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

[Analyze This]

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.

I agree with your statement in totality but especially the bolded part. This debate (by both parties) shows proof that things are much uglier behind the scene than we fans perceive. <O</O

 

[Big Lob]

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.

Heh.. Doubtful. Fans just want a winning team. Loomis can't throw a football, so when we are 1-6 or whatever with Chase or some washed up dino vet, they will be chanting for Drew to come back. They won't be chanting for Loomis.

 

[marcusj3000]

Heh.. Doubtful. Fans just want a winning team. Loomis can't throw a football, so when we are 1-6 or whatever with Chase or some washed up dino vet, they will be chanting for Drew to come back. They won't be chanting for Loomis.

Naw the doubt is with you thinking that one man makes the team what it is. How many times does it take backups to step up to the plate when their number is finally called to take a job from the vets you and so many others blindly follow.

Fans do want a wining team but Drew would not be where he is at if not for the team. The other players make this team who it is. The talent at each position makes this team dangerous.

Like Loomis I wouldn't sacrifice the rest of the players just to keep one great player...that's business 101. It takes more than one person to win games. Some of you underestimate Chase but this season If he starts it will open some peoples eyes.

Nobody knew who Aaron Rodgers was until Farve got sent packing. Nobody knew who Tom Brady was until Drew Bledsoe got hurt. Nobody knows what can happen when situations like this arise, but it is always surprising now isn't it.

You may be blinded by the fanboism for one player but I know the team wins games in a team effort. The one man bands always seem to fall flat on their face.

 

[HennessyRob]

I now officially couldn't care less about Millionaires complaining.

These guys are so far removed from the "real" world and it's problems.
I wish we never knew how much they made to prefoem a job that doesn't save lives, cure disease,teach me how to spell,etc.

 

[livefromDC]

I can't believe I'm using Florio to prove a point but alas he agrees with me regarding the language of the CBA. I think he reads SR personally:

CBA seems to undermine Brees

This argument, however, doesn&#8217;t mesh with a commonsensical reading of the key language of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Article 10, Section 2(b) sets forth the formula arising from a thirdfranchise-tag designations, starting with the following language: &#8220;Any Club that designates a player as a Franchise Player for the third time. . . .&#8221;

It doesn&#8217;t say &#8220;if a player is designated as a Franchise Player for the third time.&#8221; It says &#8220;any Club that designates a player as a Franchise Player for the third time.&#8221; This strongly implies that the Club that is designating the player as a franchise player for the third time has designated the player as a franchise player twice before.

 

[parlorcitysaint]

This seems to be the relevant language in the CBA:



The question here is does this language indicate that the same club made all three tags, or does it just mean the club happened to be the team that placed that player's third tag. I don't know the answer to that question...

While the NFL is a singular entity, it's really a collection of smaller licensees. I don't see how one franchise could be held accountable for the "third tender" when they're only placing the franchise tag on a given player for the first time. I'm sure that precedent (and common sense) will show it to mean that an organization can tag someone three times with the compensation being commensurate with that clause.

 

[Boiler Jim]

While the NFL is a singular entity, it's really a collection of smaller licensees. I don't see how one franchise could be held accountable for the "third tender" when they're only placing the franchise tag on a given player for the first time. I'm sure that precedent (and common sense) will show it to mean that an organization can tag someone three times with the compensation being commensurate with that clause.

Highly doubtful. It would not say "any club", it would say "if a club", if the last couple posts were correct. Of course an organization can be held accountable for the third tag, they know very well the player history and its no surprise to them either what the rules are, or what they are doing to the individual player.

The bigger issue is that Drew has said he will not play or sign the tag. Assuming he is truthful (a very unpopular position here, despite the sense of his position) he won't play in 2012 under the tag. The club CAN tag him again in 2013, BUT it can only tag him with a non-exclusive tag and if he does not play in 2012, the draft choice compensation the Saints get if Drew goes to another team is reduced. SO: no contract by July 15, say goodbye to the best player by far the Saints have ever had.

To cut short the folks who doubt the CBA says that the Saints can ONLY tag Drew with a non-exclusive tag, and lose Draft compensation, you can look in Section 15, Subsection C (which is on page 51 of the CBA) Signing period for Franchise Players...

Here's what it says:

(c) If any Franchise Player does not play in the NFL in a League Year, his
Prior Team shall have the right to designate such player as a Franchise Player or a Transition Player the following League Year, if such designation is otherwise available to the
Team, except that the applicable Tender must be made and any 120% Tender shall be
measured from the Player’s Prior Year Salary. If such a player is redesignated as a Franchise Player for the League Year following the League Year in which he does not play,
the player may be designated only under Section 2(a)(i) above, except that Draft Choice
Compensation of only one first round draft selection and one third round draft selection 52
shall be made with respect to such player in the event he signs with the New Club.

"Section 2(a)(i)" is the Nonexclusive Franchise Tender, Section 2(a)(ii) is the Exclusive Franchise Tender (what is offered to Drew currently for 2012).


Now, this can NOT be fixed after July 15, at that point the player can only sign, then play under the tag, if he is going to play that year. After the 10th game, he can't even do that.

So, no contract by July 15, no Drew Brees in 2012 (if Drew is truthful). In 2013, the Saints can NOT control Drew's salary, it's whatever he negotiates with another team. Saints can only match or not. If not, Drew goes to the other team.

Think any teams might be willing to pay the best quarterback in the league as much as $21m per year... ??? I suspect it will be a lot more.

If Benson won't pay him now, think he'll pay a lot more in 2013?

 

[Boiler Jim]

Nope.

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.

The Condon observation is VERY GOOD NEWS FOR SAINTS FANS.

If Condon is right there is a chance the dumb position taken by the Saints FO gets turned around so the Saints might continue to have a top offense. Without Brees we will see a significant falloff in productivity and wins. We are much more likely to be without Brees given the extremely stupid and arrogant position the FO has taken. It needs a good slap across the face and this might do it (probably not).

 

[krushing]

There is no way that rule applies to multiple teams. It's obvious what the meaning of the rule is.

 

[demented]

The problem I see here, is that the intent of the clause is to protect players from being franchised repeatedly. If this goes to neutral arbitration, the Union may win a verdict because they can say that their position is actually supported by the ambiguous wording and the spirit of the clause.

 

[nolaskinsfan]

The problem I see here, is that the intent of the clause is to protect players from being franchised repeatedly. If this goes to neutral arbitration, the Union may win a verdict because they can say that their position is actually supported by the ambiguous wording and the spirit of the clause.

I agre with this. On one hand, I think everyone has always read this rule as a player being franchised by the SAME team, 3 years in a row. But, on the other hand, this "3 times in history" makes perfect sense. Think about rediculous hypotheticals, in which a player could be franchised, traded, franchised... it would be get crazy. I think the point is really good, and that's why Condon get his solid 3% lol.

But all this Condon this, Condon that needs to stop. Drew is Condon's boss and could make a change whenever he wants.

 

[nolaskinsfan]

There is no way that rule applies to multiple teams. It's obvious what the meaning of the rule is.

and I disagree with this. Just because we've always taken it that way doesn't mean that is right.

It's "obvious " the rule is to protect players from being franchised numerous times and never getting a contract. If 3 franchise tags was somehow the agreed upon limit then what difference does it make whether those 3 tags came from one or more teams?

 

[Boondock]

How is it that a dozen or so guys over 200 years ago could author a document that still stands today, but hundreds of lawyers in the modern era couldn't write a CBA that could stand more than 18 months? Baffling!

 

[Frank The Rat]

I can't believe I'm using Florio to prove a point but alas he agrees with me regarding the language of the CBA. I think he reads SR personally:

CBA seems to undermine Brees

I was coming here to post this very thing. The wording does seem to indicate that Jason Cole was incorrect....shocker there

 

[staciepete]

I am actually so sick of the greed & unwillingness to negotiate displayed by Brees, I hope they can his arse. All his propaganda, I will retire a Saint, I Love It Here, BLA BLA BLA. I am here for the money, if you don't want to pay it, then somebody will.

People, it is a job to him, nothing more, nothing less. All the good he does for the city, oh cry me a river. It is all PR. But he used his own money, DEDUCTIONS & PR people, geeze.

I loves New Orleans as long as the money continues to flow.

He is not worth more than was offered, except maybe in his head.