Merman
06-08-2007, 04:29 PM
I'm starting to become like Philter25. :skeptic:
POSTED 3:08 p.m. EDT, June 8, 2007
HAS TIDE TURNED REGARDING TERMINATION OF TURDS?
Not long ago, it was widely assumed in league circles that teams could not cut players for engaging in illegal or otherwise inappropriate off-field conduct. The thinking was that the Collective Bargaining Agreement permitted a team, at most, to suspend a player for four games without pay for four games for conduct detrimental to the team. Any stiffer penalties were believed to be reserved to the Commissioner, who has the ability under Article XI of the CBA to fine and/or suspend players who engage in conduct detrimental to the integrity of, or public confidence in, the game of professional football.
A couple of weeks back, a reader pointed out to us some language in the Standard Player Contract that seems to suggest that a team can cut a player for being, generally speaking, a turd. And, like most good ideas we get from our readers, we ignored it.
A few days later, one of our few real friends in the "real" media pointed out to us an item in the Cincinnati Post that addresses the tension between Article XI of the CBA and Paragraph 11 of the Standard Player Contract, which states that the deal may be terminated "if Player has engaged in personal conduct reasonably judged by Club to adversely affect or reflect on Club."
Finally, we've had the occasion to explore the issue, and here's our take.
We think that a team's options for dealing with a player who has committed some type of off-field indiscretion include suspending the player for up to four games without pay or cutting him. Either sanction would be subject to challenge pursuant to the CBA's non-injury grievance procedure. Ultimately, an arbitrator would have to decide whether the Club's judgment as to the issue of adverse effect or reflection was reasonable and, presumably, whether the Club has imposed consistent discipline in the past for similar offenses. An arbitrator would have the ability to overturn the decision, and award the player the salary and other compensation he would have earned but for the termination.
The union seems to acknowledge that such an approach is permissible. As NFLPA spokesman Carl Francis told the Post, "If that's what it says in the CBA, [teams] can use that element. The rule gives them the right to do that."
(Possible translation: "If you keep giving us our 60 percent, we don't care what you do.")
Maybe that's why the union hasn't filed grievances following the terminations over the past few months of Saints linebacker E.J. Kuale, Jaguars cornerback Ahmad Carroll, Steelers linebacker Richard Seigler, and/or Bengals linebacker A.J. Nicholson, all of whom were cut in conjunction with arrests.
Then again, it's unknown whether any of these players were advised upon termination that the move was the result of personal conduct that adversely affected or reflected on the teams in question.
Even if the formal notices of termination did not state that the decisions were made because the players engaged in such behavior, there's a real question as to whether the union would even want to take up the fight on behalf of players who have engaged in alleged criminal behavior. As one league source told us on Thursday, the current climate for pursuing such grievances is far from ideal, given that the media, the fans, and many players are fed up with the ongoing string of player arrests.
And the union's experience with quarterback Quincy Carter could be influencing its failure to take up the cause for other players. In 2004, the Cowboys cut Carter (who at the time was the team's starting quarterback) on the heels of a report that he had failed a drug test. The union filed a grievance, and it was pending for more than two years. Cowboys director of public relations Rich Dalrymple tells us that, several months ago, a ruling was entered in favor of the team, based on the argument that the decision was based on issues relating to performance.
Our advice to teams who intend to cut players in the future who have been accused of doing something that they shouldn't have done? When filling out the notice of termination, check the boxes that apply to personal conduct and to performance. If the Cowboys were able to prove that a decision early in training camp to cut a starting quarterback who had led the team to the playoffs during the prior season was legitimately based on performance, we can't imagine any player showing that a termination decision wasn't performance-related -- absent a public admission from the team.
Profootballtalk.com ()
Cool but he never did acknowledged my request to try and get the decision for the Ashley Lelie ruling that option bonuses were not signing bonuses so we could see the arbitrator's reasoning.
POSTED 3:08 p.m. EDT, June 8, 2007
HAS TIDE TURNED REGARDING TERMINATION OF TURDS?
Not long ago, it was widely assumed in league circles that teams could not cut players for engaging in illegal or otherwise inappropriate off-field conduct. The thinking was that the Collective Bargaining Agreement permitted a team, at most, to suspend a player for four games without pay for four games for conduct detrimental to the team. Any stiffer penalties were believed to be reserved to the Commissioner, who has the ability under Article XI of the CBA to fine and/or suspend players who engage in conduct detrimental to the integrity of, or public confidence in, the game of professional football.
A couple of weeks back, a reader pointed out to us some language in the Standard Player Contract that seems to suggest that a team can cut a player for being, generally speaking, a turd. And, like most good ideas we get from our readers, we ignored it.
A few days later, one of our few real friends in the "real" media pointed out to us an item in the Cincinnati Post that addresses the tension between Article XI of the CBA and Paragraph 11 of the Standard Player Contract, which states that the deal may be terminated "if Player has engaged in personal conduct reasonably judged by Club to adversely affect or reflect on Club."
Finally, we've had the occasion to explore the issue, and here's our take.
We think that a team's options for dealing with a player who has committed some type of off-field indiscretion include suspending the player for up to four games without pay or cutting him. Either sanction would be subject to challenge pursuant to the CBA's non-injury grievance procedure. Ultimately, an arbitrator would have to decide whether the Club's judgment as to the issue of adverse effect or reflection was reasonable and, presumably, whether the Club has imposed consistent discipline in the past for similar offenses. An arbitrator would have the ability to overturn the decision, and award the player the salary and other compensation he would have earned but for the termination.
The union seems to acknowledge that such an approach is permissible. As NFLPA spokesman Carl Francis told the Post, "If that's what it says in the CBA, [teams] can use that element. The rule gives them the right to do that."
(Possible translation: "If you keep giving us our 60 percent, we don't care what you do.")
Maybe that's why the union hasn't filed grievances following the terminations over the past few months of Saints linebacker E.J. Kuale, Jaguars cornerback Ahmad Carroll, Steelers linebacker Richard Seigler, and/or Bengals linebacker A.J. Nicholson, all of whom were cut in conjunction with arrests.
Then again, it's unknown whether any of these players were advised upon termination that the move was the result of personal conduct that adversely affected or reflected on the teams in question.
Even if the formal notices of termination did not state that the decisions were made because the players engaged in such behavior, there's a real question as to whether the union would even want to take up the fight on behalf of players who have engaged in alleged criminal behavior. As one league source told us on Thursday, the current climate for pursuing such grievances is far from ideal, given that the media, the fans, and many players are fed up with the ongoing string of player arrests.
And the union's experience with quarterback Quincy Carter could be influencing its failure to take up the cause for other players. In 2004, the Cowboys cut Carter (who at the time was the team's starting quarterback) on the heels of a report that he had failed a drug test. The union filed a grievance, and it was pending for more than two years. Cowboys director of public relations Rich Dalrymple tells us that, several months ago, a ruling was entered in favor of the team, based on the argument that the decision was based on issues relating to performance.
Our advice to teams who intend to cut players in the future who have been accused of doing something that they shouldn't have done? When filling out the notice of termination, check the boxes that apply to personal conduct and to performance. If the Cowboys were able to prove that a decision early in training camp to cut a starting quarterback who had led the team to the playoffs during the prior season was legitimately based on performance, we can't imagine any player showing that a termination decision wasn't performance-related -- absent a public admission from the team.
Profootballtalk.com ()
Cool but he never did acknowledged my request to try and get the decision for the Ashley Lelie ruling that option bonuses were not signing bonuses so we could see the arbitrator's reasoning.