Players union wants Eagles to cut Owens (1 Viewer)

[gman8343]

The CBA is a contract between the Union and the teams.

That contract states that the maximum punishment is 4 games.

The eagles' public statements state that TO's punishment exceeds 4 games.  Even if he's getting paid, he's still being punished.

The CBA has specific guidelines for dealing with players caught toking fattys

TIA

I've corrected you once already. Deactivation is absolutely not punishment as far as the CBA is concerned. In fact, the CBA rules state 8 players MUST be deactivated each week. Are you suggesting the CBA is saying 8 players must be PUNISHED each week? It is not punishment under the CBA to deactivate or it would not be a weekly requirement to do it.

I think they're going to try and prove that in essence, the Eagles organization is using deactivation as a punishment in this instance. I think they have a reasonable case that this is true. The Eagles blatantly said as much during Reid's press conference, and it could come back to haunt them.If they deactivate TO then TO may still be able to train with the team, work out with the team etc., just like any other player would be able to Obviously the Eagles would like to avoid this at all costs.

Also, if there are ANY incentives in TO's contract that he won't be able to reach because of his deactivation, then that may play into it also. (even not being able to go to the Pro Bowl could be used).

It's okay to disagree. I have no idea how this will play out. Personally, I feel the Eagles will be allowed to deactivate him but will have to allow him access to practice ect., which could create some problems.

 

[raceguy]

Please don't patronize me. I'm just seeing a lot of speculators suggesting CBA rules that do not even exist and then drawing mysterious conclusions which simply are not supported by the CBA. ESPN wants this to be a controversial story... it's not good sensationalism to acknowledge it's a slam dunk. Everyone is a speculator but few know what the document says or discuss what should result from an actual reading of the CBA. If you read my other posts, you'd see I linked to a very succinct legal analysis of the issues, citing specific provisions in the CBA. In my mind, having seen a number of judges bend the words of a law/regulation to support a ruling they want to make, if either side should be worried about the arbitrator taking liberties reading the CBA to conclude in a "fair" way, it's the players association. TO is not a sympathetic figure, and no one is going to want to bend the words of the CBA to help this guy out.

Hey Big Jim,I agree that TO is not a sympathetic figure, he's a jackhole. I also feel that many would not hold alot of sympathy towards Eagles ownership as well. Those poor guys, if only they'd known TO was a problem child. (sarcasm)

The only problem I see in your logic, as well as the logic used in other posts, is the exclusive use of the CBA and rules or lack of them. The CBA is not the only factor which can/will be used to make a judgement on. There are NFL By-laws and the NFL Constitution at hand as well. The CBA encompasses only Player-Owner relations and proceedures. To simply say that if a rule is not in the CBA than it does not exist or cannot be interpreted is absolutley not correct.

For example you cite that the CBA has no specific reference or rule to the timing or proceedure of which a team deactivates players, including whether or not a team can do it on a game by game basis or simply all at once ahead of time. Therfore TO and the NFLPA have little basis on certain arguments.

Do the by-laws have any of these rules? Not sure but I would assume so. I know the NFL requires teams to produce a injury report, but it's not stated in the CBA.

Only when the CBA conflicts with the NFL Constitution and By-laws will CBA Rules be upheld. Unfortunately I can't find the by-laws or constitution, I have no idea of whether or not they are even public.

Anybody got a copy laying around?

edited to add that just joking, I really don't want a copy of NFL bylaws.

 

[Kovax]

ABC News

But Upshaw said that even if the suspension is upheld, the Eagles can't just tell Owens to stay away from the team and its practice facility.

"We are taking the position that's additional punishment," Upshaw told The Associated Press. "It's not fair to a player not to have an additional chance."

Upshaw differentiated between the Eagles' suspension of Owens and Tampa Bay's decision two years ago to make Keyshawn Johnson inactive for the final six games of the season. Johnson signed in 2004 with Dallas, for whom he now plays.

"There was no suspension there. A team has the right to inactivate a player for whatever reason it wants," he said. "But in T.O.'s case, this is a team suspension, not a commissioner's deal. They're different. When we bargained in those rules, there was a reason for it. The most a player can be suspended is four games. You can't go beyond that."

A key difference between the Owens and Johnson situations is that Johnson didn't ask the union to file a grievance, instead accepting his punishment — being excused from work with pay.

If the arbitrator does agree with Upshaw, I would be interested to see what the Eagles, specifically Reid, do. IF the Eagles took him back, and the team DID decide to give another chance, what is to say that the whole reason they played it this way was a last ditch move to show TO that they meant business. Everyone (media, players, etc) might be happy, thinking that they had done everything but cut him. And that would be next if he misbehaved again. I know, pretty far fetched.

 

[Christo]

I still don't see how deactivation constitutes punishment -- when the player continues to receive his full paycheck.

The logical outcome is to reduce the suspension to include last week's game. But if arbitrators have the kind of discretion that they appear to have, then I will grant that anything can happen, including TO playing again this year.

How can this be so? 

because deactivation is a punishment, if you can get your head around that than you'll get it.you ever heard of being suspended w/ pay, its like that.

by the by i called this a couple days ago here

So the 8 players on each team that are not active for each game are being punished?

I think the arbitrator will be able to differentiate between a premier WR and someone fighting for a roster spot.

So you're saying the CBA doesn't apply equally to all union members?

 

[Christo]

Tell the players union to pony up and buy the franchise. Otherwise keep their traps shut.

 

[gman8343]

I still don't see how deactivation constitutes punishment -- when the player continues to receive his full paycheck.

The logical outcome is to reduce the suspension to include last week's game. But if arbitrators have the kind of discretion that they appear to have, then I will grant that anything can happen, including TO playing again this year.

How can this be so? 

because deactivation is a punishment, if you can get your head around that than you'll get it.you ever heard of being suspended w/ pay, its like that.

by the by i called this a couple days ago here

So the 8 players on each team that are not active for each game are being punished?

I think the arbitrator will be able to differentiate between a premier WR and someone fighting for a roster spot.

So you're saying the CBA doesn't apply equally to all union members?

I'm saying this is a case by case basis. Any player could file a grievence, but they'd probably lose. This case is different - the Eagles said on national television they were deactivating him following his suspension as a direct result of his actions.

 

[Irish]

The CBA is a contract between the Union and the teams.

That contract states that the maximum punishment is 4 games.

The eagles' public statements state that TO's punishment exceeds 4 games. Even if he's getting paid, he's still being punished.

The CBA has specific guidelines for dealing with players caught toking fattys

TIA

I've corrected you once already. Deactivation is absolutely not punishment as far as the CBA is concerned. In fact, the CBA rules state 8 players MUST be deactivated each week. Are you suggesting the CBA is saying 8 players must be PUNISHED each week? It is not punishment under the CBA to deactivate or it would not be a weekly requirement to do it.

You just don't get it or you don't believe it because it goes against everything that you have posted. Go on with your make believe world while the rest of us live in reality.

 

[Bri]

did I miss the "why was hugh douglas even in the training facility" post?

 

[Christo]

All of you who think that the Union is going to do any more than get his suspension reduced are truly living in fantasyland.

 

[Irish]

The CBA is a contract between the Union and the teams.

That contract states that the maximum punishment is 4 games.

The eagles' public statements state that TO's punishment exceeds 4 games. Even if he's getting paid, he's still being punished.

The CBA has specific guidelines for dealing with players caught toking fattys

TIA

I've corrected you once already. Deactivation is absolutely not punishment as far as the CBA is concerned. In fact, the CBA rules state 8 players MUST be deactivated each week. Are you suggesting the CBA is saying 8 players must be PUNISHED each week? It is not punishment under the CBA to deactivate or it would not be a weekly requirement to do it.

I think they're going to try and prove that in essence, the Eagles organization is using deactivation as a punishment in this instance. I think they have a reasonable case that this is true. The Eagles blatantly said as much during Reid's press conference, and it could come back to haunt them.If they deactivate TO then TO may still be able to train with the team, work out with the team etc., just like any other player would be able to Obviously the Eagles would like to avoid this at all costs.

Also, if there are ANY incentives in TO's contract that he won't be able to reach because of his deactivation, then that may play into it also. (even not being able to go to the Pro Bowl could be used).

It's okay to disagree. I have no idea how this will play out. Personally, I feel the Eagles will be allowed to deactivate him but will have to allow him access to practice ect., which could create some problems.

 

[gman8343]

All of you who think that the Union is going to do any more than get his suspension reduced are truly living in fantasyland.

You may be right, but some pretty knowledgable people are saying there is a distinct possiblity TO plays again this year. Chris Mortenson is, in all likelyhood, more plugged into the situation than a guy named Christo on a fantasy football message board, and Mort thinks it could happen. So does Dan Patrick. So does Colin Cowherd. Will it? Who knows, probably not.

I think we're in a bit of uncharted territory here, and to label the situation as having only one possible outcome seems a bit naive to me.

 

[greenroom]

The CBA is a contract between the Union and the teams.

That contract states that the maximum punishment is 4 games.

The eagles' public statements state that TO's punishment exceeds 4 games.  Even if he's getting paid, he's still being punished.

The CBA has specific guidelines for dealing with players caught toking fattys

TIA

I've corrected you once already. Deactivation is absolutely not punishment as far as the CBA is concerned. In fact, the CBA rules state 8 players MUST be deactivated each week. Are you suggesting the CBA is saying 8 players must be PUNISHED each week? It is not punishment under the CBA to deactivate or it would not be a weekly requirement to do it.

Yes and those 8 players that are deactivated are on the sidelines WITH the team. So it is not a punishment since they are still part of the team and are doing team stuff. Going to meetings, practice, travel and going to games. Philly will not allow TO back to the team in any ways. That is why this Deactivation is a punishment. And this is what the NFLPA has a problem with.

The NFLPA is not doing this for TO, they are trying to prevent this from happening again to other members of the NFLPA.

 

[CalBear]

Yes and those 8 players that are deactivated are on the sidelines WITH the team. So it is not a punishment since they are still part of the team and are doing team stuff. Going to meetings, practice, travel and going to games.

Philly will not allow TO back to the team in any ways. That is why this Deactivation is a punishment. And this is what the NFLPA has a problem with.

The NFLPA is not doing this for TO, they are trying to prevent this from happening again to other members of the NFLPA.

No arbitrator is going to rule that an employer must allow a physically violent and abusive employee back to work.

 

[JohnnyU]

Yes and those 8 players that are deactivated are on the sidelines WITH the team.  So it is not a punishment since they are still part of the team and are doing team stuff.  Going to meetings, practice, travel and going to games. 

Philly will not allow TO back to the team in any ways.  That is why this Deactivation is a punishment.  And this is what the NFLPA has a problem with.

The NFLPA is not doing this for TO, they are trying to prevent this from happening again to other members of the NFLPA.

No arbitrator is going to rule that an employer must allow a physically violent and abusive employee back to work.

Maybe not, but the last time I checked, if an employee is abusive in one job, it doesn't mean he can't work somewhere else.

 

[greenroom]

Yes and those 8 players that are deactivated are on the sidelines WITH the team.  So it is not a punishment since they are still part of the team and are doing team stuff.  Going to meetings, practice, travel and going to games. 

Philly will not allow TO back to the team in any ways.  That is why this Deactivation is a punishment.  And this is what the NFLPA has a problem with.

The NFLPA is not doing this for TO, they are trying to prevent this from happening again to other members of the NFLPA.

No arbitrator is going to rule that an employer must allow a physically violent and abusive employee back to work.

I don't think TO ever assulted anyone as you are trying to imply. IN fact it could be made that the Eagles sent Hugh Douglas and caused the mess with TO and Hugh. Since Hugh is not a player he is a member of the coaching staff did not have a reason to be in the trainers room. ANd it is reported that he is the one that started the fight.

And last I knew freedom of speech is still alive in the United States.

 

[Bri]

Yes and those 8 players that are deactivated are on the sidelines WITH the team.  So it is not a punishment since they are still part of the team and are doing team stuff.  Going to meetings, practice, travel and going to games.  

Philly will not allow TO back to the team in any ways.   That is why this Deactivation is a punishment.  And this is what the NFLPA has a problem with.

The NFLPA is not doing this for TO, they are trying to prevent this from happening again to other members of the NFLPA.

No arbitrator is going to rule that an employer must allow a physically violent and abusive employee back to work.

Maybe not, but the last time I checked, if an employee is abusive in one job, it doesn't mean he can't work somewhere else.

in this respect it would have to be determinned if the NFL is the employer or the Eagles. You can't be abusive at one GM plant and just go to another.

 

[CalBear]

And last I knew freedom of speech is still alive in the United States.

Freedom of speech has no relevance whatsoever to the actions of the NFL or the Philadelphia Eagles.

 

[JohnnyU]

Yes and those 8 players that are deactivated are on the sidelines WITH the team.  So it is not a punishment since they are still part of the team and are doing team stuff.  Going to meetings, practice, travel and going to games.  

Philly will not allow TO back to the team in any ways.   That is why this Deactivation is a punishment.  And this is what the NFLPA has a problem with.

The NFLPA is not doing this for TO, they are trying to prevent this from happening again to other members of the NFLPA.

No arbitrator is going to rule that an employer must allow a physically violent and abusive employee back to work.

Maybe not, but the last time I checked, if an employee is abusive in one job, it doesn't mean he can't work somewhere else.

in this respect it would have to be determinned if the NFL is the employer or the Eagles. You can't be abusive at one GM plant and just go to another.

The NFL doesn't own the teams, individuals do.

 

[GRIDIRON ASSASSIN]

WHY would the Eagles cut TO?So he could sign with San Diego or Denver (for chump change) to go to the Super Bowl?Let him rot on the inactive list.

 

[greenroom]

Yes and those 8 players that are deactivated are on the sidelines WITH the team.  So it is not a punishment since they are still part of the team and are doing team stuff.  Going to meetings, practice, travel and going to games.  

Philly will not allow TO back to the team in any ways.   That is why this Deactivation is a punishment.  And this is what the NFLPA has a problem with.

The NFLPA is not doing this for TO, they are trying to prevent this from happening again to other members of the NFLPA.

No arbitrator is going to rule that an employer must allow a physically violent and abusive employee back to work.

Maybe not, but the last time I checked, if an employee is abusive in one job, it doesn't mean he can't work somewhere else.

in this respect it would have to be determinned if the NFL is the employer or the Eagles. You can't be abusive at one GM plant and just go to another.

Actually I disagee with that. I have seen it happen where under a large corporation that one departmetn will fire a employee, only to have him hired again in a different department. It does not happen alot, but the fired emplyee has the chance to be rehired and the Eagles are preventing him from obtaining employement at this time.

 

[Shark Attack]

Think Philly would allow to to get to a team like Washington and let him beat them for a playoff spot then watch him carry them to the SB? NO CHANCE IN HELL T.O. PLAYS FOR ANYONE AGAIN THIS YEAR. NONE. Even if there hand is forced Philly would dress him and put him on special teams as the wedge buster and front line blocker on kick offs. Stop the pipe dreams and drop him for a player that might help you.

 

[Bri]

that's true too, interesting.I think the NFL will be quite leery of setting a precedent and the NFLPA will want to set one here. We all know we have tons of lawyers capable of finding and manipulating loopholes out there. If he gets suspended and can work elsewhere, will guys suspended for drug use claim they can do that? ....off on a tangent sorry but I'm sure they'll be real careful about setting a precedent here.I wish someone out there could find an old Meshawn article or two. I believe many asked then why he couldn't sign elsewhere and had to sit. Did they call each the same sorta "conduct detrimental to the team" shpeal?Wasn't Romo suspended for something along those lines too?

 

[Christo]

All of you who think that the Union is going to do any more than get his suspension reduced are truly living in fantasyland.

You may be right, but some pretty knowledgable people are saying there is a distinct possiblity TO plays again this year. Chris Mortenson is, in all likelyhood, more plugged into the situation than a guy named Christo on a fantasy football message board, and Mort thinks it could happen. So does Dan Patrick. So does Colin Cowherd. Will it? Who knows, probably not.

I think we're in a bit of uncharted territory here, and to label the situation as having only one possible outcome seems a bit naive to me.

Knowledgeable? They're just reporters. They have no more insight into an arbitrator's mind than I do. Wait a sec. I'm a labor attorney who deals with arbitrators, unions and collective bargaining agreements on a regular basis. You're right though. Those guys are plugged in and have never reported an incorrect rumor in their lives. I must be wrong.

 

[Christo]

Yes and those 8 players that are deactivated are on the sidelines WITH the team.  So it is not a punishment since they are still part of the team and are doing team stuff.  Going to meetings, practice, travel and going to games.  

Philly will not allow TO back to the team in any ways.   That is why this Deactivation is a punishment.  And this is what the NFLPA has a problem with.

The NFLPA is not doing this for TO, they are trying to prevent this from happening again to other members of the NFLPA.

No arbitrator is going to rule that an employer must allow a physically violent and abusive employee back to work.

Maybe not, but the last time I checked, if an employee is abusive in one job, it doesn't mean he can't work somewhere else.

It does if he's under contract to the first employer and they're willing to pay him.

 

[Christo]

Yes and those 8 players that are deactivated are on the sidelines WITH the team.  So it is not a punishment since they are still part of the team and are doing team stuff.  Going to meetings, practice, travel and going to games.  

Philly will not allow TO back to the team in any ways.   That is why this Deactivation is a punishment.  And this is what the NFLPA has a problem with.

The NFLPA is not doing this for TO, they are trying to prevent this from happening again to other members of the NFLPA.

No arbitrator is going to rule that an employer must allow a physically violent and abusive employee back to work.

I don't think TO ever assulted anyone as you are trying to imply. IN fact it could be made that the Eagles sent Hugh Douglas and caused the mess with TO and Hugh. Since Hugh is not a player he is a member of the coaching staff did not have a reason to be in the trainers room. ANd it is reported that he is the one that started the fight.

And last I knew freedom of speech is still alive in the United States.

Not when it comes to private employers.

 

[Christo]

Yes and those 8 players that are deactivated are on the sidelines WITH the team.  So it is not a punishment since they are still part of the team and are doing team stuff.  Going to meetings, practice, travel and going to games.  

Philly will not allow TO back to the team in any ways.   That is why this Deactivation is a punishment.  And this is what the NFLPA has a problem with.

The NFLPA is not doing this for TO, they are trying to prevent this from happening again to other members of the NFLPA.

No arbitrator is going to rule that an employer must allow a physically violent and abusive employee back to work.

Maybe not, but the last time I checked, if an employee is abusive in one job, it doesn't mean he can't work somewhere else.

in this respect it would have to be determinned if the NFL is the employer or the Eagles. You can't be abusive at one GM plant and just go to another.

Actually I disagee with that. I have seen it happen where under a large corporation that one departmetn will fire a employee, only to have him hired again in a different department. It does not happen alot, but the fired emplyee has the chance to be rehired and the Eagles are preventing him from obtaining employement at this time.

That's the Eagles privilege as long as he's under contract and they're paying him.

 

[Irish]

Think Philly would allow to to get to a team like Washington and let him beat them for a playoff spot then watch him carry them to the SB? NO CHANCE IN HELL T.O. PLAYS FOR ANYONE AGAIN THIS YEAR. NONE. Even if there hand is forced Philly would dress him and put him on special teams as the wedge buster and front line blocker on kick offs. Stop the pipe dreams and drop him for a player that might help you.

This is the pipe dream that you speak of.

 

[gman8343]

All of you who think that the Union is going to do any more than get his suspension reduced are truly living in fantasyland.

You may be right, but some pretty knowledgable people are saying there is a distinct possiblity TO plays again this year. Chris Mortenson is, in all likelyhood, more plugged into the situation than a guy named Christo on a fantasy football message board, and Mort thinks it could happen. So does Dan Patrick. So does Colin Cowherd. Will it? Who knows, probably not.

I think we're in a bit of uncharted territory here, and to label the situation as having only one possible outcome seems a bit naive to me.

Knowledgeable? They're just reporters. They have no more insight into an arbitrator's mind than I do. Wait a sec. I'm a labor attorney who deals with arbitrators, unions and collective bargaining agreements on a regular basis. You're right though. Those guys are plugged in and have never reported an incorrect rumor in their lives. I must be wrong.

Dude, when did I ever say they've never been wrong? What is wrong with you? The fact is you don't KNOW anything, you can only surmise, which is what the sports reporters are doing (and yes, they are more plugged into the situation than you, despite your credentials. At least Mort is.) In all honesty I don't think TO will play again this year, but for you to say there's absolutely no chance doesn't make any sense.

 

[shomethemoney]

TO + Parcells=1 hellofa train wreck

 

[raceguy]

TO + Parcells=1 hellofa train wreck

Wrong thread dude

 

[Tau837]

Yes and those 8 players that are deactivated are on the sidelines WITH the team.  So it is not a punishment since they are still part of the team and are doing team stuff.  Going to meetings, practice, travel and going to games.  

Philly will not allow TO back to the team in any ways.   That is why this Deactivation is a punishment.  And this is what the NFLPA has a problem with.

The NFLPA is not doing this for TO, they are trying to prevent this from happening again to other members of the NFLPA.

No arbitrator is going to rule that an employer must allow a physically violent and abusive employee back to work.

Maybe not, but the last time I checked, if an employee is abusive in one job, it doesn't mean he can't work somewhere else.

It does if he's under contract to the first employer and they're willing to pay him.

 

[Tau837]

Yes and those 8 players that are deactivated are on the sidelines WITH the team.  So it is not a punishment since they are still part of the team and are doing team stuff.  Going to meetings, practice, travel and going to games.  

Philly will not allow TO back to the team in any ways.   That is why this Deactivation is a punishment.  And this is what the NFLPA has a problem with.

The NFLPA is not doing this for TO, they are trying to prevent this from happening again to other members of the NFLPA.

No arbitrator is going to rule that an employer must allow a physically violent and abusive employee back to work.

I don't think TO ever assulted anyone as you are trying to imply. IN fact it could be made that the Eagles sent Hugh Douglas and caused the mess with TO and Hugh. Since Hugh is not a player he is a member of the coaching staff did not have a reason to be in the trainers room. ANd it is reported that he is the one that started the fight.

And last I knew freedom of speech is still alive in the United States.

Not when it comes to private employers.

 

[Trig2U]

I'd be willing to bet that, if seen by a qualified psychiatrist, TO would be diagnosed with some fairly serious emotional problems, possibly some kind of clinical personality disorder. It's as though there's only one, never-ending tune playing in the Hit Parade of Terrell Owens' mind, and that little ditty is "It's all about TO! TO! TO!" He has deliberately and consistently disrupted the Eagles, damaged their ability to field their best possible team, and utterly failed to meet the terms of his contract. He pulled exactly the same thing with the 49ers. In other words, Owens might be a good guy in some situations, and obviously he's a damn gifted football player, but he's the dictionary definition of "loose cannon" and history has shown that he can and WILL blow up any and everything around him in order to get exactly what he wants RIGHT NOW. His actions are like those of someone with an illness that keeps them at the emotional maturity of a twelve year old. I understand that it's the duty of the Player's Association to try and step in on one of their player's behalf here, but I just don't see how the Eagles should in any way be obliged to release to another NFL team, and with no compensation, a player with whom they have a valid contract. Two things:A) Wouldn't that just set a very ugly precedent whereby a legit strategy for any player who's not 100% happy with his deal will be to simply keep going bat-guano ballistic until his team has no recourse other than to let him suit up for a competitor. I think it goes without saying that this would be *extremely* bad PR for the NFL, and terrible for it's individual franchises. B) In what sense are the Eagles "punishing" Owens merely by determining that it's not in the best interest of their team to allow one of their players to continue to be disruptive? They're not keeping Terrell Owen's from being employed. Terrell Owens is employed by the Philadelphia Eagles, as he himself agreed in writing only a year or so ago. He is still under contract, the Eagles have met the terms of that contract, and Owens is gonna get paid once he serves his suspension. Also, am I wrong or couldn't Philadelphia theoretically trade him next season and receive compensation. How and why should they be forced to relinquish that option?In short, nobody wins if theEagles are forced to allow Owens to sign with another team in 2005. The best thing, even for Owens himself, would be for him to start acting like a man, sit down and take stock of the harm he's doing to his own career. Get some freakin' therapy, fire Rosenhaus, and wait for his turn to come around again. The Eagles will probably be more than happy to trade him or let him go at that point, and somebody else can roll the dice on the guy. Of course, there's no way in hell *that's* ever gonna happen, because Owens simply cannot or will not escape that loop in his head that goes: "...TO! TO! TO!"

 

[toxicbees]

The arbitrator will rule in favor of TO. The Eagles will cut him, and he'll go to the Redskins. Then he'll blow up for 3tds next time he faces the Eagles.Why? Because the NFL needs the TO controversy to continue, it's a huge money maker.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

If the Eagles can sit him for being a jerk all year that is bad for all players...period.

It's not bad for Reggie Brown.

 

[Red Apples]

when & if TO is cut he has to clear waivers.he would go to houston or green bay (assuming one of the worst teams in the nfl want him).

 

[Red Apples]

when & if TO is cut he has to clear waivers.he would go to houston or green bay (assuming one of the worst teams in the nfl want him).

 

[Gopher State]

T.O. will spend the rest of the season watching games on the T.V. He is done for 05.

 

[FUBAR]

T.O. will spend the rest of the season watching games on the T.V. He is done for 05.

Fact or opinion?

 

[FUBAR]

If the Eagles can sit him for being a jerk all year that is bad for all players...period.

It's not bad for Reggie Brown.

If the Eagles somehow manage to win a few games, this could be good for every player, the coaching staff, and the organization.Didn't they win a few games last year without TO, against some "decent" teams, maybe even playoff caliber teams?

 

[FUBAR]

The arbitrator will rule in favor of TO. The Eagles will cut him, and he'll go to the Redskins. Then he'll blow up for 3tds next time he faces the Eagles.

Why? Because the NFL needs the TO controversy to continue, it's a huge money maker.

You're assuming about 20 other teams won't take him first.Might be a good assumption, we'll see.

 

[FUBAR]

B) In what sense are the Eagles "punishing" Owens merely by determining that it's not in the best interest of their team to allow one of their players to continue to be disruptive? They're not keeping Terrell Owen's from being employed. Terrell Owens is employed by the Philadelphia Eagles, as he himself agreed in writing only a year or so ago. He is still under contract, the Eagles have met the terms of that contract, and Owens is gonna get paid once he serves his suspension. Also, am I wrong or couldn't Philadelphia theoretically trade him next season and receive compensation. How and why should they be forced to relinquish that option?

Where does the union get the right to tell a team who to play each week? I know, they used the wrong word here, they could simply have kept TO off the gameday roster, right?

 

[The Gator]

The only thing I know is that the NFLPA player rep., Troy Vincent, said that they are trying to get the suspensiion part of all this reduced. This is by far the best info we have from a source acctually involved in the situation. With the exception of Mort, I wouldn't believe anything anyone at ESPN had to say, especially to radio talk show host who stir the pot on almost every topic anyway.

 

[Keys Myaths]

The arbitrator will rule in favor of TO. The Eagles will cut him, and he'll go to the Redskins. Then he'll blow up for 3tds next time he faces the Eagles.

Why? Because the NFL needs the TO controversy to continue, it's a huge money maker.

You're assuming about 20 other teams won't take him first.Might be a good assumption, we'll see.

I honestly only see a contending team want to take the chance on TO this year. What other reason would you have for throwing money at a huge problem like that?I think the contenders are Denver and Washington...but I think he's more likely to go to Denver if he's cut.

 

[Irish]

when & if TO is cut he has to clear waivers.

he would go to houston or green bay (assuming one of the worst teams in the nfl want him).

I might be mistaken, but I believe that TO does not have to clear waivers since he has the necessary vested time in the league and thus would be automatically a free agent if he is released by the Eagles.

 

[FUBAR]

The arbitrator will rule in favor of TO.  The Eagles will cut him, and he'll go to the Redskins.  Then he'll blow up for 3tds next time he faces the Eagles.

Why?  Because the NFL needs the TO controversy to continue, it's a huge money maker.

You're assuming about 20 other teams won't take him first.Might be a good assumption, we'll see.

I honestly only see a contending team want to take the chance on TO this year. What other reason would you have for throwing money at a huge problem like that?I think the contenders are Denver and Washington...but I think he's more likely to go to Denver if he's cut.

You may be right, but if a team has nothing to lose, they may take the chance on him to either sell tickets or think they might be able to keep him for 2006 and contend. I'm not saying it would be a smart move, but who knows really?

 

[Keys Myaths]

when & if TO is cut he has to clear waivers.

he would go to houston or green bay (assuming one of the worst teams in the nfl want him).

I might be mistaken, but I believe that TO does not have to clear waivers since he has the necessary vested time in the league and thus would be automatically a free agent if he is released by the Eagles.

I don't want this post to be buried.Anyone have more information?

 

[The Gator]

when & if TO is cut he has to clear waivers.

he would go to houston or green bay (assuming one of the worst teams in the nfl want him).

I might be mistaken, but I believe that TO does not have to clear waivers since he has the necessary vested time in the league and thus would be automatically a free agent if he is released by the Eagles.

i also heard this.

 

[Donnybrook]

Eagles | Jackson weighs in on Owens' sagaSat, 12 Nov 2005 07:14:58 -0800NBC10.com reports Rev. Jesse Jackson has joined another former presidential candidate, Ralph Nader, in calling for the NFL to let Philadelphia Eagles WR Terrell Owens rejoin the Eagles or release him from his contract. "This punishment is much too severe for the charge," Jackson said. "If (Owens) had been caught shaving points, selling drugs, carrying a gun or fighting some fans, who provoked him, and he had not shown sufficient restraint, we could understand the severe suspension." "If the Philadelphia Eagles' owners do not find his apology acceptable and no longer aim to maintain an association with him, they should release him to the open market or free agency," Jackson added. The Philadelphia Inquirer also reports Jackson spoke with Owens on the phone this week, and he's trying to contact Eagles QB Donovan McNabb and owner Jeffrey Lurie.

 

[Donnybrook]

I’m organizing a “FREE TO” protest march for later today. I will have more details later on; I am busy now making “FREE TO” T-shirts. :TOowner: