowing them to meet with different players, and GETTING THEIR OWN JERSEY WITH THEIR NAME ON THE BACK. I'm reading these stories about this whole situation, and I just see that the journalists are really trying to make Washington seem like the extreme bad guy in this whole thing. Its gonna be funny when we start whipping @$$ come september! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laurent Posted March 14, 2003 Share Posted March 14, 2003 It's pretty clear what's happening here. The Jets are obviously peeved by Snyder signing half the Jets roster and are going through this whole spiel to give us some hell. What set the whole thing of was probably the fact that the Redskins put the voidable years in Mortons contract and now that the NFLPA is challenging the Jets contract they stand to lose Morton without being able to make another offer. The Jets are trying to safe face here because they have a whole lot of explaining to do to their fans. The way the offseason is shaping up for them it's looking like quite the catastrophy over there. That said, let's be real here. The Jets don't have a leg to stand on. Even if there was an agreement in place how could they possibly prove that this was the case? Coles and his agent would be stupid to admit to it since they stand to lose the most in that situation. I'm curious just where does Glazer get the idea that the Redskins and Cole announced they had a deal done Sunday? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimboDaMan Posted March 14, 2003 Share Posted March 14, 2003 Look. There was no deal signed, therefore by definition no agreement. If a third party had come in with a better offer, is there anyone who thinks the Redskins would have sued them because they already had an agreement? Of course not, because without a signed contract there was no final agreement. This is a Jet organization going from bad to pathetic. Ever fall into a mud puddle in fron of 20 people? When you stand up, covered in muck, you try to brush it off. Not because it makes any difference, but because it saves a few scraps of dignity. I ain't buying any arguments about the Jets being potentially screwed out of a hypothetical offer of a higher draft pick. It is NOT their decision, Coles would have to sign such an offer first - which presumably he'd only do if his compensation was higher. What the Jets get is merely a byproduct, set in place by their own actions with the (lowball) tender offer. The only possible leg the Jets could stand on would be to claim the Skins boosted the offer above its true amount, with the under-the-table agreeement with Coles that he'd reject any other offers. Good luck, turkeys. Edit: Oops, started this before laurent's post appeared, funny how close the two are in thought! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romberjo Posted March 14, 2003 Share Posted March 14, 2003 A couple of minutes of research turned up these vaguely relevant sections of the CBA that might colorably prohibit what the Skins might theoretically have done. ARTICLE XIV NFL PLAYER CONTRACT Section 5. General: (a) Any agreement between any player and any Club concerning terms and conditions of employment shall be set forth in writing in a Player Contract as soon as practicable. The League shall provide to the NFLPA a copy of each executed Player Contract it receives from a Club within two business days of its receipt of such Player Contract. The League shall provide to the NFLPA any salary information received from a Club which is relevant to whether such Player Contract complies with Article XVII (Entering Player Pool) and/or Article XXIV (Guaranteed League?wide Salary, Salary Cap & Minimum Team Salary), within two business days following the NFL?s receipt of such information. *********** Section 2. Restricted Free Agents: (k) Promptly upon but no later than two business days after the signing of any Restricted Free Agent to a Player Contract, or the extending to any Restricted Free Agent of a Qualifying Offer, the signing or extending Club shall notify the NFL, which shall notify the NFLPA of such signing or offer. _______________________________ To those who are asking about whether one can enter into an oral contract before signing a written contract, the answer is "it depends." One can accept, and thus form, a contract by the act of signing it; one can also form a contract orally and later sign it. One twist is that the Statute of Frauds prohibits enforcement of certain unsigned contracts -- including those that cannot be performed within a year of their formation, which Coles' contract probably couldn't be. On the other hand, if the CBA really contains a clause that a team and a RFA can't reach a deal materially before sending in a copy of the signed offer, then even a contract that is unenforceable under the statute of frauds would nonethless probably be enough of a contract to violate the CBA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldenster95 Posted March 15, 2003 Author Share Posted March 15, 2003 Whoa. A little knowledge of the law is a dangerous thing. To those who are asking about whether one can enter into an oral contract before signing a written contract, the answer is "it depends." One can accept, and thus form, a contract by the act of signing it; one can also form a contract orally and later sign it. Generally speaking, oral contracts are just as enforceable as written ones. And no signature is necessary to enforce most oral agreements. One twist is that the Statute of Frauds prohibits enforcement of certain unsigned contracts -- including those that cannot be performed within a year of their formation, which Coles' contract probably couldn't be. Wrong. This contract could be performed in one year. How? Coles could simply retire or the 'Skins could cut him within that year. Also, the Statute of Frauds is a state law concept. The contract that Coles signed is a creature of the collective bargaining agreement. This is important since Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act controls issues of contract formation and enforcement, and preempts state law theories like the Statute of Frauds. Having said all this, the end result -- that the contract be in writing -- would be the same since the provisions of the CBA require as such. However, how you get to that result is much, much different. On the other hand, if the CBA really contains a clause that a team and a RFA can't reach a deal materially before sending in a copy of the signed offer, then even a contract that is unenforceable under the statute of frauds would nonethless probably be enough of a contract to violate the CBA. Huh?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romberjo Posted March 15, 2003 Share Posted March 15, 2003 Wrong. This contract could be performed in one year. How? Coles could simply retire or the 'Skins could cut him within that year. Goldenster -- I agree w/ almost all your football and legal posts, but not all of this one. I didn't go into this in my prior post, b/c it would be insider football, but the reason I think the contract couldn't be performed w/in a year is that it very likely has the same delayed bonus payout system as the other contracts we've just signed: the Skins likely have an obligation to pay Coles installments of the bonus $ contract over the next few years. (I suppose, depending how the contract is worded, that one could argue that the Skins could fulfill their contractual obligations within a year by paying off all the bonus $, even though they are not required to do so. It likely depends whether the contract says "installment of bonus payment on date x" or "by date x.") Also, though it's irrelevant (b/c I agree that the Skins could cut Coles w/in a year), the contract couldn't be fully performed within a year by Coles through his retirement b/c he would very likely owe a rebate on the bonus, demonstrating that he wouldn't have fully performed. I'm no labor law expert, so I don't know how the interplay b/w the LMRA and state law would work, but I would have thought that federal law would preempt where it conflicted, but that it would assume a general background of otherwise applicable state law. But you may well be right, such that contract formation is determined solely by the CBA and thus there is no state law statute of frauds applicable. Finally, as to the paragraph you huh-ed, the idea is this: Jets challenge our having worked out an agreement but not having submitted it quickly enough. We respond that we don't have an enforceable oral agreement, even if we intended to, b/c of the statute of frauds -- thus we're off the hook. I was pointing out that this wouldn't likely fly: even though contracts are not enforceable if they fail to satisfy the statute of frauds (or an exception thereto), they are not void ab initio -- such a contract would likely be held to violate the CBA (or not) regardless of whether it were enforceable under the statute of frauds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted March 15, 2003 Share Posted March 15, 2003 Either the League fears we have a juggernaut and kills the Coles deal or chuckles and say Jets match it or shut up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.