What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Latest TO news (1 Viewer)

Why did TO wait until he was traded to the Ravens to kick up a stink about filing the papers? The NFL catered to his situation and I heard nothing about TO filing for a grievance until he was traded to a team he wasn't so high on going to. Seems fishy to me.
Nope - well before the trade, he said publicly he intended to file a grievance. As soon as the brew-ha re: the paper filings emnereged he said he'd file a grievance.
 
Baltimore Sun ArticleIsn't that a bit like "Your Honor, I would like to concede that someone else screwed up."? The real issue is whether the union effectively notified Owens that they (the union) had modified the terms of his contract to change the date by which he had to file for free agency, isn't it? I think the only way the NFLPA can make a case for Owens is by saying they (the NFLPA) screwed up, and they are certainly not saying that.
Exactly - the police policing themselves.This will end up in a court of law before it's all said and done - Clarett effectively challenged the league's collective bargaining agreement with the union, TO might be able to do the same thing.Slowly, the NFLPA is showing how completely ineffective it is .
 
I don't remember Boller being terribly accurate in college(something like 55%) so I can't imagine Owens thinking this guy is a step up from Garcia, who he was already upset with.
Cant wait till mcNabb throws one at his aknles over the middle........CRUSH!!!
 
I don't like TO anymore than most of you but you have to admit he got screwed by his agent. Losing 15-20mill because of a clerical error would infuriate anyone even Bill Gates. So can we stop calling TO a baby because he is not just going along with what the niners and ravens want?You'd have to be an idiot not to make all attempts, no matter how feable they are, to gain your FA status.
He's being called a cry baby because he's not getting what he wants. All other rules have been followed. Except he wants the rules changed for him.
 
He's being called a cry baby because he's not getting what he wants. All other rules have been followed. Except he wants the rules changed for him.
Sorry God, but that is for a judge to decide.
 
Or an arbitrator.Either way, I think I'll blindly follow any ruling made by the person in that avatar.
Actually, it is a judge because it is a master blah blah. Just a grienvence gets an arbitrator.
 
Hey according to Philly's owner. Everything up to this point has been legal. The fact that they want to try and find a loophole to appease a cry baby doesn't make it any less legal.ARTICLE
The issue is not if everything the Ravens and Niners did was LEGAL. Everyone agrees it was, that is not the issue.The issue is whether or not Owens should have been a FA to being with.Sorry God, still waiting on the judge
 
The statement came after several days of maneuvering. Gene Upshaw, executive director of the players' union, said Sunday that he had informed Harold Henderson, the league's executive vice president for labor relations, of his intention to try to get the trade overturned.If the matter isn't resolved, the union will ask Stephen Burbank, who is in charge of settling collective bargaining agreement disputes, to have Owens' contract voided so he can be declared a free agent, Upshaw said.
So it seems there will be 2 battles for the war.NFLPA to ask Hederson to overturn trade and make TO FAand thenNFLPA ask Stephen Burbank to settle this "CBA" dispute.
 
"We think, at this point, that's the only case we can file," Upshaw said. "That's what we'll do the early part of next week. I want to talk to Harold Henderson in the early part of next week to see if there's something the parties can work out short of that proceeding. If not, that's what we'll do."
Link for all 3 quotes: here
 
As opposed to McNabb (who TO WANTS to play with) who has a 57.0% Pro career average?
55% in college < 57% in college55% in college <<<<<<<<<<57% in the pros vs. pro defenses. Thank you in advance for clearly understanding this point.Please see mine.
 
McNabb was a 59% passer in college, he was Big East Player of the Decade, Big East Player of the Year three times, and Big East QB of the Year all four seasons. He averaged 9.1 yards per attempt in college, and had a 155 passer rating (over four years!). Boller couldn't hold McNabb's jock strap in college, seriously.

 
McNabb was a 59% passer in college, he was Big East Player of the Decade, Big East Player of the Year three times, and Big East QB of the Year all four seasons. He averaged 9.1 yards per attempt in college, and had a 155 passer rating (over four years!). Boller couldn't hold McNabb's jock strap in college, seriously.
he could hold McNabb's jock, but only in Massachusetts, San Francisco, Portland, or that one little town in NY.
 
McNabb was a 59% passer in college, he was Big East Player of the Decade, Big East Player of the Year three times, and Big East QB of the Year all four seasons. He averaged 9.1 yards per attempt in college, and had a 155 passer rating (over four years!). Boller couldn't hold McNabb's jock strap in college, seriously.
As a WVU (I have said it many times here) it was obvious how good McNabb was going to be. I watched him dismantle my WVU eers for too many seasons. He is a leader and a winner.
 
As a WVU (I have said it many times here) it was obvious how good McNabb was going to be. I watched him dismantle my WVU eers for too many seasons. He is a leader and a winner.
back off my aviatarCapella
 
It gets better. If Owens doesn't report for his physical, the Ravens may be trying to recoup some of his signing bonus (which the 49'ers paid). Man this is getting funny. Rumor Mill Article, so take it for whatever it's worth.

Per the source, the Ravens believe that, because the final three years of Owens' contract weren't properly voided, he's still earning his original signing bonus by performing under each remaining year of the deal. Thus, if Owens refuses to report, the Ravens could try to recoup from T.O. the remaining prorated amounts of the signing bonus -- even though the signing bonus was paid by San Fran.The same thing happened in 1999 when running back Barry Sanders abruptly retired. He had years remaining on a contract for which he received a hefty bonus; thus, he had a duty to refund a corresponding chunk of that money.
 
TO is a PUNK and I am enjoying every second of his nightmere. I lost ALL respect for him a couple of years ago, when he "danced" upon the mid field Cowboys team logo, after scoring a TD. What a loser. I respect the mans ability and gifts, as a player, but he has no class whatsoever. It makes me happy to know that he is not happy and he has no one to blame except himself and HIS hand picked agent, whom he used his Sharpie to sign his TD football on national TV. I'm loving this!! :thumbup:

 
I don't like TO anymore than most of you but you have to admit he got screwed by his agent. Losing 15-20mill because of a clerical error would infuriate anyone even Bill Gates. So can we stop calling TO a baby because he is not just going along with what the niners and ravens want?You'd have to be an idiot not to make all attempts, no matter how feable they are, to gain your FA status.
Nobody here will admit that they would be willing to go to court for 15 million dollars because nobody here has that opportunity. Of course if those same people actually had that opportunity they'd be camping out in the courthouse parking lot.
 
Nobody here will admit that they would be willing to go to court for 15 million dollars because nobody here has that opportunity. Of course if those same people actually had that opportunity they'd be camping out in the courthouse parking lot.
Most of us wouldn't be dumb enough to let such a $15 million deadline pass like TO and his agent did. Most of us wouldn't be arrogant enough, if we did let it pass, to lay the blame on someone else. Moreover, most of us wouldn't act like the little baby TO is making himself out to be.There is beauty and poetic justice in all of this. TO has a 0% chance of getting a judge/arbitrator to overrule this grievance. It's a slam-shut case for the Ravens, the Niners and the NFL. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just hopelessly rooting for the green and silver.(And, by the by: If Philly really wanted him, they wouldn't have put out such a laughable low-ball offer. All you whining Iggles fans, stop your beotching about how "oh we didn't get a chance...sniffle-sniffle." You had your chance. Suck it up and turn the page. Ozzie smoked Andy on this one. Enjoy life with James Thrash...some more.)
 
TO is a PUNK and I am enjoying every second of his nightmere. I lost ALL respect for him a couple of years ago, when he "danced" upon the mid field Cowboys team logo, after scoring a TD. What a loser. I respect the mans ability and gifts, as a player, but he has no class whatsoever. It makes me happy to know that he is not happy and he has no one to blame except himself and HIS hand picked agent, whom he used his Sharpie to sign his TD football on national TV. I'm loving this!! :thumbup:
Sure ... you can have Stinkston and Trash then ... good luck!
 
TO has a 0% chance of getting a judge/arbitrator to overrule this grievance. It's a slam-shut case for the Ravens, the Niners and the NFL. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just hopelessly rooting for the green and silver.
I root for the green and silver. It is obviouos to me you do not know the details to the case. Care to be educated?
 
Looks like TO is changing his stance a bit about being a RavenWill not suit up

So that there is no misunderstanding, regardless of what happens with the grievance, under the present circumstances I do not see myself playing for the Ravens," Owens said. "I can assure everyone that I will continue to keep fighting for my right to play for the team of my choice even after the grievance. At the end of this process, I simply want to be able to exercise my right to play for a team of my choosing under a deal that is fair to me and my family."
 
(And, by the by: If Philly really wanted him, they wouldn't have put out such a laughable low-ball offer. All you whining Iggles fans, stop your beotching about how "oh we didn't get a chance...sniffle-sniffle." You had your chance. Suck it up and turn the page. Ozzie smoked Andy on this one. Enjoy life with James Thrash...some more.)
This quote deserves a bump :thumbup:
 
same link

The Ravens expect the matter to be cleared up by Friday and are certain Owens will play for them this season. They said they are willing to rework the deal to bring his salary in line with top receivers in the league.
 
And for the TO and Phi FO bashers, eat ####

"First and foremost, I believe that I properly voided the remaining years on my contract. However, as a possible resolution to this dispute, I agreed to try and work out a new deal with a team of my choice that would be backed up by a trade with the 49ers," Owens said. "I was promised that no trade would be made until I completed such a deal. Unfortunately, all of the teams did not adhere to this agreement and we now have an even bigger mess."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
More SF FO bushleague

The Eagles got mad because they reached a deal with Joseph around 3 p.m. Thursday, and they expected their lukewarm talks with San Francisco to accelerate into a trade. "We were 95 percent there, and you'd expect if you were that far along, we'd have heard back from San Francisco before they got a deal done with someone else," said Eagles president Joe Banner.
Link
 
I want to comment on Peter Kings assinine comment

2. If a special master who hears this gobbledy#### case lets the union somehow, some way nullify this trade and allows Owens to be either a free agent or traded to Philadelphia, then Paul Tagliabue's nice little football league has gone to hell in a handbasket.
From my understanding, the current contention by TO and party is that the NFLPA did not properly notify TO and his agent of the deadline. That the FAXed a letter when they were REQUIRED to email the information not only to TO's agent, but also TO.Peter King, you are an assinine without the nine

 
Last edited by a moderator:
First and foremost, I believe that I properly voided the remaining years on my contract.
I'm sorry but is he revising history now? This is clearly not true.Not only have I lost all respect for TO, but when he starts saying such remarkably stupid things it takes away any credibility he has. When he says he was "promised that no trade would be made until ...." I am forced to look at his previous statement(s) and say that it's either a case of him completely making it up OR he was just hearing what he wanted to hear.

 
This is getting crazy.

So many fans and media monguls alike (and King is one of them) has opened their mouth before doing their homework, further complicating an issue that needs NO help getting complicated.

Simply put:

- TO wanted to be a free agent

- TO wants to choose his team and his contract

- TO was stripped of free agency due to a missed deadline

- Was TO notified properly of the change in filing deadlines? Is a fax good enough?

- Does the New Collecting Bargaining Agreement, which gave way to the modified filing dates, hold precedent over the details of the player contract that was written and ratified prior to that Collecting Bargaining Agreement? In otherwords, did they have the authority to change the dates?

- SF FO and TO's Agent decided that to resolve the matter quickly, both SF FO and TO would look for potential suitors. They had 72 hours for this. At the same time, SF FO would keep TO informed of their findings and TO would do the same for SF FO.

- After 36 hours, TO was traded to the Ravens and both TO and his agent had no idea. Does not sound like SF FO was keeping TO in the loop. Not to mention, TO and agent were busy finalizing a contract with the Eagles.

Now the entire issue of the free agency filing is the only real technical issue that holds merit. It will go before a arbitrator/judge person and he will make the final ruling. I know my stance on this already.

The entire trade scenario is just cannon fodder - it sounds like bad ethics on SF FO's part, since they promised to do something for TO and did not. Nothing can be done about this, imo.

Those are the two issues.

They have nothing to do with how much the papers reported the Eagles offered, what Baltimor offered, that TO was getting more money from the Eagles or the "he said, she said" stuff between the three FO's. Those are all sideshow details distracting you from the true issues. They will have no bearing on how this gets resolved.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm sorry but is he revising history now? This is clearly not true.

Not only have I lost all respect for TO, but when he starts saying such remarkably stupid things it takes away any credibility he has. When he says he was "promised that no trade would be made until ...." I am forced to look at his previous statement(s) and say that it's either a case of him completely making it up OR he was just hearing what he wanted to hear.
Sorry, but this is how I see it:Donahue is saying ABC

TO is saying XYZ

Phi FO is saying XYZ

NFLPA is saying XYZ

I know who I will be listening to

 
This is getting crazy.

So many fans and media monguls alike (and King is one of them) has opened their mouth before doing their homework, further complicating an issue that needs NO help getting complicated.

Simply put:

- TO wanted to be a free agent

- TO wants to choose his team and his contract

- TO was stripped of free agency due to a missed deadline

- Was TO notified properly of the change in filing deadlines? Is a fax good enough?

- Does the New Collecting Bargaining Agreement, which gave way to the modified filing dates, hold precedent over the details of the player contract that was written and ratified prior to that Collecting Bargaining Agreement? In otherwords, did they have the authority to change the dates?

- SF FO and TO's Agent decided that to resolve the matter quickly, both SF FO and TO would look for potential suitors. They had 72 hours for this. At the same time, SF FO would keep TO informed of their findings and TO would do the same for SF FO.

- After 36 hours, TO was traded to the Ravens and both TO and his agent had no idea. Does not sound like SF FO was keeping TO in the loop. Not to mention, TO and agent were busy finalizing a contract with the Eagles.

Now the entire issue of the free agency filing is the only real technical issue that holds merit. It will go before a arbitrator/judge person and he will make the final ruling. I know my stance on this already.

The entire trade scenario is just cannon fodder - it sounds like bad ethics on SF FO's part, since they promised to do something for TO and did not. Nothing can be done about this, imo.

Those are the two issues.

They have nothing to do with how much the papers reported the Eagles offered, what Baltimor offered, that TO was getting more money from the Eagles or the "he said, she said" stuff between the three FO's. Those are all sideshow details distracting you from the true issues. They will have no bearing on how this gets resolved.
Good info here ...
 
I want to comment on Peter Kings assinine commentFrom my understanding, the current contention by TO and party is that the NFLPA did not properly notify TO and his agent of the deadline. That the FAXed a letter when they were REQUIRED to email the information not only to TO's agent, but also TO.

Peter King, you are an assinine without the nine
D-Man, oh wait, Herd, no, wait, bentrley, no, wait, MoFro, no wait - JAA - yeah that's it!Consider that Peter King and the major sportswriters, to continue to keep access to NFL teams, must hold the party line. They were all blasting Clarett, too, who was rather successful in the courts.

The courts are not as willing to make special exceptions for sports leagues and their "unions" as they were 50 years ago when Baseball was under attack as a monopoly and was given a special exception to the antitrust laws. I say "union" because often the NFLPA simply rolls over and gets its belly scratched by the league when collective bargaining takes place.

1) if the NFLPA did not follow their own, or collective bargaining agreement mandated, rules for notifying TO re: a change to his contract, he has a viable grievance.

2) It's a guarantee that TO will attack the union's ability to make a backroom deal with the league that changed the binding terms of his contract with an individual team in the league. ESPECIALLY when the team can NOT argue surprise or prejudice in TO filing on the 23rd instead of the 21st.

I do NOT like TO, and I hope he gets screwed in this whole process - best is if he becomes a huge crybaby and sits the entire year. Nothing would be finer to me than a year without TO in the league. That said, he seems to have a viable grievance, and Peter King is simply towing the NFL and NFLPA line b/c it is extremely unpopular to support the player versus the league in todays sportswriter society, and TO has made himself a difficult guy to root for as the "wronged one" in any conflict with the league.

Similar to Sapp saying that crap about he was being persecuted and made a slave by the league's discipline rules. Maybe he was treated unfairly, but that type of 'tude combined with the player's history makes it hard to root for him in the disagreement.

 
Good info here ...
Well developed OPINION on what happened, and concise statement of the facts, all of which I agree with.1) theissue is the techinical date for notice in the contract versus the CBA, whether the CBA can legally alter the contract date, and whether the union sufficiently notified the agent AND TO assuming the alteration was binding.2) the trade issue was bad ethics, but #1 resolves the entire matter. SF's "unclean hands" in the whole thing is irrelevent - if the team had a binding contract with TO because #1 goes against him, TO can suck nuts about the trade to Baltimore.
 
Ya know, I am a stickler for rules, but seriosuly everyone and their grandmother knew he was going to file the papers. It is not like he was trying to be shifty about it, or work both sides of a deal.IMO it is an open an shut case. Rule stickling aside ...
Alot of people engage in business contracts these days, but I find it odd that none seem to read or understand them.Contacts are written agreements - you have one with your cell phone company. Possibly with your ISP or television media provider.They outline SPECIFICS in a very formal and legal way. In short - If the contact specified a written requirment by a set deadline and that requirment was not meant, then there is no way a judge, panel, or the NFLPA could rule against SF.TO can cry all he wants, while rules can be altered by the league, contract law is pretty rock solid for the 'Niners in this case.
 
I want to comment on Peter Kings assinine commentFrom my understanding, the current contention by TO and party is that the NFLPA did not properly notify TO and his agent of the deadline. That the FAXed a letter when they were REQUIRED to email the information not only to TO's agent, but also TO.

Peter King, you are an assinine without the nine
Not sure of your point here. If the NFLPA messed up, then why should the teams be held responsible?Now, this may give TO the legal right to sue the NFLPA over damages since he has a case that they possibly(I am not excusing the agent here) cost him money.

 
Like him or hate him. Hes a great WR on the field, and thats what counts in Fantasy Football. As a GM of a team, sure I can see why people would pass on him, but from a fantasy perspective who cares about liking a person.

 
Alot of people engage in business contracts these days, but I find it odd that none seem to read or understand them.Contacts are written agreements - you have one with your cell phone company. Possibly with your ISP or television media provider.They outline SPECIFICS in a very formal and legal way. In short - If the contact specified a written requirment by a set deadline and that requirment was not meant, then there is no way a judge, panel, or the NFLPA could rule against SF.TO can cry all he wants, while rules can be altered by the league, contract law is pretty rock solid for the 'Niners in this case.
Its funny you mention that ...Marriages are legal contracts also. However, too many people are not interested in keeping that contract. Somehow, people are always getting out of them also. Judges left and right are letting people out of these contracts for numerous legal and illegal activity.Marriage, by law, is a binding contract. There are only a few things that are supposed to allow you to get out of them. Why is that not the case in law?What say you?
 
Not sure of your point here. If the NFLPA messed up, then why should the teams be held responsible?Now, this may give TO the legal right to sue the NFLPA over damages since he has a case that they possibly(I am not excusing the agent here) cost him money.
Smlevin has said it better than myself. The NFL and NFLPA due go hand in hand when talking about the NFL as much as people dont want to say it. If the above is the case the NFLPA screwed up and the NFL does share in the responsibility because they all work together (though the NFLPA fights for the players).The NFL should correct a potential horribly bad mistake by the NFLPA
 
contract law is pretty rock solid for the 'Niners in this case.
Well - you got half right.CONTRACT LAW is fairly clear - but, not in the 9er's favor. TO's CONTRACT with the 9ers, by its terms, favors TO's posiiton that he had until March 2 to file the paperwork (which he filed on Feb. 23 - two days after the league's changed date, but well before the contractual date). What is NOT CLEAR is collective bargaining agreement law, union law, and proper notification of contract changes under CBA and under union rules.Third parties - the league and the union - entered negotiations that altered a player's (TO's) contract with a team (the 9ers). Only the CBA would give the league and union the right to alter other people's contract. There is a very real question whether the league and the union could alter a very material term of that contract. There is also a very real question whether the union's possible failure to properly notify TO of the change means that the change does not apply to TO - this was not a league wide change, this change applied to certain players' contracts (unless I missed something when they discussed a "list" of players that TO's name was erroneously ommitted from).There are also antitrust/union issues in two third paeties contracting away a player's material rights under his contract.Finally, there are two relevant torts - tortious interference with a prospective advantage and tortious intereference with a contract.Anyone thinking this is open and shut is being deliberately ignorant to the facts and the law of the situation. This may end up going against TO, but it is HARDLY an open and shut case.
 
Alot of people engage in business contracts these days, but I find it odd that none seem to read or understand them.Contacts are written agreements - you have one with your cell phone company. Possibly with your ISP or television media provider.They outline SPECIFICS in a very formal and legal way. In short - If the contact specified a written requirment by a set deadline and that requirment was not meant, then there is no way a judge, panel, or the NFLPA could rule against SF.TO can cry all he wants, while rules can be altered by the league, contract law is pretty rock solid for the 'Niners in this case.
You almost got it.You are right - Contract law is rock solid and it will be applied to this case.However, TO has an arguement that one contract, his with SF, was written and signed prior to another contract, the Collective Bargaining Agreement, which was supposedly the basis for the allowed changing of the dates in the original contract (TO's with SF's). The question is whether that is actually true.At the same time, the law is never ahead of it's time and there always the potential that something new comes along that it does not cover. I'm not saying this scenario with TO does, but today's new technical means of communicating (eMail, Fax, etc) have thrown wrinkles into how the law is applied and how it should be applied. It used to be simplier when everything was done either face-to-face or through Regular Mail.So, in my opinion, this opens the FAX scenario. Is it simply good enough for the fax machine that sent the fax to say it was received. What if the fax machine receiving the fax ranout of ink or paper? What if the fax sat at the machine and was never actually read? Was the amendment to the original contract (which in my opinion should have also required a agreement) actually received?
 
Smlevin has said it better than myself. The NFL and NFLPA due go hand in hand when talking about the NFL as much as people dont want to say it. If the above is the case the NFLPA screwed up and the NFL does share in the responsibility because they all work together (though the NFLPA fights for the players).The NFL should correct a potential horribly bad mistake by the NFLPA
Yeah, I did say it better b/c I didn't say the above. What *I* said is that if the NFLPA f-ed up notifying TO, it is more than simply damages (though tortious conduct may be involved that creates some very hard to prove damages). In more concrete words: if the league and the union negotiated to alter a player's contract under the terms of the CBA, and the union's responsibility after that negotiation included notifying the agent/player, and the union failed in that duty, it *may be* ruled as if the union and league's negotiation is all good EXCEPT as to the players not properly notified (ie - TO).The notificiation may be considered a crucial after negotiation duty that the union was required to perform before the CBA could be used to alter an already existing contract on such a material term, (the date issue is a material term of the contract b/c it rules whether the contract continues or is nullified).Side note: anyone else notice how Dennis Northcutt aint saying anything about this situation and he also failed to get the paperwork in on time? Anyone ELSE think he had a genuine F-up and is simply waiting to see what happens with TO's ruling to determine if he can challenge that?
 
You get what you pay for. :thumbdown:

Owens' problems started when he remained loyal to the agent he chose when he was a virtually unknown receiver coming out of Tennessee-Chattanooga. David Joseph was - and is - a virtually unknown agent who even now has only four or so other NFL clients, all virtual unknowns.In Joseph, Owens had basically a 24-hour agent to scream at or order around. Whatever Joseph's commission was, wasn't enough. Yet as Owens approached stardom, he needed a big-name agent to tell him when to shut up and how to position himself for free agency.He needed a Eugene Parker, the agent who once negotiated a record signing bonus for Deion Sanders from Dallas owner Jerry Jones. On Friday, Parker landed a sweet deal for cornerback Ahmed Plummer to remain a 49er.In today's parity-packed, win-now market, with teams throwing parties of money at free agents, Parker could have created such a bidding war for Owens that some team might have gone A-Rod for him. But Joseph, with only one big client and meal ticket to look after, missed the earlier opt-out deadline for players who signed contracts before 2001. Joseph complained that the NFL hadn't officially notified him, but even Gene Upshaw, executive director of the Players Association, confirmed that Joseph had been sent the proper paperwork in plenty of time.Owens believed his agent.This brought to mind a long-ago aside from a 49ers official: "Terrell is as dumb as a chair." Owens displayed football IQ in meetings, knowing his assignments as well as other receivers'. But on the sideline, in the locker room or at the microphone, his ego often buried what little common sense he has.Wake the heck up, T.O.: Your agent was as dumb as an entire dinette set.
 
smelvin beat me! ;)
And I lost it once and had to re-type.Good thing the law isn't a "buzzed in first" type of establishment b/c you made an excellent point about e-mail/fax/ etc as notification.I think there may be a very real issue regarding the team's actual knowledge that TO was filing the paperwork and that he missed the date by only two days while making a good faith effort to comply with the terms of the contract as he and his agent knew them to be.The notice issue is HUGE - the NFLPA aint admitting a screw up, but if they failed to notify by e-mail, as they had a habit of doing, and they can not prove the agent had notice (I mean seriously - e-mail as a regaular policy?? You are GENE f-in UPSHAW - spend the 6 bucks/player that you need to notify and have a copy of the e-mail sent "signature required and delivery confirmed" to the agent's office!), TO could be out of that contract.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top