Merriman will not participate in mini-camp (1 Viewer)

[reg]

The San Diego Chargers used the 12th pick in the first round to draft pass-rushing linebacker Shawne Merriman to help their defense, but the team feels as though it was blindsided by his first NFL act. Merriman notified the Chargers he will not participate in the team's mini-camp and offseason program because of "language problems" in an insurance policy in case the Maryland linebacker is injured before reaching a contract agreement. This news came to the Chargers Thursday when they learned Merriman fired his agent, Gary Wichard, and hired Kevin and Carl Poston. Chargers general manager A.J. Smith expressed disappointment Thursday in Merriman's stance. The team's offseason training program for rookies goes from May 6 through July 1 and Smith won't change the language of the protection policy. "We're disappointed he isn't going to be here," Smith said. "Kevin Poston is uncomfortable with the language [which] is standard with what all players receive in the NFL. We haven't had a problem with our other draft choices in past drafts." Draft choices sign an injury protection agreement just in case they suffer a serious injury during a mini-camp. Most of those contracts are standard throughout the league. Merriman is the only draft choice to take this position this spring. Last week, 26 mini-camps didn't have any draft choices out because of an insurance issue. "In 16 years, we've never had a client hold out of a mini-camp," Poston told The Associated Press on Thursday night. "Unfortunately, the language of the mini-camp agreement is not standard across the league. Players have held out of mini-camp due to the way the mini-camp agreement was written. In fact, we only requested the Chargers use the exact same language as another team and they declined. Shawne Merriman is the No. 12 pick and he should be afforded the same level of injury protection as other NFL rookies." Smith said the Chargers have had only two players injured before they were under contract, and reached fair settlements with them."We do have a history of taking care of players," Smith said. "Everybody else has always signed and gone out on the field."The Chargers projected Merriman as a starter opposite outside linebacker Steve Foley to help punch up their lethargic pass rush.Smith said he anticipates opening contract negotiations with Merriman in early July. "Hopefully things will work out there and he'll join us the first day of training camp," Smith said.

 

[Rovers]

I read some stuff that says the language in the Charger's contract regarding injuries to as of yet unsigned players is not.... real reassuring. They way they compensate a given player for an early injury is very suspect. Basically, it talks about, and ties into the compensation that similar draft picks (like #14) form the previous year's draft got compensated. in his case, the comp money would be peanuts, as I read this report. Early on, I ripped Merriman a new one, but after reading more reports, I've backed off on that.

 

[redman]

When did the Postons start reading contracts?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I read some stuff that says the language in the Charger's contract regarding injuries to as of yet unsigned players is not.... real reassuring. They way they compensate a given player for an early injury is very suspect. Basically, it talks about, and ties into the compensation that similar draft picks (like #14) form the previous year's draft got compensated. in his case, the comp money would be peanuts, as I read this report. Early on, I ripped Merriman a new one, but after reading more reports, I've backed off on that.

According to this article, the language the Chargers provided was: "In the event of injury during this period of time, Player will be determined to have been injured while under Contract, at terms comparable to others selected near your position in the 2005 Draft."The language another team uses is: "The (team) agrees that if Player sustains a Significant Injury during the Unsigned Period, which injury occurs during and results from his participation in the supervised workouts, both parties agree to negotiate in good faith an NFL Player Contract on the same basis as if no such injury had occurred."

If the Postons just want to use the language in the second example instead of the first (with specific references to "in good faith" and "as if no such injury had occurred" then I think it's the Chargers, not the Postons, who are being unreasonable. The language in the second example is perfectly fine, and should better reflect the intent of the parties than the Chargers' version does.

 

[redman]

I read some stuff that says the language in the Charger's contract regarding injuries to as of yet unsigned players is not.... real reassuring. They way they compensate a given player for an early injury is very suspect. Basically, it talks about, and ties into the compensation that similar draft picks (like #14) form the previous year's draft got compensated. in his case, the comp money would be peanuts, as I read this report. Early on, I ripped Merriman a new one, but after reading more reports, I've backed off on that.

According to this article, the language the Chargers provided was: "In the event of injury during this period of time, Player will be determined to have been injured while under Contract, at terms comparable to others selected near your position in the 2005 Draft."The language another team uses is: "The (team) agrees that if Player sustains a Significant Injury during the Unsigned Period, which injury occurs during and results from his participation in the supervised workouts, both parties agree to negotiate in good faith an NFL Player Contract on the same basis as if no such injury had occurred."

If the Postons just want to use the language in the second example instead of the first (with specific references to "in good faith" and "as if no such injury had occurred" then I think it's the Chargers, not the Postons, who are being unreasonable. The language in the second example is perfectly fine, and should better reflect the intent of the parties than the Chargers' version does.

What's funny is that the Chargers' language actually seems to give Merriman one potentially huge advantage: it doesn't specify that the injury must "result from" the supervised workouts. In addition, the "good faith" language in the 2nd example is far more ambiguous than the Chargers' language which mandates more concrete contract terms. Under the second scenario, a team could undermine the negotiations while still appearing like they're trying to get a contract done.

Now, as an attorney I do think it's fair to ask the team why they're using different language from the rest of the league . . .

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Now, as an attorney I do think it's fair to ask the team why they're using different language from the rest of the league . . .

I think every team's language is a bit different.

 

[redman]

Now, as an attorney I do think it's fair to ask the team why they're using different language from the rest of the league . . .

I think every team's language is a bit different.

From the reports I've heard/read, my impression was that there was more or less standard language that most (if not all) other teams used that differed from the Chargers' language. Admittedly, I've not researched it or anything, but that was my impression.

 

[Rovers]

The info I got was from pro football talk. Famous Poston bashers, and they did so when Merriman held himself out of camp, but softened later on, referencing the Chargers' contract language. Those articles are I think, to old to link to, so I'm going on memory. It was thier opinion I was referencing, as I frankly have no freakin clue as to how al this stuff works. Hows that fer an honest answer?