Lavarleap56 Posted March 17, 2004 Share Posted March 17, 2004 Redskins will let case go to arbitrator By Jody Foldesy THE WASHINGTON TIMES The Washington Redskins have no intention of reaching a financial settlement with linebacker LaVar Arrington to prevent his grievance from being heard before an arbitrator, sources familiar with the dispute said yesterday. A hearing isn't expected for several months now that Arrington and agent Carl Poston have filed their claim, called a non-injury grievance, with the NFL. But it appears that the only way a hearing will be averted is if Arrington drops the grievance. At issue is a $6.5 million roster bonus Arrington says was removed from 2006 of the contract extension he signed before the end of last season. Arrington claims deadline pressure kept him and Poston from reading every page of the contract's final draft, and that Washington agreed to the bonus but left it out of the final draft. The NFL Players Association is backing Arrington and will argue on his behalf if the case reaches an arbitrator. The NFL Management Council is responding to Arrington's grievance (a formality) on behalf of the Redskins, NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said. The Redskins no longer are commenting on the matter now that it is headed for arbitration, but their comments in recent weeks reflect what has been made clear to sources familiar with the dispute: there will be no settlement. The club took a hard-line stance, calling the claim "ridiculous" and saying it has copies of each version of the contract to prove the bonus never existed. Meanwhile, Aiello confirmed that the Redskins will suffer no short-term salary cap effects from the grievance. Generally speaking in NFL financial disputes, half of the amount in question is applied to a team's cap while the grievance is being resolved. But this money concerns the 2006 season and Aiello said no adjustment will be made to make it a 2004 cap concern. Of course, if Arrington wins the dispute, the $6.5 million would be added to his 2006 cap figure, bringing it to $18.6 million. One issue that is shaping up as significant is when a contract must be complete to count for a given season. The sides wanted to complete the deal before the end of the 2003 season to use up the remainder of Washington's 2003 cap space. There is some thought around the league that a deal must be done by 4 p.m. (close of business) Friday before the final regular-season games. Poston apparently was functioning under that premise and now is claiming the 4 p.m. deadline prevented him from reading every page of the contract's final draft. Although the collective bargaining agreement contains language that indicates the deadline actually is the last regular-season game, Aiello said the matter remains unresolved and is likely to be debated during Arrington's hearing. Non-Redskins sources have indicated a number of questions regarding Arrington's claim, from the several weeks it took Arrington's camp to notice the missing bonus to the fact that it makes little sense for the bonus to be where Arrington says it was. All that notwithstanding, an area professor specializing in contract law said Arrington will face a rather high standard of proof for the claim he is making against the Redskins — fraud. According to George Washington law professor Gregory E. Maggs, a written contract settles disputes with two exceptions: when one party has defrauded the other party, or when there is a mutual mistake by both parties. In all likelihood, Arrington's camp will be arguing fraud. However, proving fraud is more complicated than one party simply testifying that the other party said it would include (or remove) an element of the contract and didn't. "You can't simply testify, 'We previously agreed,' " Maggs said. "What you have to say is, 'When I signed, you told me, with the intent to deceive me, that the clause was in the contract. And I relied on what you said.' " Although it is possible testimony could swing the arbitrator to Arrington's side, Arrington likely will need physical evidence to counter the Redskins' signed and initialed previous versions of the contract (assuming they exist). Earlier versions of a contract or "a smoking-gun e-mail" are two examples of evidence that can help meet the standard of proof for fraud, Maggs said. "Generally, oral evidence doesn't count for anything when there's a signed contract," Maggs said. Notes — Free agent cornerback Ralph Brown completed a visit with no signing imminent. Walt Harris was in town for a visit through today and Bobby Taylor, who would represent a major signing, will visit later this week. However, a club source emphasized that Taylor likely is too expensive at this point. Defensive end Kenny Holmes is scheduled to arrive for a visit tonight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WM_Marylander Posted March 17, 2004 Share Posted March 17, 2004 lol, the season ticket holder again hopefully. If so, LaVar has no chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted March 17, 2004 Share Posted March 17, 2004 From Lavar's quote on the issue, and Poston's stance that the deadline caused him to miss reading everything, it doesn't seem like they'll argue fraud at all. Rather, it seems like they'll try to argue a mutual mistake. You already have Poston admitting to a mistake that he didn't read everything. Wouldn't it be fairly difficult to claim fraud at this point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thinker Posted March 17, 2004 Share Posted March 17, 2004 The problem for LaVar is his claim that there was supposed to be a $6.5 million roster bonus in 2006. But in the contract submitted there ALREADY is a $6.5 million roster bonus in 2006. So exactly why would the Skins give LaVar two $6.5 million roster bonuses in the same year? The other thing is that if the Skins deliberately tricked LaVar, how stupid would that be? They would have to know they couldn't get away with it and then they'd have a very unhappy Lavar. In business people just don't blatantly sc*ew over their most important employee in a way that they will quickly find out. I don't think Snyder is stupid or at least anywhere near that stupid. A mutual mistake argument would come up more where the contract didn't say what either party thought is was supposed to say. As far as claiming a mutual mistake - the Skins seem to know what they agreed to, even if LaVar wasn't clear on what he was agreeing to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK Posted March 17, 2004 Share Posted March 17, 2004 "You can't simply testify, 'We previously agreed,' " Maggs said. "What you have to say is, 'When I signed, you told me, with the intent to deceive me, that the clause was in the contract. And I relied on what you said.' " Did this conversation happen at Redskins Park, which is located in Asburn,VA. ? The reason I'm asking is because wouldn't that be an oral agreement? From what I understand, oral agreements are non-binding in the state of VA. Art, isn't your wife an attorney? If so, what's her take on this? Am I off base here on this, or may there be something to it? Would an arbitrator be able to over rule that state law if I'm correct on oral agreements being non binding in VA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimbo Posted March 17, 2004 Share Posted March 17, 2004 I think the Skins will win and LaVar will remained pissed. Perhaps NOW is the time to start exploring trade opportunities without mentioning LaVar by name, such as "Marty, who do we have on our team that's worth that Number 1 pick of yours?" I just don't see any "pretty" way for this thing to be resolved that would make both parties happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldo da Magnificent Posted March 17, 2004 Share Posted March 17, 2004 Who is the arbitrator, and can we "get" to him. "Woke up this morning got yourself a gun Mama said you'd be the Chosen One. " D@mn, I luuuuuuv having the Sopranos back on the box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.