mutineer10

Hey, we got Luke McCown! What are you guys worried about?

Rugby Saint II

Wait for it.......wait for it........

TheOak

At this point it has little to do with his contract. Also... Drew can not decide that... That's for the Saints front office to decide.

Money not due him?

Drew is the spokesman for the NFLPA. This is not all about him. He has am obligation to the players he represents to get clarification on a third tag when more than one team is involved.

FYI... its too late to "get someone to replace him" if you expect to go anywhere this season

Srgt. Hulka

Drew can decide. He can decide whether he is accepting the offer made to him, signing the tag, or sitting out.

Yes, money not due him. He's arguing that if he is tagged next year, it will be his third tag, and that he is due 144% of his previous years salary. The CBA states that any club that tags a player for a third time, etc. etc. etc., not a player that is tagged by any club for a third time, etc. etc. etc. See Below.

(b) Any Club that designates a player as a Franchise Player for the third time shall, on the date the third such designation is made, be deemed to have tendered the player a one-year NFL Player Contract for the greater of: (A) the average of the five largest Prior Year Salaries for players at the position (within the categories set forth in Section 7(a) below) with the highest such average; (B) 120% of the average of the five largest Prior Year Salaries for players at the position (within the categories set forth in Section 7(a) below) at which the player participated in the most plays during the prior League Year; or (C) 144% of his Prior Year Salary.

If next year is his third tag, that means that this year is his second tag, which also means that he can negotiate with other clubs. If this is false, then this is his first tag and he will not be due the 144%, he will be due the 120%. Hence he is aguing that he should get money that he is not due.

I know this grievance is not about him, it's about the union. He feels that the contract says one thing, but it clearly says something else. See above. Drew is 100% union and he will live and die by the union, even if it means sitting out a year. I hope he doesn't, but I will not be surprised if he does.

I know it's too late to replace him for this year. I was just talking about the future in general. If this Franchise tag hearing doesn't go well, and he doesn't get what he wants, he will sit. Then we will see a bidding war for him next year, and the price for him will get way higher than what Loomis and Benson want or can afford to pay him. Again, I hope I'm wrong...I hope I'm WAY wrong, but I can see it playing out this way.

Don't get me wrong, I want Drew back under center as bad as anyone on this board. I'm one of those "Pay The Man" guys that kept getting flamed every time we posted it. So yes, I want Drew back, but I can easily see the scenerio where he doesn't come back. I'm hoping for the best, but preparing for the worst, that's all.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, ...

TheOak

That is incorrect.

He can not negotiate with any other clubs in 1st,2nd,or 3rd Tag... Thats the point of the tag. (Unless the Saints slap him with a Non-Exclusive)

Here are the differences on the Tags:
An "exclusive" franchise player must be offered a one-year contract for an amount no less than the average of the top five salaries at the player's position as of a date in April of the current year in which the tag will apply, or 120 percent of the player's previous year's salary, whichever is greater. Exclusive franchise players cannot negotiate with other teams. The player's team has all the negotiating rights to the exclusive player.

A "non-exclusive" franchise player must be offered a one-year contract for an amount no less than the average of the top five salaries at the player's position in the previous year, or 120 percent of the player's previous year's salary, whichever is greater. A non-exclusive franchise player may negotiate with other NFL teams, but if he signs an offer sheet from another team, the original team has a right to match the terms of that offer, or if it does not match the offer and thus loses the player, is entitled to receive two first-round draft pick as compensation.

The determining difference is not which tag it is in the series but how the team chooses to tag him.

Franchise tag - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



As far as the verbiage in the CBA, it is not clear cut. Ambiguity in a contract benefits the party that did not draft it.
Interpretation of Ambiguous contracts

"A contract is ambiguous when it is uncertain what the intent of the parties was and the contract is capable of more than one reasonable interpretation. Sometimes ambiguous terms can be explained by the admission of parol evidence. Also, Courts abide by the rule that an ambiguous contract is interpreted against the party who drafted it. In other words, the party who did not draft the contract will be given the benefit of the doubt so to speak. "

Interpretation of Ambiguous contracts - Interpretation of Contracts - Contracts

So, while it may be clear to you, it seems it is not clear to one of the parties bound by the contract.

QBREES9

question, doesn't the player need to be with the same team. Not taged by one team then another team.

mutineer10

That seems to be what the fuss is about, and what the arbitrator must decide.

TheOak

This is what happens when language is not clearly spelled out, and intent is not clearly defined. The person writing it knew what he meant, one way or the other, he just failed to clarify.... Thus making it somewhat ambiguous and the ruling in that case goes to the NFLPA,

saintsfan1976

When exactly did the NFL become so similar to the US Government??

QBREES9

Thanks guys ! I would think you would need to be with the same team. So this would count as his first with the Saints.. We'll wait and see.