Jason Cole article: Brees - 3rd Franchise Tag? CBA Wording (2 Viewers)

[BoNcHiE]

It's not time to panic until TC. There's no logical reason either side has to back down until paychecks start being missed and football starts really being played (or practiced).

Why should Brees hurry up and sign? So he can go stand around in shorts at mini-camp? On the other side, why should Loomis be in a hurry to raise his offer?

Nothing is going on right now to push either side. This will probably go into TC before being resolved.

 

[Bartyboy]

I doubt the whole 2nd and 3rd tag ploy is gonna work.
I wish we had a true legal opinion on it though.
I also wish we knew what the Saints offer was and what Drew is asking for.

we don't know and won't even have a clue untill after a deal is signed.

 

[krushing]

I don't know what it is exactly... Maybe Drew sitting out the OTA's after he was instrumental in putting together the CBA, but the fans seem to be taking Loomis's side. I think I'm beginning to lean that way also.

 

[Boiler Jim]

Soooo.... If a player gets tagged, sits out and doesn't sign or play, he gets paid nothing, right?

Therefore, the next year he gets tagged again and is due, 120% of nothing?
(Prior year salary=$0.00, 120% tender the next year based upon previous year's salary=$0.00)

Seems that way, unless some other team offers him a salary per section 2(a)(i), in which case he will receive the salary associated with that offer, either from the other team, or from the Saints, if they match...

 

[AceTW]

Seems that way, unless some other team offers him a salary per section 2(a)(i), in which case he will receive the salary associated with that offer, either from the other team, or from the Saints, if they match...

Sure seems like a whole lot of confusion built into this binding legal document.

 

[Saint Kamara]

The wording was definitely meant to be the "same club" designating a player for the 3rd time.

Would make no sense in the way Condon in trying to interpret it.

Sorry, you lose.

 

[CCL36]

The wording was definitely meant to be the "same club" designating a player for the 3rd time.

Would make no sense in the way Condon in trying to interpret it.

Sorry, you lose.

No doubt....its ludicrous to read it any other way and the height of "fail" and manipulation by Condon.

 

[SharonT]

Would make no sense in the way Condon in trying to interpret it.

Sorry, you lose.

No doubt....its ludicrous to read it any other way and the height of "fail" and manipulation by Condon.

Did you read the article? Condon's name is not mentioned and there are no new quotes by anyone. It is just speculation about the reason for the delay. The manipulation is in how that speculation has been presented in this thread.

The total "FAIL" seems to be people jumping to enormous conclusions based on hearsay. Read carefully for what is and isn't there. We can't complain about Goodell's impulsive, irrational acts if we don't hold ourselves to a higher standard.

 

[Sarcastic]

Did you read the article? Condon's name is not mentioned and there are no new quotes by anyone. It is just speculation about the reason for the delay. The manipulation is in how that speculation has been presented in this thread.

The total "FAIL" seems to be people jumping to enormous conclusions based on hearsay. Read carefully for what is and isn't there. We can't complain about Goodell's impulsive, irrational acts if we don't hold ourselves to a higher standard.

What article did you read? Cole's article cites sources within the Saints who believe it one way, and says that the NFLPA disagrees. It even notes that Aiello won't clarify the league's position, meaning there must be some conflict or unsurety.

Now you can call Cole a liar if you want to. But his article doesn't portray things as speculation. It states that there is conflict, and that this is part of the reason for the contract talks taking so long.

I mean, the first line of the article is this:

If the NFL Players Association is right, New Orleans Saints quarterback Drew Brees could gain some serious leverage against the team.

 

[SharonT]

I counted the word "if" nine times. Show me in the article a direct source or quote that came from an actual person commenting on the "fact" that Brees/Condon are holding out because of the vagueness of this clause. This is persuasive writing, not reporting. It pulls from what's already out there.

There's nothing wrong with "if"s, or discussing possibilities - it's the offseason, what else are we going to do? Just don't be so easily snookered.

Edit: Or show me a quote from an unnamed source close to the team, an NFL executive, or NFLPA representative that says the hold out is based on the vagueness of the CBA. If one exists, it is not included or linked in this article.

This article is a good example of being led down the garden path. Little snippets of fact used in building a "case" for speculation.