Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Players union wants Eagles to cut Owens (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter FrostBite
- Start date
The Commish
Footballguy
So, what you're saying is...he can either be suspended four games OR be deactivated?? A player can get in trouble four times and suspended four games, but after that has to stay active even if he starts screwing up again? This really makes no sense. There is a difference between suspension and deactivation and the Eagles are choosing to do BOTH. So unless it says in the CBA that you can't do both, he's done. AT BEST he'll still be left on the team and told to come in at 5AM every day and be gone by 8AM, never to see the team and I HIGHLY DOUBT that will happen.
suchislife
Footballguy
Actually you're wrong. He was suspended because he *did not* apologize to McNabb. Remeber last week he only apologized to the Eagles organization. It was his omission of McNabb specifically that got him suspended.
at all the lawyers on this board. You can read the NFLPA President's (Troy Vincent) take on the situation at espn.com." "You have to [defend a union member]," Vincent said Wednesday. "That's his right and that's our fiduciary responsibility to protect him, any member of our association."
Not exactly a ringing endorsement, imo. And if you read further, the NFLPA is not and can not demand that Owens plays. They are only suggesting to the Eagles that he is allowed to participate. Also to quote the Union, "We can't force them to play him".
Sorry to all of you who drafted him in the 2nd or 3rd round. It sucks. You can't will him to play. Carry on.
The Commish
Footballguy
Understood, and usually when a union doesn't like something or sees a major flaw, they strike. Is that going to happen?? I doubt it. They are bound by the agreement as it is written. Is there grievance that the Eagles found a loophole? I wouldn't call it a loophole, but it is probably something the union didn't intend on when CBA was written. It will be fixed when the next CBA is established, until then, I don't know what they could do...other than strike....
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
I am advocating that they practice him on the scout team and play him on special teams as a gunner and wedge buster or a wedge guy. Let him prove what a team guy he is, if he can stomach the duty that other players routinely perform. If he gets injured too bad, if he dogs it sit him back down. Fun for everyone.
Gargoylez
Footballguy
FACT. The Eagles can de-activate any player at any time for any game. PERIOD.The Eagles can De-activate Owens, at any time for any game. There is absolutely no rule that says they can not.With that being said, Owens will get suspended for 4 games, then be de-activated for the remaining 4. Its simple. Period... no IFS... or ANDS... It is what it is, per NFL and NFLPA regulations.
packersfan
Footballguy
As long as they're paying him I don't see what the problem is. It's their team and they can decide how they want to run it and who they want to be there. As long as they're paying Owens the salary they are obligated to pay him I don't see how the NFLPA has a case here. They can't force a team to have someone around they don't want around.
The Commish
Footballguy
Apparenlty there is also a question of whether or not a player can be suspended AND deactivated in a season. I don't see why there wouldn't be.
Muahahaha
Footballguy
Right, but by then barring the player from all team activities, you are de facto suspending him. A suspension of longer than four weeks is not allowed under the CBA.In summary:
Suspend TO (4 weeks) + De-Activating TO (5 weeks) = De-facto Suspension (9 weeks)
This is not allowed under the current CBA.
You may not have a problem with it. To be honest, I don't either. But it violates the current labor agreement. That is Upshaw's problem with it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Wrong. Deactivating him after he serves his 4 game suspension is not a suspension....he's getting paid..he's just deactivated..the same thing that happens to numerous other nfl players every sunday.Edit to say: the only issue whatsoever is that the union wants to force the eagles to let him practice and train...i dont know what Owens gets out of that...but Clayton has already mentioned on ESPN that the eagles would just bring owens in separately at 5 am and have him gone by the time the team shows up if the union gets his way..honestly...the Union has no case at all is just going through the motions of a token defense because it needs to appear to be defending its own.
Last edited by a moderator:
packersfan
Footballguy
I also don't believe the CBA has a provision which forces a team to release a player it does not wish to release and is paying the salary he is obligated to receive.
1) Name one other NFL player that has the same situation as TO2) Because you define it as a suspension does not make it so. The Eagles have already announced they are deactivating him. The players union has already stated you can deactivate a player for any reason. I assume that includes being a jackass.
From the NFLPA's perspective, the CBA permits up to a four-game suspension. By telling TO to sit on his butt, paid or not, they are effectively suspending him for the remainder of the season, just with pay. The effect is the same as a paid suspension. I don't know this for fact, but I'm assuming suspensions, paid or not, are not allowed beyond the initial four-week period. I think the NFLPA has a point.So why does TO care, as long as he's getting paid? A couple thoughts:
- He wants to play for the simple enjoyment of it. Feh.
- He wants to play to maintain his value for future contracts with other teams. Plausible, good argument in an arbitration, the most likely argument to be made publicly.
- He wants to force the Eagles to cut him, so he can play somewhere else this year. Another very plausible thought, but is there a team out there, in the hunt, that TO would play for, with the ability bring him in without pissing off another hot WR, with the cap space to do this? I don't know for sure, but I'd doubt it.
- He wants to screw with the Eagles even more by forcing their hand. Most likely scenario, given his track record. This is about revenge right now. Rosenhaus will never admit it, but I think this is what's going on. TO's perfectly happy to sit out the rest of the year drawing a paycheck and be a hot free agent again in the offseason, but he and Drew always are up for a good pissing contest.
Muahahaha
Footballguy
They aren't forcing the Eagles to release him. The Eagles have the option of allowing him back to team facilities and practices after the four weeks, then deactivating him at their discretion for each game.They can de-activate him all they want. They just can't bar him from team facilities and activities.
Last edited by a moderator:
An arbitrator may well see it as so though. I don't know all the ins and outs of the CBA, but it probably addresses the variety of ways a team can discipline a player. I doubt that it includes deactivating the player.It's a plausible argument to make that the Eagles are deactivating TO as a punishment rather than as performance-based, and that the CBA does not permit deactivation as a punishment. It probably depends upon how the CBA is written and a bunch of other legal crapola, but I think there's a strong case to be made here. I think it's a shame, because TO deserves to be suspended, without pay, for the rest of the year. But I think he's got a 50/50 chance of winning this and forcing the Eagles' hand.
roadkill1292
Footballguy
Regardless of the effect, it does not change the fact that TO will be getting paid under the terms of his contract, which is all the team is required to do. Allowing him to skip all duties while the contract is in effect is completely at the team's discretion.
I'm not sure how you know that. If you're familiar with the terms of the CBA, than I'll defer to your knowledge. Otherwise we're all speculating. I'm leaving open the possibilities that:- the Eagles are obligated to abide by the CBA, in addition to sending him a paycheck, as part of TO's contract
- the CBA dictates the manner in which players may be disciplined
- what the Eagles have chosen to do can be defined as discipline
- and the discipline chosen is not one of the permissible methods of discipline according to the CBA.
The only part of the above that I think is a stretch is the last one. It's not out of the question, and I think it's a legitimate argument to make. If I were the NFLPA, I'd want to fight this too. Not for TO, but for future, less aggregious cases. If I'm the NFLPA, I want to set a precedent that the only disciplinary measures the NFL or it's teams can take are the ones laid out in the CBA. Regardless, I think the issue will be directly addressed in the next CBA.
Last edited by a moderator:
Groundpounder
Footballguy
I don't see where the union could stop Philly from simply putting him on the practice squad when he gets off suspension and then suspend him again when he throws a fit (which he will). The catching point here is the eagles are saying he won't be involved in any team functions for the rest of the year. I see the NFLPA's point there but it doesn't make much sense for them to use that argument as Philly's retaliation will almost certainly be to let him get reps in with the undrafted free agents and be a freaking long snapper or something.
supa mann
Footballguy
I listened to Dan Reeves on Sirius this morning and he gave a good explanation about the one instance that his team had when he was with the Falcons. He said that they had to decide to deactivate a player (I can't recall but think he said it was Williams, would have to look it up) based on repeated disagreements with the coaching staff. He said his team was forced to allow the player to attend practice and other team events and that in this case, the player was a perfect model and practiced hard, knowing he would never see the field. The player was trying to position himself for the following year and obviously didn't have the name or recognition of a TO. He didn't believe this would work with TO, due to TO's attitude and the higher profile distraction he brings. I believe that if the league forced the Eagles to allow TO to practice and remain a part of the team, paying him but not allowing him to play, the Eagles would then cut him and be done with the distraction. I think that if they can make him sit at home, away from the team, they would do that to punish him and keep another team from benefitting this season. If the distraction is too great, I don't see them hanging onto him to spite him. As for another team signing TO, I don't think he would be on the market for more than a week. TO can be a good boy for half the season. He was pretty much a good boy all year last season. A team could easily sign him with a Bobby Knight clause and then negotiate a long term deal if he holds up his end. In that case, I think Drew would push him to sign for less than he would have originally, knowing he isn't getting paid unless he does so.
Men-in-Cleats
Footballguy
TO has made his bed and now he has to lie in it, no matter how talented he is. Last year he specifically asked to play for Philly and accepted a lesser contract than he could have gotten from somewhere else in order for him to get a championship ring. He didn't get one and decided a year later to try to extort his team for more money despite the fact that he made concessions previously to be there. You follow this up by attempting to divide the lockerroom and badmouthing the organization that signs his paychecks, thusly biting the hand that feeds him. All this talk of the Eagles cutting him is completely and utterly moronic. They are paying him for this year and giving him the entire signing bonus whethere he is cut or not so there is absolutely no incentive to cut him and lots of incentive not to. You can say that it is unfair for a team to prevent him from continuing his career and that they should just drop him. Players attempt to sign as large of signing bonuses as they possibly can to make it so that they have maximized their guarunteed money and made it as difficult as possible for a team to cut them. If you want to make it difficult for a team to cut you without paying a price for it then you don't have a right to complain if a team doesn't cut you when you want them to. You can't have it both ways. How is this the ownership having all of the power? If the owners didn't have to pay him fully and accelerate the payment of his signing bonus then they would probably be more likely to cut him. The players can't just decide they want contracts that guarantee them a bunch of money and make them un-cuttable and then whine when they can't get cut. There are checks and balances here that keep the power balance far closer to even than in any other employment option in the world. 99% of people would be in the unemployment line if they tried to pull what he's pulled with that organization. You can argue all you like that the owners have all of the money and power and they make it because of the star power of people like Owens but you are overlooking a few things. Owens is lucky that there is an organization like the NFL where his talents can and have made him a very, very lucky man and the men that own those franchises were already extremely wealthy people that didn't need him to make a buck. He is lucky that these guys were fans of the sport and wanted to own a franchise and employ guys like him. Not to say that all these guys are saints, just that this whole "owners have all the power" routine is quite old. Most of us have less power with our employers than any of these guys do. I could be let go tomorrow for no particular reason and I'm going to feel sorry for Owens because he's a victim of the Eagle's organization? 
Men-in-Cleats
Footballguy
They can't put him on the practice squad. You drop someone and then sign them to the practice squad and other people have the right to sign any player off of another team's practice squad.
Franknbeans
Footballguy
All right I'm late to the thread so forgive me but didn't Keyshawn go though the exact same scenario? If not, what was the difference?
belyeapower
Footballguy
think that means alot of suspended professional athletes.acting like amoron while annoying is not a punishable offense.
Fla\/\/ed
Footballguy
TO has made his bed and now he has to lie in it, no matter how talented he is. Last year he specifically asked to play for Philly and accepted a lesser contract than he could have gotten from somewhere else in order for him to get a championship ring. He didn't get one and decided a year later to try to extort his team for more money despite the fact that he made concessions previously to be there. You follow this up by attempting to divide the lockerroom and badmouthing the organization that signs his paychecks, thusly biting the hand that feeds him.
All this talk of the Eagles cutting him is completely and utterly moronic. They are paying him for this year and giving him the entire signing bonus whethere he is cut or not so there is absolutely no incentive to cut him and lots of incentive not to. You can say that it is unfair for a team to prevent him from continuing his career and that they should just drop him. Players attempt to sign as large of signing bonuses as they possibly can to make it so that they have maximized their guarunteed money and made it as difficult as possible for a team to cut them. If you want to make it difficult for a team to cut you without paying a price for it then you don't have a right to complain if a team doesn't cut you when you want them to. You can't have it both ways. How is this the ownership having all of the power? If the owners didn't have to pay him fully and accelerate the payment of his signing bonus then they would probably be more likely to cut him. The players can't just decide they want contracts that guarantee them a bunch of money and make them un-cuttable and then whine when they can't get cut. There are checks and balances here that keep the power balance far closer to even than in any other employment option in the world. 99% of people would be in the unemployment line if they tried to pull what he's pulled with that organization. You can argue all you like that the owners have all of the money and power and they make it because of the star power of people like Owens but you are overlooking a few things. Owens is lucky that there is an organization like the NFL where his talents can and have made him a very, very lucky man and the men that own those franchises were already extremely wealthy people that didn't need him to make a buck. He is lucky that these guys were fans of the sport and wanted to own a franchise and employ guys like him. Not to say that all these guys are saints, just that this whole "owners have all the power" routine is quite old. Most of us have less power with our employers than any of these guys do. I could be let go tomorrow for no particular reason and I'm going to feel sorry for Owens because he's a victim of the Eagle's organization?
The Commish
Footballguy
The answer is on page one, but NO...it's not the same since Keyshwan never filed a grievence with the NFLPA.
The Commish
Footballguy
Why don't they just put him on IR claiming he's mentally ill?? Wouldn't be a huge stretch! 
Ridgelake
Footballguy
The NFLPA is filing a greivance for 2 reasons. First, they want to try to to keep the combination of suspension (unpaid) followed by deactivation (effectively paid suspension) away from being an acceptable form of punishment. Second, the $800K that TO loses in the suspension is enough money to fight over.Now looking at the first goal, I have a hard time seeing how the union can dictate why a team deactivates a player. Now perhaps there is language in the labor agreement that says the eagles cant keep TO away from the facilties, etc. Don't know. But the bottom line is that I seriously doubt the union will be effective dictating a team's inactive strategy.The second goal, the $800K, yeah, I can see them trying to get that reduced. And I could see the eagles giving in here to make the union shut up and keep face for losing on the first point. So don't be surprised to see the suspention reduced.As for forcing the eagles to cut him. Thats real hard to see how union could pull that one off. The eagles have lived up to their end of the contract. They have paid TO and will continue to pay him. The eagles are obligated to pay him the remainder of this year anyway. So why give another team the benefit of his services? Even more imporatant in my mind, why set the precedent of allowing someone freedom for being a jackass? No way that happens.So my take is that the union will get the suspension reduced. But TO is sitting the rest of the year. He will get cut before his roster bonus in March. Then he will be free to sign with anyone.
Norman Einstein
Footballguy
Is that TO's gripe...he wants to use the teams facilities??
I think that's the union's angle for fighting the issue. It's the only thing they really have to stand on. They're saying that if he's on the team, he should have access to the facilities. I suspect the CBA, in a roundabout way, supports this.The reality is that the NFLPA has their agenda, which is to keep teams from using what is in effect a paid suspension as a disciplinary tool. TO has his agenda, which is to play football with somebody other than the Eagles. What he really wants is to be cut. He wants to win the grievance, not for the money or access to the facilities, but to make the Eagles cut him so he can move on.
The guy's an idiot, royal PITA, and a miserable teammate, but if there's a way the Eagles can cut him without incurring a financial penalty they should. If he's such a curse to the team, and they're better off with him not playing, then they should be happy to see him on some other team. To prolong this situation makes them look petty and controlling, and it can't be helping the lockerroom situation.
Sure, it'd be perceived by some as caving to this idiot, but the Eagles can't win at this point. The longer TO's in the news, the longer he's filing grievances, the more airtime he gets, the worse things are for the Eagles. They will not be able to stop talking about this until TO is off the team.
Mike Noyes
Footballguy
I'm at work bored silly right now, so this is actually interesting for me!If the NFLPA has a decent lawyer, I think they win this one easily. Article VIII, Section I outlines "Maximum Discipline." There's a paragraph for conduct detrimental to the team. That paragraph is where the four-game maximum suspension is mentioned.
If I'm the NFLPA's lawyer, it's easy to make the argument that the banishment of TO from team facilities is discipline that exceeds the "maximum discipline" in the CBA.
First, it's absolutely discipline. There has been no effort to evaluate the effectiveness of the suspension on TO's behavior. It was decided upon and announced simultaneous to the decision to impose the suspension. There's no way any reasonable person could call this anything other than punishment. Sure you can make a twisted argument that he's proven to be such a distraction, etc., etc., but even players suspended for steroid abuse get a chance to prove themselves capable after four weeks.
Second, it exceeds the maximum. Simply by being discipline it meets this definition. He's already had a four-game suspension. Anything additional that qualifies as discipline exceeds the maximum outlined in the CBA.
Bottom Line: TO will be playing again this season. Get him while you can. Shark move.
Ozymandias
Footballguy
No way does he play. If the Eagles are told they cannot deactivate him, then they will simply say he has a mental problem and put him on Injured Reserve.Of course, then the psychiatrists get into the act. After evaluation by numerous psychiatrists, then they show that Owens is sane. However, once a player is put on injured reserve, he cannot be taken off it.
Gargoylez
Footballguy
I beleive the Eagles will just let him do what he wants (come and go to the gym/lockerroom) and de-activate him each individual game if need be. The NFLPA will have a hard time proving this is "punishment" because you can probably pinpoint 100 cases then, if a player plays poorly or has it out with a coach behind closed doors, and he is de-activated, that can be interpretated as a "punishment."If push comes to shove, just dress Owens and sit him on the bench which would be a real swift kick in the pants for Owens.
Or you could look at the specific clause in that section which states:"Conduct detrimental to Club—maximum fine of an amount equal to one week’s salary and/or suspension without pay for a period not to exceed four (4) weeks."
Notice it refers to maximum fines and suspension without pay. The Eagles are not exceeding either provision.
You could further argue that the entire section is written around maximum finacial penalties. Not one clause in the section deals with anything other than the fines or suspensions without pay a club can issue. It does not say anywhere that a player may not be deactivated and paid per the contractual agreement the club has with the player.
From what I understand, I think the NFLPA will win on the suspension issue as the CBA alludes to only being allowed to penalize a player once for a particular offense. Since the Eagles only said he was suspended for the Redskins game in thier notice, they may not be able to just tack on the extra 3 games. Hence he may get 3 more paychecks.
As far as TO playing, he is still under contract with the Eagles. If they choose to make him inactive, that is their choice. If they feel it is in the best interest of thier club for whatever reason, the NFLPA really has no leg to stand on, unless it is specifically addressed somewhere in the CBA that I overlooked. I tend to think the general ruling would be in favor of letting a organization run thier team in a manner they best see fit as long as it is within the guidlines of the agreement.
Who knows, no matter what any of us think, the decission could go either way. Arbitrators/mediators are not always right in their decissions either. It appears to be a grey area in the agreement.
I think your idea of the NFLPA agenda is absolutely correct. However I don't think the use of facilities is thier stand. The one thing that is a actually laid out in the CBA are "benefits" to be received by Active and Inactive players. Facilities are not necessarily on the list.I think they are challenging the "good faith" terminology which comes up in the CBA in various areas. There is a contract and both parties are expected to perform and honor it "in good faith". TO was bad, did not act in good faith and can be punished up to 4 weeks according the CBA. I don't think the TO camp is objecting too much here. However I think the NFLPA is trying to turn the tables so to speak.
That the Eagles are now violating the terms of the CBA by not acting on "good faith" since they plan on unnecissarily deactivating arguably their best player after suspension. As other posters have mentioned, yes the Eagles have the right to place any player on their inactive list whenever they want. It goes both ways though.
Players may file a non-injury grievance whenver they want as well. They may present facts, circumstances and testimony to an independent Arbitrator who can (Article IX, Section 8, (b) "grant .....an order or reinstatement.....a stay of suspension.....a cease and decist order...." should the Arbitrator feel a player is being treated unfairly. The arbitrator may grant monetary awards as well.
I'm not necessarily taking TO's side, I think he's a jerk. But I do think the NFLPA would have a very strong argument against the eagles should they not allow him to play after his suspension.
CalBear
Footballguy
I think this is 100% wrong. Deactivating TO is totally within the rights of the team, for any reason they like. There is no way any arbitrator is going to claim that the Eagles have to play TO because otherwise they would be punishing him. The idea is ridiculous; the team has enormous latitude to decide on who should play for them.The most TO could possibly get is access to the practice facilities, so he could whine about how his groin hurts and he doesn't want to practice.
FACT: The Eagles can deactivate Owens, but the team must let him participate with the team like any other player or else it will be considered an excessive suspension. The Ealgles do not want TO even around so the only option will be to cut him after his 4 game suspension.
We are really talking about 2 contracts here, one between the Eagles and Owens and one between the Eagles and the players union.
Eagles have already screwed up by saying they are going to deactivate Owens which is a punishment, violation of Union Contract.
The 4 game suspension, may or not hold up considering the Union can say the punishment is too harsh conisdering what other players across the league have recieved for similar offenses.
It will be very interesting to see what the arbitrator rules on this. I have a feeling the only way the Eagles are going to be done with the Owens sideshow this year is to cut him.
We are really talking about 2 contracts here, one between the Eagles and Owens and one between the Eagles and the players union.
Eagles have already screwed up by saying they are going to deactivate Owens which is a punishment, violation of Union Contract.
The 4 game suspension, may or not hold up considering the Union can say the punishment is too harsh conisdering what other players across the league have recieved for similar offenses.
It will be very interesting to see what the arbitrator rules on this. I have a feeling the only way the Eagles are going to be done with the Owens sideshow this year is to cut him.
In regards to comparing this to KJ. I remember a story that went around that went something like this. To sum it all up. There was more to it than KJ and the Bucs not getting along. The whole thing was a cover up b/ his wife was cheating on him, and KJ threatened the other guy with his life. Because of this, KJ was told by Bucs to take the rest of the year off.Does anybody remeber this or heard of this story?
The Gator
Footballguy
I heard an interview on SIRIUS NFL that had Troy Vincent on. He is the head of the NFPLA from the players side. He said the goal is to get the suspension reduced and to get two more paychecks for TO. He specificly(sp) mentioned that after the suspension it would be a "Keyshawn like event". What i got from this is that the NFLPA is saying that a four game suspension was to harsh for a first time offense. There main point is to reduce the suspension to one or two games, collect one or two more paychecks for TO and then the team can do what they want. At no point during the interview did say anything about TO being released.
