Jason Cole article: Brees - 3rd Franchise Tag? CBA Wording (1 Viewer)

[St4ever]

I personally believe Condon is looking for a loop hole that he can use on other contracts in the future, and he is taking the opportunity to I'd it with Drews contract.

Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't it Woodson who was franchised two or three times while with Oakland and his salary ket getting more outrageous every time? Does that mean if Green Bay franchises him he would jump 144% or more? I know that has been a while back, so I am not sure if I am correct.

 

[Lucketty]

Why are we talking about something that is not even in the realm of possibility? Brees is not going to play on a franchise tag this year, so it doesn't matter whether 2013 would be a 2nd or 3rd tag.

 

[InThatNumber]

That wasn't my point. I didn't indicate that 2 clubs could both franchise a player. We all know that's not possible. My point is that it states that a "club" can designate a player 3 times. It doesn NOT state that a player designated 3 times by "a club". In the former, we know we're talking specifically about the actions of 1 club. The latter puts the emphasis on the player and makes the designating club non specific. THAT's THE DIFFERENCE. As the subject of the sentence, if it were meant to mean all the clubs together, it should have been plural.

For real? I don't see how anyone can read that clause and not find it ambiguous. Yet another example of what happens when the contract gets thrown together and signed before anyone has a chance to read it without knowing what it's supposed to say from having just finished writing/negotiating it.

In fact, the next sentence of the same clause reads:

By way of example, a kicker designated as a Franchise Player for the third time in the 2014 League Year would have a Required Tender equal to the greater of:

The example doesn't mention that the kicker must have been designated as a Franchise Player for the third time "by the same team." Then again, how much can you read into an example that implies that the kicker might have just been designated for the third time within the same league year?

Any jurist/arbitrator looking at that clause would want to review notes/drafts/etc. that might indicate what the parties intended, because the four corners of the document don't seem clear at all.
​

 

[Boiler Jim]

Thanks for pointing me pass Jason Cole, Sarcastic. Otherwise I wouldn't have looked at the thread.

Here's my opinion: It doesn't say any CLUBS that designates a player as a Franchise Player for the third time.... Meaning, different ball clubs are thought of as a collective group. It specifically says "any club that designates a player". The club, here the New Orleans Saints, that designates a player as a Franchise Player for the third time has to pay upwards of 144% of the previous contract. In simpler terms, it means if the Saints pick the same player 3 times to be the franchise player. Not, if any team has picked the same player 3 times combined. It's a team by team designation with emphasis on each specific team's right to make such a designation. If it were written the other way around like say "a player designated to be the franchise player for the third time by any club", it could be received totally differently because the emphasis is on the player being designated 3X not the TEAM designating a player 3X.

It doesn't say 'any clubs' because only one club (at any time) can designate a player as a franchise player -- so it would NEVER say 'any clubs'.

I think it likely that a truly independent source would conclude that the wording has to do with a player being designated as a franchise player for the third time. It could have been more clear as to intent, however. If the Saints don't sign Drew by July 15, it is probably going to court.

What else will probably happen is that, since this is CLEARLY the second tag that has been applied to Drew, it will be argued that it CAN NOT BE AN EXCLUSIVE tag... Which I believe would be fair to both the Saints and Drew...

 

[livefromDC]

In fact, the next sentence of the same clause reads:

The example doesn't mention that the kicker must have been designated as a Franchise Player for the third time "by the same team."​

Why would it have to? The sentence directly proceeding it already does when it says that any club that designates a player a third time.

It says "any club", in this case that means one. It says any club that designates a player a third time, which means the club has to make the designation 3 times. Don't read what's not there. The team has to make the designation 3 times. It does not read any other way unless you change the subject-verb agreement of the sentence. The player franchised for a third time is simply the predicate, but the sentence refers to the action of A Club. Club is the subject. Designate is the verb. Designate what? A player for a third time. Put it together. A team has to designate a player 3 times. One team. One player. Designated 3 times. Don't read more into it.

 

[Boiler Jim]

Why would it have to? The sentence directly proceeding it already does when it says that any club that designates a player a third time.

It says "any club", that's 1. It says any club that designates a player a third time, which means the club has to make the designation 3 times. Don't read what's not there. The team has to make the designation 3 times. It does not read any other way unless you change the subject-verb agreement of the sentence.

I agree, that's why it says "any club" rather than "If the same club designates a player as a franchise player three times."

 

[boutrous]

Just to spin that around, from the players perspective they feel they are being penalized when they get the tag. They care far less about who franchised them than they do about having lost their ability to shop their services and secure a long term deal.

Consider, this. A player get's franchised three years in a row. During the third year he is traded to another team, but does not sign a new contract. The following offseason, should the new team be able to franchise him a fourth year in a row because it would only be the first time this team tagged him? And because this was only the first year they attempted to franchise the player, would they only be required to tender him at the average of the top 5 players at his position, as opposed to the mandatory boosts incurred when a team tags someone in back to back years?

Now I'll admit that this scenario is highly unlikely, but its something to think about, and I totally agree with Sarcastic on this -- this is a huge issue that needs to be resolved.

If a player gets Franchised four years in a row by multiple clubs... maybe he's just a jerk.

 

[livefromDC]

I think it likely that a truly independent source would conclude that the wording has to do with a player being designated as a franchise player for the third time. It could have been more clear as to intent, however. If the Saints don't sign Drew by July 15, it is probably going to court.

What else will probably happen is that, since this is CLEARLY the second tag that has been applied to Drew, it will be argued that it CAN NOT BE AN EXCLUSIVE tag... Which I believe would be fair to both the Saints and Drew...

Perfect example of what I mean. If it were written like you suggest, then yeah it would mean a player designated for the third time regardless of the designating team. However, ITS NOT. It specifically states the any team that designates a player for the third time. The player is not the subject. With club being the subject of the sentence, the action expressed by the verb (designating a player for the third time) refers to just one club since the subject is "club".

 

[You]

negotiate like the devil and if it fails, sign the tag and pull up lame.

 

[livefromDC]

It doesn't say 'any clubs' because only one club (at any time) can designate a player as a franchise player -- so it would NEVER say 'any clubs'.

That's why it doesn't make sense!!! Because the subject of the sentenct is "club", you can't read the sentence to imply the cumulative action of more than 1 club without it being stated somewhere in the sentence. It's not. Simply making clubs plural causes a technical problem within the rules that we know isn't possible. Therefore we know the subject is singular. Then we should also understand that the rest of the sentence applies to the subject and not the object of the verb (players). In other words, club designates (player for a third time). The action is in parenthesis. If the action is carried out by the club for a third time.....

Our reading comprehension and use of shorthand has gotten to the point that we understand more than what is written. That sentence as it is written implies exactly what it means. One must read more into it to make it sound as if "a player franchised for the third time ever" means the same as "any club that designates a player as the franchise player for the third time."

 

[Saints318]

Has there ever been a contract situation like this?

What happened in that one?

 

[marcusj3000]

Brees has let this matter become ego and his agent is out of control now. If it goes beyond July 16th or he doesn't sign the tag at all and sits out the season boy ol boy.

That will indeed end the Drew Brees era in the NO. The public perception will turn on him after July 16th just you all watch. If I was Loomis and he sat out the year I would tag then trade his *** the next season too. I would show him that the business side of the house is a beast. The more Condon goes off the ranch the worst it's gonna get Drew.

I don't know what Brees is thinking but if he doesn't sign the tag or has a lengthy in season holdout public perception will change and it will be so vicious. If he doesn't sign and sits out the year you have told the Saints that your time in the NO has ended and they will expedite your request to leave.

And on the tag the precedence is that the team you are currently on has to tag you 3 times not 3 times total from different teams. Drew trusting in Condon will not end well for you...I hope he realizes that. If Loomis doesn't budge then every other Gm will from now on handle Condon's players he represent so badly.

 

[darkhornet]

That's why it doesn't make sense!!! Because the subject of the sentenct is "club", you can't read the sentence to imply the cumulative action of more than 1 club without it being stated somewhere in the sentence. It's not. Simply making clubs plural causes a technical problem within the rules that we know isn't possible. Therefore we know the subject is singular. Then we should also understand that the rest of the sentence applies to the subject and not the object of the verb (players). In other words, club designates (player for a third time). The action is in parenthesis. If the action is carried out by the club for a third time, THEN.....

The trouble I'm having with it being open and shut is the article "the" in the sentence. "Any Club that designates a player as a Franchise Player for the third time". The third time what? That that club has designated that player, or the third time that player has been designated by a club? I think the intent of the sentence would have been much more clear if it had read: "Any Club that designates a player as a Franchise Player for a third time".

I know we're going around and around on semantics, but really that's all this contention is based on. Semantics.

 

[Sarcastic]

If this thread accomplishes anything, it is making clear just how ambiguous the wording is

There are opinions on both sides that seem to believe it's clear that it's meant one way or the other.

I'm no lawyer, but I suspect that anytime there's a debate over what a legal document "means" or "intends to say", you have a problem. And Condon, apparently, is taking full advantage of that.

I don't know who wins this debate, but I think Condon has a shot, and I think this is very bad news for us as fans.

 

[livefromDC]

The trouble I'm having with it being open and shut is the article "the" in the sentence. "Any Club that designates a player as a Franchise Player for the third time". The third time what? That that club has designated that player, or the third time that player has been designated by a club? I think the intent of the sentence would have been much more clear if it had read: "Any Club that designates a player as a Franchise Player for a third time".

I know we're going around and around on semantics, but really that's all this contention is based on. Semantics.

True. Semantics. The "the" shouldn't make a difference. Actually though, "the" is more specific than "a" and should make it more clear that the third time is specific to the club in question.

See if this example works for you:
Any person that visits an ice cream shop for the third time shall on the date of the third such visit receive a free ice cream cone.

I think its clear that we're talking about one person doing an action for the third time and not the collective action of all people that visit an ice cream shop with every third person consequently receiving a free ice cream cone.

Which is different from:
If an ice cream shop is visited for the third time by any person, blah blah blah.

The subject verb predicate arrangement does matter.