holding out and the cba, an important tid-bit

[pats_kick_ass]

"don't hate the player, hate the game"

I decided to post this as a separate thread because it applies to all players, not just branch, and because jonathan kraft made the exact same point in a recent boston.com article.

It’s too bad the [collective bargaining agreement] allows a situation like that to exist. It’s not good for the league as a whole. I don’t think it’s good for the player. And clearly it’s not good for the team that’s affected. It’s one of those things that it’s part of the business, but I think we should collectively find a way, in the next CBA, prevent that type of thing from happening.”

in the branch threads, people were accusing deion branch of being in breach of contract for holding out. they said both sides agreed to branch's rookie contract and now he is not honoring it. it was wrong and unethical.

I made the following point in branch's defense:

if you look at it from the perpesctive that the cba, which both sides also agreed to, allows a player to hold out until week 10 and still have that year applied towards the fulfillment of the player's contract, it's not a breach.

jonathan kraft said the same thing, but in different words. here is the link to the quote above from the sept. 15th addition of reiss's pieces:

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/reiss_pieces/

here is the link to the branch thread:

http://www.kffl.com/forums/showthread.php?t=182093&page=4

--


i repeat, branch did not breach his contract. he simply used all the tools that were available to him to land a new contract.

we may not like the tools (just like we don't like the salary cap which forces player turn-over) but they are there to be used.

the real culprit here is not the new england patriots or deion branch. it's the salary cap.

so next time a player holds out, weather before signing his first contract or in the middle of it, lets not hate the player. hate the cap.

[patsfan]

Hmmm....interesting....I hate Branch.

[Fumble]

Hmmm....interesting....I hate Branch.

Me too. :)

[end_zone]

The fact there are provisions in the CBA for when someone breaches a contract by not reporting doesn't mean that contract hasn't been breached. The very fact the Pats were not required to pay him, and have the ability to fine him 14K per day is evidence the player breached his contract. The CBA simply limits the recourse the team has, something which Kraft now realizes was crazy to bargain away. It will be tough to get it back without giving up the franchise designation, though.

Blaming the salary cap when a player or team gets greedy and acts in a way which hurts the fans is a good way of pretending no one is ever to blame. But as long as you are over the age of 10 or so you know that's a lie.

[pats_kick_ass]

The fact there are provisions in the CBA for when someone breaches a contract by not reporting doesn't mean that contract hasn't been breached. The very fact the Pats were not required to pay him, and have the ability to fine him 14K per day is evidence the player breached his contract. The CBA simply limits the recourse the team has, something which Kraft now realizes was crazy to bargain away. It will be tough to get it back without giving up the franchise designation, though.

Blaming the salary cap when a player or team gets greedy and acts in a way which hurts the fans is a good way of pretending no one is ever to blame. But as long as you are over the age of 10 or so you know that's a lie.

i don't blame the salary cap in it's essence. i think it's an excellent idea and personally i would like to see all large team sports adopt it in some practical and workable way.

in the end the salaray cap is a way of forcing ownership to manage the scarcity of resource which is top palyer talent and cash. and i also like that the cap increases every year because quite simply, income increases every year for a popular and succcessful sport such as the nfl.

so i don't hate the cap. but as far as assigning the blame for hold-outs...that is a direct result of the salary cap. that's why i say, don't hate the player or the team. hate the cap (if u must hate anything...it is afterall just a buisness as they keep telling us and our emotions :) ).

[BradyJustWins]

The fact there are provisions in the CBA for when someone breaches a contract by not reporting doesn't mean that contract hasn't been breached. .

Exactly... For me I know it's his right to hold out, but felt he had a whole lot of nerve to file a grievance against the Pats when HE was the one not honoring his contract, not the other way around.

And I still feel that way. I at least held "some" positive feelings toward Branch up to that point, but after the grievance I was happy to just get something of value for him and move on.

[dreadlord]

Ummm ... Branch was in breach of contract. That can't really be argued. There are provisions in the CBA that essentially "help" players to breach contracts by holding out to week 10 and still get credit for playing a full season. Yes he was using all the tools available to him. But make no misunderstanding here ... Branch broke his contract.

I can't say I'm in the "Happy" camp for Branch. Personally I think he's a scum bag for breaking his agreement.

And to be fair I'd have felt the same way if Seymour didn't report or if a team terminated a contract of the player that was performing up to his contract.

[TXPatfan12]

Branch has no values, and an inflated sense of entitlement. In other words he's very similar to most professional athletes. I wish him no luck in the future, but no particular ill will. I hope his team does horribly this year, because that will make our extra draft pick better. Being a shmuch does not make Branch a different, or worse than usual professional athlete, it simply downgrades him to the norm. I'm done feeding the troll for today, and I can't say I feel the same way about him as I do in the bolded portion of my feelings on the former receiver

[Harrisoned!]

NFL executives and owners should not ever complain about the situation with contracts in the current system. If they don't want to worry about holdouts, then give guaranteed contracts. Simple as that. You never hear about a MLB player holding out because his money is guaranteed as soon as he signs on the dotted line. NFL teams and exec's have it made because they can restructure or release whoever they want with some savvy cap management. Meanwhile, in other sports like the MLB you have albatross deals like Manny Ramirez's or in the NHL with the Islanders on the hook for Alexei Yashin for 10 years.

[werm23]

I cant really hate on Branch for what he did. We all get caught up as fans because we have an emotional attatchment to the team, and we can't see why anybody wouldn't wanna play here. I mean, its easy for us to say "How much money does he need?", but you cant look at it like that. While most of us are worried about supporting our families, he's got a chance to support his kids families, and their kids families. If any of us knew we had the oppurtunity to do that, we would take it. If you knew you could get a job somehwere else thats paying you 6 times as much, you would do everything you could to take it. And yeah, you can bring up the breach of contract thing, and say that you could never do that at your job and get away with it. But are you really important enough at your job to cause a distraction simply by not being there? If you didn't honor a contract and the company tried to sue, what are the chances that they would just let you get another job with a competitor, with ,maybe some money as compensation? I dont mean to offend anybody either because I fall into those categories too. You just can't compare our lives and work environment to these guys. Its a totally different world. Its a JOB to them, a job that most of them love doing, but its still a job.

[TruthSeeker]

The fact there are provisions in the CBA for when someone breaches a contract by not reporting doesn't mean that contract hasn't been breached. The very fact the Pats were not required to pay him, and have the ability to fine him 14K per day is evidence the player breached his contract. The CBA simply limits the recourse the team has, something which Kraft now realizes was crazy to bargain away. It will be tough to get it back without giving up the franchise designation, though.

Blaming the salary cap when a player or team gets greedy and acts in a way which hurts the fans is a good way of pretending no one is ever to blame. But as long as you are over the age of 10 or so you know that's a lie.

Exactly. It's easy to get confused that simply because penalties for breaching the contract are outlined that it's not breaching the contract. False. You don't breach the contract when you do all the things you committed to do. Branch committed to play 5 years for the Patriots at the agreed upon salary. He later refused to honor that commitment. He breached the contract.

[AndromedaPatFan]

I'm not an attorney, but attorneys often tell me I'm a talented legal amateur, and in my non-professional opinion Branch did NOT breach the legal contract.

Most workers in this country have the right to not how up for work and not get paid (although if they exercise that right their employer has the right to fire them). Branch has less of that right than most; his contract says that if he doesn't show up, not only doesn't he get paid, but he has to give some money back. But also, by contract his employer has less right than most do to fire him for not showing up.

I think he acted within the contract, period.

The grievances seem a little bogus, however ...

[upstater]

The fact there are provisions in the CBA for when someone breaches a contract by not reporting doesn't mean that contract hasn't been breached. The very fact the Pats were not required to pay him, and have the ability to fine him 14K per day is evidence the player breached his contract. The CBA simply limits the recourse the team has, something which Kraft now realizes was crazy to bargain away. It will be tough to get it back without giving up the franchise designation, though.

Blaming the salary cap when a player or team gets greedy and acts in a way which hurts the fans is a good way of pretending no one is ever to blame. But as long as you are over the age of 10 or so you know that's a lie.


Read Kraft's quote again. It pretty much shows that he thinks the CBA allows Branch-type holdouts in practice. Breaching a contract is something that happens in the real world. In the fantasyland of sports where rich people make up silly rules, they can pretty much do anything that isn't illegal, and it amounts to the same thing. millionaires fighting for $$.

[pats_kick_ass]

"do as I say, not as I do"

I cant really hate on Branch for what he did. We all get caught up as fans because we have an emotional attatchment to the team, and we can't see why anybody wouldn't wanna play here. I mean, its easy for us to say "How much money does he need?", but you cant look at it like that. While most of us are worried about supporting our families, he's got a chance to support his kids families, and their kids families.
~[]~

Exactly. Even more so with this organization which has some of the highest ticket prices and parking fees. So, it's ok for the company to make as much money as it can; but, when it comes to players they have to take less and show their loyalty. Crap.

By the way, why doesn't papa and baby kraft lower their ticket prices and parking fees seeing how the team has such a loyal fan base. And I do mean loyal...and ardent.

It's so loyal that when the pats won the first Super Bowl, their (the Pat's not the NFL's) video release become the top grossing video ever released by an NFL team in matter of just months. Think about that for a while.

Think about all the "glorious" teams (Greenbay, New York, San Francisco, Miami, Denver, Chicago, Cleveland, Pittsburg, Dallas, Washington) that the media talks about till no end. And then think, the pat's fan base blew all of the other team's fan bases away. Wow!

Forbes recently rated the team the 2nd most valuable NFL franchise at just over a billion. Kraft bought the team for under $200 million. Obviously the fans made the franchise worth what it is today.

The Krafts are making millions from the New England fan base just on merchandising alone. So why can't they show some loyalty and lower the ticket prices? I guess loyalty is something only the players have to show.

--

I have nothing against the Krafts wanting to make money from their business; just like I have nothing against Branch wanting to make money from his buisness, i.e. his physical body and football skills. It's the double standard that I can't stand.

[pats_kick_ass]

The fact there are provisions in the CBA for when someone breaches a contract by not reporting doesn't mean that contract hasn't been breached. The very fact the Pats were not required to pay him, and have the ability to fine him 14K per day is evidence the player breached his contract.

This is a totally false conclusion. If a contract provides provisions for an alternate option, then when a party engages that option, it cannot be considered a breach. That fines come along with the alternate option just makes it a more painful option to pursue, but it's still 100% legitimate.

Here's a non-football example:

A person agrees to close on a house on Sept. 30th. The contract (verbal or written) stipulates that if the person closes between Oct. 1st and Oct. 15th there will be a $5000 fine. After Oct. 15th it's a $10,000 fine. Now the buyer might change his/her mind and decide to close on Oct. 2nd. This is 100% legitimate. He/She simply chose the second option and in doing so, they incured a $5000 fine. But at no time was the contract breached.

[pats_kick_ass]

The fact there are provisions in the CBA for when someone breaches a contract by not reporting doesn't mean that contract hasn't been breached. The very fact the Pats were not required to pay him, and have the ability to fine him 14K per day is evidence the player breached his contract.

This is a totally false conclusion. If a contract provides provisions for an alternate option, then when a party engages that option, it cannot be considered a breach. That fines come along with the alternate option just makes it a more painful option to pursue, but it's still 100% legitimate.

Here's a non-football example:

A person agrees to close on a house on Sept. 30th. The contract (verbal or written) stipulates that if the person closes between Oct. 1st and Oct. 15th there will be a $5000 fine. After Oct. 15th it's a $10,000 fine. Now the buyer might change his/her mind and decide to close on Oct. 2nd. This is 100% legitimate. He/She simply chose the second option and in doing so, they incured a $5000 fine. But at no time was the contract breached.

[tuckeverlasting]

"do as I say, not as I do"


~[]~

Exactly. Even more so with this organization which has some of the highest ticket prices and parking fees. So, it's ok for the company to make as much money as it can; but, when it comes to players they have to take less and show their loyalty. Crap.

By the way, why doesn't papa and baby kraft lower their ticket prices and parking fees seeing how the team has such a loyal fan base. And I do mean loyal...and ardent.

It's so loyal that when the pats won the first Super Bowl, their (the Pat's not the NFL's) video release become the top grossing video ever released by an NFL team in matter of just months. Think about that for a while.

Think about all the "glorious" teams (Greenbay, New York, San Francisco, Miami, Denver, Chicago, Cleveland, Pittsburg, Dallas, Washington) that the media talks about till no end. And then think, the pat's fan base blew all of the other team's fan bases away. Wow!

Forbes recently rated the team the 2nd most valuable NFL franchise at just over a billion. Kraft bought the team for under $200 million. Obviously the fans made the franchise worth what it is today.

The Krafts are making millions from the New England fan base just on merchandising alone. So why can't they show some loyalty and lower the ticket prices? I guess loyalty is something only the players have to show.

--

I have nothing against the Krafts wanting to make money from their business; just like I have nothing against Branch wanting to make money from his buisness, i.e. his physical body and football skills. It's the double standard that I can't stand.


i can't speak to the parking but the ticket prices are so high because the majority of the funding for the new stadium was private and there are no psl's.

[end_zone]

This is a totally false conclusion. If a contract provides provisions for an alternate option, then when a party engages that option, it cannot be considered a breach. That fines come along with the alternate option just makes it a more painful option to pursue, but it's still 100% legitimate.I disagree. The standard contract itself says:
2. EMPLOYMENT AND SERVICES. Club employs Player as a skilled football player. Player accepts such employment. He agrees to give his best efforts and loyalty to the Club, and to conduct himself on and off the field with appropriate recognition of the fact that the success of professional football depends largely on public respect for and approval of those associated with the game. Player will report promptly for and participate fully in Club's official mandatory minicamp(s), official preseason training camp, all Club meetings and practice sessions, and all preseason, regular season and postseason football games scheduled for or by Club.

There is no doubt Branch breached that clause. And nowhere in the standard player contract does it say "you don't have to show up for weeks 1-10 if you don't want to." The contract itself is breached, but the point is any contract can be breached and it means nothing unless one party can then enforce the agreed-upon-terms legally to obtain compensation. Because US labor law dictates that the bargained provisions between the union and the NFL take effect to govern disputes, the CBA kicks in. In "the real world" broken contracts can mean years in court before they are resolved, but due to short careers and highly concentrated marketplace for their services the NFL and the NFLPA want to avoid that wherever possible. So they have bargained provisions which apply in such cases, including quick arbitration hearings rather than lawsuits, and the 6 game rule.

[pats_kick_ass]

i can't speak to the parking but the ticket prices are so high because the majority of the funding for the new stadium was private and there are no psl's.

i agree to a certain extent. if u said the pats will charge a higher amount for ticket prices because they won't use psl, sure. but how does that explain why the prices keep rising. it's not like the cost of the stadium keeps rising. that price was fixed when the stadium was financed. at the same time the ticket prices should have been fixed.

plus with the naming rights of the stadium, and the luxary boxes, i'm sure a good amount of that money has already been made and would keep being made even if the prices were lower.

[patman]

Let's see, Kraft has a 600 mill mortgage to pay. While rich he is not Snyder rich.
1/2 of the parking funds fo to the state to pay for the ramps and lots. The state paid for all those improvements in return for a 50% take on the parking revenues.

Branch breached his contract period. Just becasue the penalties for breaching a contract were spelled out does not mean that the contract was not breached.

You speed 10 mph over the speed limit it is a $50 fine. It is not legal to speed if you got an extra $50 in your pocket.

[dreadlord]

This is a totally false conclusion. If a contract provides provisions for an alternate option, then when a party engages that option, it cannot be considered a breach. That fines come along with the alternate option just makes it a more painful option to pursue, but it's still 100% legitimate.

Here's a non-football example:

A person agrees to close on a house on Sept. 30th. The contract (verbal or written) stipulates that if the person closes between Oct. 1st and Oct. 15th there will be a $5000 fine. After Oct. 15th it's a $10,000 fine. Now the buyer might change his/her mind and decide to close on Oct. 2nd. This is 100% legitimate. He/She simply chose the second option and in doing so, they incured a $5000 fine. But at no time was the contract breached.

Wrong.

The reason why the $5000 and $10000 fines are in place is because the contract is breached. :rolleyes:

[TruthSeeker]

i agree to a certain extent. if u said the pats will charge a higher amount for ticket prices because they won't use psl, sure. but how does that explain why the prices keep rising. it's not like the cost of the stadium keeps rising. that price was fixed when the stadium was financed. at the same time the ticket prices should have been fixed.

plus with the naming rights of the stadium, and the luxary boxes, i'm sure a good amount of that money has already been made and would keep being made even if the prices were lower.

Well, forgive us for a living in a free market where supply and demand are the primary mechanism used to set prices. Oh, you've noticed the waiting list of 50,000 people for season tickets? I guess that means that Kraft has kept the price artificially low. Now, you may be unhappy that tickets prices are high. But the marketplace says that they are low. How dare Kraft not make as much money as he could off the fans. After all, he's supposed to be greedy. :rolleyes:

[werm23]

Exactly. Even more so with this organization which has some of the highest ticket prices and parking fees. So, it's ok for the company to make as much money as it can; but, when it comes to players they have to take less and show their loyalty. Crap.

By the way, why doesn't papa and baby kraft lower their ticket prices and parking fees seeing how the team has such a loyal fan base. And I do mean loyal...and ardent.



The thing about the ticket prices though is that the Patriots do not charge personal seat liscences (PSL's), while a lot of teams do. So while the face value of ticket maybe lower in other places, alot of those people had to put 5000-10000 down just for the right to but tickets. I believe in Carolina for 2 50 yard line season tickets in the lower section you gotta put down 20,000. I think the whole lower section in Oakland in 5,000 per ticket. I remember when Gillette was being built this was an issue to a lot of people so in order to avoid this they had to raise the face value of the tickets.

[ThePlayer]

I have absolutely no problem with the prices of tickets. Considering a box seat at Fenway costs $85 and there are 81 homes games...paying $125 for the best seats, or $89 for a good seat with only 8 home games isn't that bad. I know, the Pats have the highest prices in the league..but I still do not think they are outrageous...especially with the team they put on the field.

[upstater]

Aren't some of you disregarding Kraft's comments. He clearly thinks the Deion situation is something that a player is allowed to take advantage of.

Read his quote again and again. He uses the word allowed. He doesn't make any appeal to Deion's morals or ethics whatsoever.

You can use all the legalize you like to impugn Deion but the fact is, management doesn't seem to think of Deion's decisions in terms of his ethics. I happen to agree with Kraft.

That doesn't mean I believe Deion's decision was wise. I thought it was very very very stupid for most of the holdout. In the end though, he got what he wanted.

[RayClay]

"don't hate the player, hate the game"

I decided to post this as a separate thread because it applies to all players, not just branch, and because jonathan kraft made the exact same point in a recent boston.com article.



in the branch threads, people were accusing deion branch of being in breach of contract for holding out. they said both sides agreed to branch's rookie contract and now he is not honoring it. it was wrong and unethical.

I made the following point in branch's defense:

if you look at it from the perpesctive that the cba, which both sides also agreed to, allows a player to hold out until week 10 and still have that year applied towards the fulfillment of the player's contract, it's not a breach.

jonathan kraft said the same thing, but in different words. here is the link to the quote above from the sept. 15th addition of reiss's pieces:

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/reiss_pieces/

here is the link to the branch thread:

http://www.kffl.com/forums/showthread.php?t=182093&page=4

--


i repeat, branch did not breach his contract. he simply used all the tools that were available to him to land a new contract.

we may not like the tools (just like we don't like the salary cap which forces player turn-over) but they are there to be used.

the real culprit here is not the new england patriots or deion branch. it's the salary cap.

so next time a player holds out, weather before signing his first contract or in the middle of it, lets not hate the player. hate the cap.

That's true. The Patriots should have used him for the stretch run, fined him the maximum, then franchised him and or traded him.

That was their right under the CBA.

[RayClay]

Wrong.

The reason why the $5000 and $10000 fines are in place is because the contract is breached. :rolleyes:

That is a good point. Why would you be fined for something that is allowed?

[RayClay]

This is a totally false conclusion. If a contract provides provisions for an alternate option, then when a party engages that option, it cannot be considered a breach. That fines come along with the alternate option just makes it a more painful option to pursue, but it's still 100% legitimate.

Here's a non-football example:

A person agrees to close on a house on Sept. 30th. The contract (verbal or written) stipulates that if the person closes between Oct. 1st and Oct. 15th there will be a $5000 fine. After Oct. 15th it's a $10,000 fine. Now the buyer might change his/her mind and decide to close on Oct. 2nd. This is 100% legitimate. He/She simply chose the second option and in doing so, they incured a $5000 fine. But at no time was the contract breached.

I believe that would be a penalty. A fine is for breaking a law. I looked it up and couldn't find a definition for a fine that would fit your example.

[p-man]

This is a totally false conclusion. If a contract provides provisions for an alternate option...


it's not an "option," that would imply that there are "choices" when in fact there are none. those provisions are written in there to provide "consequences" for those "choices (options)."

[Polythene Pam]

So someone signs a contract but doesn't have to honor it and that's okay? Let's get rid of contracts.

WTF

[TruthSeeker]

Aren't some of you disregarding Kraft's comments. He clearly thinks the Deion situation is something that a player is allowed to take advantage of.

Read his quote again and again. He uses the word allowed. He doesn't make any appeal to Deion's morals or ethics whatsoever.

You can use all the legalize you like to impugn Deion but the fact is, management doesn't seem to think of Deion's decisions in terms of his ethics. I happen to agree with Kraft.

That doesn't mean I believe Deion's decision was wise. I thought it was very very very stupid for most of the holdout. In the end though, he got what he wanted.

I read it. Jonathon Kraft was not commenting on the ethics of the situation, as you noted. He was commenting on the practicality of it. I think we're all in agreement that players can and do hold out. That's never been what the discussion has been about. The question is whether or not a holdout while under contract breaks the contract. It does. Time to move on.

[upstater]

So someone signs a contract but doesn't have to honor it and that's okay? Let's get rid of contracts.

WTF

If the owners agree to bogus contracts, then yes, both sides agree to create contracts that don't have to be honored in their final years. The owners can rip them up because there are no signing bonus salary cap ramifications, and players can hold out until week 10.

That's what they've agreed to. And that's why Kraft complained about that agreement.

[upstater]

I read it. Jonathon Kraft was not commenting on the ethics of the situation, as you noted. He was commenting on the practicality of it. I think we're all in agreement that players can and do hold out. That's never been what the discussion has been about. The question is whether or not a holdout while under contract breaks the contract. It does. Time to move on.

Breaks it how? Obviously, a player can hold out and return to the team without breaking the contract. if it broke the contract, he would have to pay the consequences and be held liable. other than a measly fine (which isn't even assessed in 99% of the holdouts) there is no punitive measure that management can take. A player holds out, and the contract remains UNBROKEN at least until week 10.

[TruthSeeker]

Breaks it how? Obviously, a player can hold out and return to the team without breaking the contract. if it broke the contract, he would have to pay the consequences and be held liable. other than a measly fine (which isn't even assessed in 99% of the holdouts) there is no punitive measure that management can take. A player holds out, and the contract remains UNBROKEN at least until week 10.

Well, clearly no one's going to change their mind here. You evidently believe that because the fine is measly and rarely collected that this has some bearing on whether or not the contract is broken (or "honored").

By the way, there's nothing magic about week 10 as far as honoring the contract. It's only that the penalty becomes stiffer. It's nonsensical to argue that the contract is broken in week 11 but not week 10 simply because the stakes are raised. At least, that's my opinion.

[BigAristotle]

I have no problem calling holdouts "breaches of contract"...however, I do have a problem with then calling a player cut "business as usual". IMO, either both are breaches of contract, or both are business as usual (per the CBA). That's the only thing I've been harping on. I understand the CBA allows owners to terminate contracts before they they run out, however, I don't see how that can't also be considered a "breach" even if it is allowed in the CBA...I'm really not taking sides, just attempting to see why ending a contract early doesn't also constitute a breach.

[Prefect]

Breaks it how? Obviously, a player can hold out and return to the team without breaking the contract. if it broke the contract, he would have to pay the consequences and be held liable. other than a measly fine (which isn't even assessed in 99% of the holdouts) there is no punitive measure that management can take. A player holds out, and the contract remains UNBROKEN at least until week 10. Why would it even be broken at week 10? The contract is still in place, no extra punitive measure can be taken, its just another penalty where the player doesn't accrue a season of playing time towards the contract.

[TheSeyMonsta]

so next time a player holds out, weather before signing his first contract or in the middle of it, lets not hate the player. hate the cap.


I disagree.

The player is in the wrong no matter who says what. You breach a contract you are wrong.

I like the cap it keeps idiots like Scneider somewhat in check.

[upstater]

Well, clearly no one's going to change their mind here. You evidently believe that because the fine is measly and rarely collected that this has some bearing on whether or not the contract is broken (or "honored").

By the way, there's nothing magic about week 10 as far as honoring the contract. It's only that the penalty becomes stiffer. It's nonsensical to argue that the contract is broken in week 11 but not week 10 simply because the stakes are raised. At least, that's my opinion.


I'm just parroting what Kraft said. He clearly doesn't get involved in the minutia or the legalese. He just looks at it how it is. The CBA does not create an impediment toward holding out in your final year.

As for the week 10 argument, the contract is literally broken in week 10. If a player doesn't show up, then all bets are off and suddenly the team has him by the nuts. Why is that nonsensical. In any negotiation, you only have as much leverage as the rules allow you. As a player, you lose if you don't report by week 10. But you may gain by holding out until then. That creates an incentive which can't be ignored. I'm talking about human behavior here. The CBA provides an incentive for players to hold out until week 10. All I'm saying in this thread is that it seems obvious that Patriots management agrees with me.

[upstater]

Why would it even be broken at week 10? The contract is still in place, no extra punitive measure can be taken, its just another penalty where the player doesn't accrue a season of playing time towards the contract.

Because the penalty in this case has some teeth. At that point, a team can actually suspend a player, which means the terms of the contract are no longer enforceable even though the team has the player's rights. If a player shows up before week 10, then the team has to pay him. The contract has to be enforced. The team has no choice. That's why I'm making the distinction. After week 10, the team can practically rip up the contract and crap on it (i.e. break it).

[TruthSeeker]

I'm just parroting what Kraft said. He clearly doesn't get involved in the minutia or the legalese. He just looks at it how it is. The CBA does not create an impediment toward holding out in your final year.

As for the week 10 argument, the contract is literally broken in week 10. If a player doesn't show up, then all bets are off and suddenly the team has him by the nuts. Why is that nonsensical. In any negotiation, you only have as much leverage as the rules allow you. As a player, you lose if you don't report by week 10. But you may gain by holding out until then. That creates an incentive which can't be ignored. I'm talking about human behavior here. The CBA provides an incentive for players to hold out until week 10. All I'm saying in this thread is that it seems obvious that Patriots management agrees with me.

You're talking human behavior. You're not talking contract. Again, you are arguing that the size of the penalty determines whether or not the contract was broken. Can you understand that the size of the penalty is totally irrelevant to whether or not one of the parties of the contract has lived up to the contract (i.e. honored the contract)? If you can't (and, so far, you haven't), then we'll never make any progress. It doesn't make any difference if there is no penalty or $100 million dollars. If you broke the contract, you broke the contract.

As far as Aristotle believing that it's unfair for an employer to let go an employee but not the other way around and, because of this perceived unfairness, believe that letting an employee go somehow "breaks the contract" even when the employer has that specific right granted to him in the contract, I can't help you. If you can't grasp it, then we'll just have to move on to something else.

[p-man]

I have no problem calling holdouts "breaches of contract"...however, I do have a problem with then calling a player cut "business as usual". IMO, either both are breaches of contract, or both are business as usual (per the CBA). That's the only thing I've been harping on. I understand the CBA allows owners to terminate contracts before they they run out, however, I don't see how that can't also be considered a "breach" even if it is allowed in the CBA...I'm really not taking sides, just attempting to see why ending a contract early doesn't also constitute a breach.

it's not just the CBA, the player's contract has language in it that states clearly the team's right to cut the player at any time. nowhere in the player contract does it state that the player has the option to hold out if the player feels he's outperformed his deal. In fact, there is punitive language in there to address any holdout.

If the player reads his contract, he'll know this, and this is why players and agents want the guaranteed money... they KNOW the parameters, yet they still feel justified in breaching their contracts.

[upstater]

You're talking human behavior. You're not talking contract. Again, you are arguing that the size of the penalty determines whether or not the contract was broken. Can you understand that the size of the penalty is totally irrelevant to whether or not one of the parties of the contract has lived up to the contract (i.e. honored the contract)? If you can't (and, so far, you haven't), then we'll never make any progress. It doesn't make any difference if there is no penalty or $100 million dollars. If you broke the contract, you broke the contract.

As far as Aristotle believing that it's unfair for an employer to let go an employee but not the other way around and, because of this perceived unfairness, believe that letting an employee go somehow "breaks the contract" even when the employer has that specific right granted to him in the contract, I can't help you. If you can't grasp it, then we'll just have to move on to something else.


"The specific right is granted" in the case of an employer breaking a contract. An implied right is granted to the player in case of rbeaking the contract.

I drive 75 everyday to work on a 65 mile an hour speed limit. Once, I got stopped and was given a ticket for going 76. The officer said to me, you can only exceed by 5 mph, 72 mph tops.

Now, I'm still breaking the letter of the law everyday by going over 65, but in the words of the officer, I get leeway up to 70.

In my view, the officer is much the same as Kraft, and 75 mph on I-90 in NY is much like the 10 week limit.

[BigAristotle]

As far as Aristotle believing that it's unfair for an employer to let go an employee but not the other way around and, because of this perceived unfairness, believe that letting an employee go somehow "breaks the contract" even when the employer has that specific right granted to him in the contract, I can't help you. If you can't grasp it, then we'll just have to move on to something else.

Ok, let me spell it out for you...I'm just wondering how the CBA defense works in one case (the owners can terminate a contract b/c it's in the CBA) but not in the other (the player can't holdout even though it's in the CBA). I'm not arguing that cutting people is unfair, or that it shouldn't be allowed...only that holding out is just as legitimate (provided the player pays the fines, etc). If you say holding out isn't legitimate, then I'm asking if cutting someone is...because both are part of the CBA. Understand?

You seem biased against holdouts...I think they are "part of the business" as Kraft says. I'm going to get away from the word "breach" b/c we might really agree if it weren't for that word being used.

[TruthSeeker]

Ok, let me spell it out for you...I'm just wondering how the CBA defense works in one case (the owners can terminate a contract b/c it's in the CBA) but not in the other (the player can't holdout even though it's in the CBA). I'm not arguing that cutting people is unfair, or that it shouldn't be allowed...only that holding out is just as legitimate (provided the player pays the fines, etc). If you say holding out isn't legitimate, then I'm asking if cutting someone is...because both are part of the CBA. Understand?

You seem biased against holdouts...I think they are "part of the business" as Kraft says. I'm going to get away from the word "breach" b/c we might really agree if it weren't for that word being used.

In the first case, it's a right granted to management. Again, exercising your rights under a contract does not break the contract. Why you might believe that it does is beyond me.

In the second case, it is not a right that is granted (i.e. that a player can hold out), but rather a penalty to be applied in the case of a player not honoring a contract. Yes! It's true! Sometimes contracts include (maximum) penalties for breaking the contract! Evidently some here are not aware of that, but it is indeed true! And it doesn't mean the contract is not broken if the penalty needs to be applied - in fact, the penalty cannot be applied unless the contract is broken. You fulfill the contract, you'll never pay the penalty. You break the contract, you (may potentially, at the teams discretion) pay the penalty.

[TruthSeeker]

"The specific right is granted" in the case of an employer breaking a contract. An implied right is granted to the player in case of rbeaking the contract.

I drive 75 everyday to work on a 65 mile an hour speed limit. Once, I got stopped and was given a ticket for going 76. The officer said to me, you can only exceed by 5 mph, 72 mph tops.

Now, I'm still breaking the letter of the law everyday by going over 65, but in the words of the officer, I get leeway up to 70.

In my view, the officer is much the same as Kraft, and 75 mph on I-90 in NY is much like the 10 week limit.

You continue to claim that exercising your rights under a contract (to terminate a player) somehow "breaks" a contract. It doesn't. (Actually, it fulfills a contract or, in this case, it formerly terminates a contract - but it never breaks a contract which is defined as not fulfilling your contractual obligations.) Until you realize this, you'll never make any progress on contract law. :)

[BigAristotle]

Ok, the only difference here is that you're looking at the contract language itself, and I'm looking at the CBA.

There is also a separate issue of semantics when it comes to "breaking" a contract. Management breaks a contract when cutting a player...literally, though not legally.

I agree with you that a team has every right to cut players. It is even written in the contract, while a player's right to holdout is not (presumably). There, argument solved, when looking solely at the contract, you are correct that the player is breaking it, and management is not when cutting a player. I understood this yesterday, and understand it today. We agree.

However, it so often argued that the CBA is the authority that gives management the right to cut players. My argument comes from the CBA. The CBA has provisions in it that govern what rights a player has, even when a player holds out. When a player holds out of his contract, there are fines, loss of gamechecks, and should the player miss 10 games, the team retains the rights to that player. As long as the holdout follows these provisions, they are not breaking the CBA. Yes they are breaking the individual contract, but as long as they follow the CBA, and pay the penalty for breaking the individual contract, who cares? If a player just walks out of practice, never to return, the team can even recoup the signing bonus (see: Ricky Williams, before he returned). An example of a team breaking the CBA is cutting Player X, and refusing to pay the signing bonus associated with that player.

When I say the player is not breaking the contract, I mean the player is not breaking the CBA, which is the overriding authority in the NFL (regarding player contracts). Holding out is a legitimate practice as long as the player meets the demands of the CBA. This argument is in response to those that rely on the CBA as the contract that gives management the right to cut players. When it comes to the individual contract the player signs, provided there is nothing mentioning holding out, you are absolutely correct. However, Mr. Kraft is still correct when he says it's just "part of the business"...and the CBA allows it to happen.

[upstater]

You continue to claim that exercising your rights under a contract (to terminate a player) somehow "breaks" a contract. It doesn't. (Actually, it fulfills a contract or, in this case, it formerly terminates a contract - but it never breaks a contract which is defined as not fulfilling your contractual obligations.) Until you realize this, you'll never make any progress on contract law. :)

I can care less about contract law. I thought this was a football board, not a courtroom. Kraft was clearly speaking to a reporter, not testifying.

Anyway, when management cuts a player, it BREAKS the contract literally. I'm not saying it's illegal. But most certainly, after the employer says, you know what guy, we're not going to pay you any more, the contract is broken. Kaput. Terminated. Ended.

You seem to be missing the central point we're making. We're not lawyers. We're not talking contract law here. I have no interest in that argument. I'm talking about the real world. One that Kraft articulated pretty well.

In my line of employ, I have a contract for my services. I break that contract once or twice a year because I have to in order to professionalize. My boss understands it because he got to his position by breaking his contract. No one in my line of business has ever had a contract held against them, as far as we know. We sign them in case an unfair labor practice ever arises, or in case someone moonlights, or in case someone abuses his/her position by using it to pressure a subordinate. But the fact is, generally in my line of work contracts are ignored as a matter of day-to-day business. We've never asked the lawyers what they think of our behavior. God willing, I'll never have to. I hope to never see such a situation arise.

[TruthSeeker]

So, the whole long discussion string has been an issue of semantics since different people want to define "breaking" or "not honoring" a contract in different ways. I'm glad we can agree on the legal definition (a contract, after all, is first and foremost a legal document) and that, legally, a player breaks his contract when he doesn't do when he agress to do when he signs it.

As far as the CBA is concerned about fines for holding out, you're right that a player isn't breaking the CBA should he holdout and pay the appropriate fine (at least, to the best of my knowledge. I don't know if there is specific language in the CBA that speaks to players fulfilling their individual contractual agreements which would be somewhat redundant because that's what contracts are all about). But it's not an either/or situation. The player has to fulfill all contracts or else he is "breaking" his contract.

P.S. I'm not a lawyer nor have I ever played one on TV. :)

[TruthSeeker]

Anyway, when management cuts a player, it BREAKS the contract literally.

A more precise phrase would be that it voids a contract since "breaking" a contract involves not fulfilling your obligations under the contract. But you prefer to use the misleading term "breaking" and I probably shouldn't be prolonging this semantic argument...

[patsfanbaz]

In the first case, (cutting a player) it's a right granted to management. Again, exercising your rights under a contract does not break the contract. Why you might believe that it does is beyond me.

I'm not sure how you see this as a right and miss the fact that a player has a right to hold out. That they are only exercising a right within the contract. You're making the assumption that a penalty implies a violation. You can have penalties without violating contracts. Professional athletes often have buyout options that can be exercised within their contracts. They cost the players money. It doesn't mean they have breached the contract. It only means that its costly to exercise that portion of the contract.

NFL teams have to accelerate cap hits and can't recover bonuses (under most circumstances) if they cut a player. These "costs" are penalties that are in place to try to disuade them from exercising this option within the contracts. They aren't in violation of the contract. Neither are the players. The fines they pay are only a tool which attempts to decrease the chance the player exercises these rights within this portion of their contract.

[TruthSeeker]

(same argument already fully refuted multiple times)

It's been fun, but time to get back to football. Please reread what's already been written if you want your answer.

[upstater]

A more precise phrase would be that it voids a contract since "breaking" a contract involves not fulfilling your obligations under the contract. But you prefer to use the misleading term "breaking" and I probably shouldn't be prolonging this semantic argument...

Honestly, I don't think I started this semantic kick. I was just emphasizing Kraft's use of the term "allow." Clearly, he wasn't talking in legalese, which has been the focus on this board. He was talking in terms of the business of the league. As far as how the league conducts business, I believe he was right. It's allowed.

[patsfanbaz]

It's been fun, but time to get back to football. Please reread what's already been written if you want your answer.

First, I did read the thread. I was making a point that was new and relevant. People were arguing that a penalty automatically implied a violation. A violation or breach of contract CANNOT be infered just because there are financial penalties. I cited two other examples where there are financial penalties w/o having a breach of contract.

Please read what I wrote carefully before you jump on my post.

[TheSeyMonsta]

95% of the people on this site dont agree with your stance on backing the player for violating the rules of the CBA..

It may be "allowed" but its still against the rules.

Cutting a player is NOT against the rules therefore is allowed as it should be so we dont have the "Pervis Ellison's" of the world filling up the bench of our team.

[upstater]

95% of the people on this site dont agree with your stance on backing the player for violating the rules of the CBA..

It may be "allowed" but its still against the rules.

Cutting a player is NOT against the rules therefore is allowed as it should be so we dont have the "Pervis Ellison's" of the world filling up the bench of our team.


I know a lot of people on the board don't agree with me. The whole point of my post, however, is that Jonathan Kraft does. Since he's the owner, his point-of-view carries a lot of weight.

[TruthSeeker]

First, I did read the thread. I was making a point that was new and relevant. People were arguing that a penalty automatically implied a violation. A violation or breach of contract CANNOT be infered just because there are financial penalties. I cited two other examples where there are financial penalties w/o having a breach of contract.

Please read what I wrote carefully before you jump on my post.

Sorry, I shouldn't have jumped on you. As you can probably tell, I'm tired of this long drawn out debate. At any rate, here's one place where this was already discussed (although the link doesn't seem to work...)

http://www.kffl.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3022774#post3022774

In simple layman terms, a contract between 2 parties is a commitment by both parties to do certain things. To simplify it in this case, the Patriots committed to pay Branch certain monies and Branch committed to play football for the Patriots. The question is rather simple; did either party not do what they contractually agreed to do? The answer is also very simple - yes. Branch refused to do what he had contractually agreed to do. This is what is meant when we say that someone "breaches", "breaks" or "doesn't honor" his contract.

It really doesn't make any difference if the contract has specific penalties for a breach of contract or not.

The contract is *not* written to say, "you will either play or you will pay money". The contract *is* written to say, "you will play". And then, elsewhere (in the CBA), it says, "if you don't play, you may be fined up to <whatever>". Note the difference. In the first case, the contract is to do 1 of 2 things. In the second case, the contract is to do a specific thing. Player contracts are written such that the player agrees to do a specific thing. It's really pretty simple.

[pats_kick_ass]

95% of the people on this site dont agree with your stance on backing the player for violating the rules of the CBA..

It may be "allowed" but its still against the rules.

Cutting a player is NOT against the rules therefore is allowed as it should be so we dont have the "Pervis Ellison's" of the world filling up the bench of our team.

SeyMonsta, can u provide the actual wording of the cba that would prove this to be true? Or is this just your impression of how the cba might be worded.

I ask because it's (the actual rule) such an important point towards this thread's discussion.

[SteveKiner]

SeyMonsta, can u provide the actual wording of the cba that would prove this to be true? Or is this just your impression of how the cba might be worded.

I ask because it's (the actual rule) such an important point towards this thread's discussion.

I agree with SeyMonsta, but it is just my opinion. If you want to print out and read the CBA(and the extension) here is a link.
http://www.nflpa.org/CBA/CBA.aspx

I tried to understand all the legalese but I guess it is over my pay grade. Hope this helps you out.

[pats_kick_ass]

I agree with SeyMonsta, but it is just my opinion. If you want to print out and read the CBA(and the extension) here is a link.
http://www.nflpa.org/CBA/CBA.aspx

I tried to understand all the legalese but I guess it is over my pay grade. Hope this helps you out.


ha ha. i appreciate the link, but there is no way im going to read the entire cba to find the sections on firing a player or hold outs :) .

i thought maybe saymonsta knew smothing specific within the cba that we didnt.

maybe when i have some time, ill look thru it and see what it says.

thanks for link.

[end_zone]

I am sorry, pats_kick_ass, but you just admitted that you have done no actual research in the CBA on this topic and that your point is based mainly on guesswork, and that it's up to everyone else to spend their time doing research to prove you wrong.

This while conveniently forgetting that I already posted in this thread half the proof you asked for from the CBA, that holding out is against the rules. Repeating again from the standard player contract:
2. EMPLOYMENT AND SERVICES. Club employs Player as a skilled football player. Player accepts such employment. He agrees to give his best efforts and loyalty to the Club, and to conduct himself on and off the field with appropriate recognition of the fact that the success of professional football depends largely on public respect for and approval of those associated with the game. Player will report promptly for and participate fully in Club's official mandatory minicamp(s), official preseason training camp, all Club meetings and practice sessions, and all preseason, regular season and postseason football games scheduled for or by Club.
Well, here's the other half, from the standard player contract, about how cutting a player is expressly allowed:

11. SKILL, PERFORMANCE AND CONDUCT. Player understands that he is competing with other players for a position on Club's roster within the applicable player limits. If at any time, in the sole judgment of Club, Player's skill or performance has been unsatisfactory as compared with that of other players competing for positions on Club's roster, or if Player has engaged in personal conduct reasonably judged by Club to adversely affect or reflect on Club, then Club may terminate this contract. In addition, during the period any salary cap is legally in effect, this contract may be terminated if, in Club's opinion, Player is anticipated to make less of a contribution to Club's ability to compete on the playing field than another player or players whom Club intends to sign or attempts to sign, or another player or players who is or are already on Club's roster, and for whom Club needs room..

So there you, go, and all I needed to do was to use the "search" function built into my browser.

By the way, I think the basis for this thread -- that supposedly Jonathan Kraft doesn't believe Branch breached his contract -- is simply incorrect. He said one thing and you heard something different. He never said Branch didn't breach the contract, only that the CBA allowed this to happen, i.e. the CBA imposed penalties which were weak enough to implicitly encourage the breach of contract.

[pats_kick_ass]

I am sorry, pats_kick_ass, but you just admitted that you have done no actual research in the CBA on this topic and that your point is based mainly on guesswork, and that it's up to everyone else to spend their time doing research to prove you wrong.

no offense taken, but you're not quite right here.

if u see a person getting pulled over for running a red light, than u can make a very good asumption that running a red light is something u are not allowed to do, even though u might not have read the license manual.

like wise i didn't have to read the cba to know that a player is allowed to hold out until week 10 and still be qualified towards fulfilling their contract. this is almost common knowledge to devot nfl fans, much like getting a ticket for running a red light is common knowledge.

than on top of that...jonathan kraft comes out and says almost the same thing but in different words. so i was pretty confident of the ground i stood on. but then seymonsta raised a point which if true would seriously make me rethink my argument. that's why i was wondering if he had specific knowledge of the cba.
This while conveniently forgetting that I already posted in this thread half the proof you asked for from the CBA, that holding out is against the rules.

i'll have to re-read your thread.

By the way, I think the basis for this thread -- that supposedly Jonathan Kraft doesn't believe Branch breached his contract -- is simply incorrect. He said one thing and you heard something different. He never said Branch didn't breach the contract,
nor did he say that Branch did breach his contract and you would think that he would have if he in fact did.
only that the CBA allowed this to happen, i.e. the CBA imposed penalties which were weak enough to implicitly encourage the breach of contract.

two things here:

1. we are now getting your impression of what he said. who is to say your impression is correct. im not saying it is not correct but i really feal if branch breached his contract jonathan kraft would have said so instead of talking about how the issue will have to get resolved in the next round of cba talks.

2. see here is the NUMBER ONE problem i have with breach or no breach. if the cba (which was agreed to by both the owners and player's association) ALLOWS an option that can incur minimal penalties, is it a breach? if the contract specifically says a player can do this, but he will incur a penalty, is that a breach?

maybe i'm wrong here, but isn't a breach when a person fails to perfom duties as specified by a contract and no other allowances in the stead of those duties are allowed. if allowances are made to be part of a contract, is that a breach?

but anyway, i'm going to have to read this entire thread again right from the begining. maybe during the commercials of the denver game.

[pats_kick_ass]

Quote:
2. EMPLOYMENT AND SERVICES. Club employs Player as a skilled football player. Player accepts such employment. He agrees to give his best efforts and loyalty to the Club, and to conduct himself on and off the field with appropriate recognition of the fact that the success of professional football depends largely on public respect for and approval of those associated with the game. Player will report promptly for and participate fully in Club's official mandatory minicamp(s), official preseason training camp, all Club meetings and practice sessions, and all preseason, regular season and postseason football games scheduled for or by Club.

Well, here's the other half, from the standard player contract, about how cutting a player is expressly allowed:



11. SKILL, PERFORMANCE AND CONDUCT. Player understands that he is competing with other players for a position on Club's roster within the applicable player limits. If at any time, in the sole judgment of Club, Player's skill or performance has been unsatisfactory as compared with that of other players competing for positions on Club's roster, or if Player has engaged in personal conduct reasonably judged by Club to adversely affect or reflect on Club, then Club may terminate this contract. In addition, during the period any salary cap is legally in effect, this contract may be terminated if, in Club's opinion, Player is anticipated to make less of a contribution to Club's ability to compete on the playing field than another player or players whom Club intends to sign or attempts to sign, or another player or players who is or are already on Club's roster, and for whom Club needs room.

So there you, go, and all I needed to do was to use the "search" function built into my browser.


i'll come back to this later when i have more time to go over it in ernest but just at the top of my head i already see that nowhere in here have u quoted anything from the cba regarding player hold-out.

u only show proof that a player can be cut with out it being considered a breach. but i don't disagree with that. the real question is can a player hold out without that being considered a breach.

-for some reason the serach isn't working for me.

[end_zone]

1. we are now getting your impression of what (Jonathan Kraft) said. who is to say your impression is correct. im not saying it is not correct but i really feal if branch breached his contract jonathan kraft would have said so instead of talking about how the issue will have to get resolved in the next round of cba talks.My point is that your entire argument is based upon not what Kraft said (as you originally claimed but just admitted was wrong) but upon your interpretation. Clearly I believe my interpretation is more reasonable but people will have to make up their own minds on that.

2. see here is the NUMBER ONE problem i have with breach or no breach. if the cba (which was agreed to by both the owners and player's association) ALLOWS an option that can incur minimal penalties, is it a breach? if the contract specifically says a player can do this, but he will incur a penalty, is that a breach?

maybe i'm wrong here, but isn't a breach when a person fails to perfom duties as specified by a contract and no other allowances in the stead of those duties are allowed. if allowances are made to be part of a contract, is that a breach?
In a purely legal sense? IANAL but I suspect so, but that's not really my point, in almost any other sense, to the majority of people, yes it is a breach. "Breaching a contract" is the opposite of "fulfulling a contract".

Suppose you contracted with me to build you a house. The contract specified that you were to pay me based upon the progress of the construction. Supposed I only completed half the construction, receiving 50% of the monies owed, and then stopped and refused to continue until you agreed to pay a higher amount for the completion. Does the fact that the contract says you need pay for only 50% of the house get me off the hook, that I have not breached the contract? Of course not, I still breached the contract by failing to perform as the contract specified.

[TruthSeeker]

Well, I think that now we're down to only 1 person still claiming that you don't have to do what you agreed to do (as your excerpt form the CBA clearly shows) and still fulfill the contract shows progress - either that or everyone else has just gotten way too much of this topic. :)

[upstater]

Well, I think that now we're down to only 1 person still claiming that you don't have to do what you agreed to do (as your excerpt form the CBA clearly shows) and still fulfill the contract shows progress - either that or everyone else has just gotten way too much of this topic. :)

Not so fast!!! Haha.

I actually agree with this: Kraft never said Branch didn't breach the contract, only that the CBA allowed this to happen, i.e. the CBA imposed penalties which were weak enough to implicitly encourage the breach of contract.

Since I'm not a lawyer, I put emphasis on the second part of this sentence. Also, you can't generalize about all contracts. Not every contract is the same. In some businesses , it's a matter of course that contracts are not followed. mine is one of them. The contract is only there to protect the worker. AND in case the worker does something morally repugnant (no, not breaking the contract). The business functions better this way. There are trade-offs involved, but essentially we sign 3 year contracts that are renewed autmoatically. We can leave for another position at another similar employer whenever we want.

[TruthSeeker]

Not so fast!!! Haha.

I actually agree with this:

Since I'm not a lawyer, I put emphasis on the second part of this sentence. Also, you can't generalize about all contracts. Not every contract is the same. In some businesses , it's a matter of course that contracts are not followed. mine is one of them. The contract is only there to protect the worker. AND in case the worker does something morally repugnant (no, not breaking the contract). The business functions better this way. There are trade-offs involved, but essentially we sign 3 year contracts that are renewed autmoatically. We can leave for another position at another similar employer whenever we want.

Hi upstater. As was mentioned before, Kraft appeared to be discussing contracts from a practical perspective (players can hold out until week 10). I don't particularly care about what Kraft said since the contract (clearly the best evidence) speaks for itself.

[upstater]

Hi upstater. As was mentioned before, Kraft appeared to be discussing contracts from a practical perspective (players can hold out until week 10). I don't particularly care about what Kraft said since the contract (clearly the best evidence) speaks for itself.

Since the NFL clearly deoesn't like to get lawyers involved, and the NFL will do anything to avoid arbitrators, as a fan I focus on the "in practice" part of the CBA. I don't have enough interest in the NFL as a legal entity to pay more attention that that. This is a very practical league that wants no legislation which might hem it in duringa future procedure. We basically agree on the strict legal terms (how could we not?) but my ears pricked up when he used the word allow.