TO back in 2005 (Speculation) (1 Viewer)

[Irish]

intent can be argued here

With Keyshawn , you can argue that he was simply "benched."

With TO, based on the public statements, it is clear that his deactivation is part of his punishment. CBA states that you can only punish a guy for 4 games.

Of course after those 4 games, the PA can't force the Eagles to play him, but the (classless) eagles have violated the CBA here.

Well, unless an arbitrator wants to become involved in weekly hearings for exactly why players such as Anthony Thomas and Michael Bennett are being deactivated for multiple weeks without injury, they won't start getting involved in the 'intent' behind deactivations. A coach has every right to activate the team of players he wants to go to war with, for whatever reason. Again, it isn't as if deactivated players are losing salary; they are getting paid to sit on their butts.

Your point has one major flaw, there is a HUGE difference in the calibur of player that TO is compared to the likes of Bennett and Thomas.

Good Lord. The Pats can deactivate Tom Brady for this week if they want. How good the player is, is immaterial.

You're missing the point of deactivating TO. The Eagles cannot tell TO to stay at home while he is gonna be deactivated every week. TO must participate with the team like all the other players and then the Eagles can treat him like any other player and deactivate him. The problem is that the Eagles don't want him around period. TO and the Union have a strong case that this would be an extended suspension that is against the CBA. Keyshawn also had a strong case, but he told the union he did not want to file a grievance.

 

[larry_boy_44]

larry, stop

"illegal"

how's this:it is illegal for your job to give you a bad reference, they can't prohibit you from moving on...

The Eagles have announced that htey are done with him...

this suspension and benching is harming his future career, which is illegal for an employer to do, they cannot prohibit you from moving on in your career...

 

[larry_boy_44]

They are saying "we are going to fire you, but we aren't going to for 6 months to screw you over in your next job..."

that is illegal

It is not illegal, for the most part because T.O. doesn't actually work for the Eagles. He is contracted out by the Eagles to perform a service and the Eagles, like most employers who have contractors, the employer reserves the right to say, "We don't want you coming to our office any more."

the illegal part is that they aren't allowing him to move on...

 

[BlueOnion]

They are saying "we are going to fire you, but we aren't going to for 6 months to screw you over in your next job..."

that is illegal

It is not illegal, for the most part because T.O. doesn't actually work for the Eagles. He is contracted out by the Eagles to perform a service and the Eagles, like most employers who have contractors, the employer reserves the right to say, "We don't want you coming to our office any more."

the illegal part is that they aren't allowing him to move on...

But this was part of the contract signed between the Eagles and T.O. and the Players' Union and the NFL.If you want to make a case that the actions of the Eagles are prohibiting T.O. from moving forward with his career and this is wrong, the same argument could be made about Aaron Rodgers and the Green Bay Packers. The Packers are refussing to let Aaron Rodgers play this year and they are refussing him the opportunity to explore other potential employers in which maybe he could be starting quarterback for another team.

 

[TommyGilmore]

They are saying "we are going to fire you, but we aren't going to for 6 months to screw you over in your next job..."

that is illegal

It is not illegal, for the most part because T.O. doesn't actually work for the Eagles. He is contracted out by the Eagles to perform a service and the Eagles, like most employers who have contractors, the employer reserves the right to say, "We don't want you coming to our office any more."

the illegal part is that they aren't allowing him to move on...

San Diego isn't allowing Phillip Rivers to be a starting QB. Do you think it's illegal that San Diego isn't allowing Rivers to move on?

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

After his suspension I think the Eagles should bring him back to the team. In practices he can play on the scout team and on special teams. In games he can play gunner or wedge buster on kicks and can play in the wedge on returns. Let him learn how the other half lives. Let him do the grunt work which I'm certain he will think is beneath him. He'll quit in no time, problem solved.

 

[BlueOnion]

They are saying "we are going to fire you, but we aren't going to for 6 months to screw you over in your next job..."

that is illegal

It is not illegal, for the most part because T.O. doesn't actually work for the Eagles. He is contracted out by the Eagles to perform a service and the Eagles, like most employers who have contractors, the employer reserves the right to say, "We don't want you coming to our office any more."

the illegal part is that they aren't allowing him to move on...

A better example...If you are arguing that T.O. should be released, what is your reasoning for not forcing the Charger's hand with Phillip Rivers as well? Could you explain to me the difference?

Somebody beat me to it.

 

[larry_boy_44]

They are saying "we are going to fire you, but we aren't going to for 6 months to screw you over in your next job..."

that is illegal

It is not illegal, for the most part because T.O. doesn't actually work for the Eagles. He is contracted out by the Eagles to perform a service and the Eagles, like most employers who have contractors, the employer reserves the right to say, "We don't want you coming to our office any more."

the illegal part is that they aren't allowing him to move on...

But this was part of the contract signed between the Eagles and T.O. and the Players' Union and the NFL.If you want to make a case that the actions of the Eagles are prohibiting T.O. from moving forward with his career and this is wrong, the same argument could be made about Aaron Rodgers and the Green Bay Packers. The Packers are refussing to let Aaron Rodgers play this year and they are refussing him the opportunity to explore other potential employers in which maybe he could be starting quarterback for another team.

no, because not playing is part of the deal, you aren't garunteed a starting spot or playing time...The Eagles aren't simply telling TO he isn't gonna play...

They are telling him that he is suspended for 4 games, then he is not welcome at practice, at the team facilities, or at games... They are also saying that they are cutting him in the off-season...

Therefore, they ARE prohibiting him from moving on with his career by not allowing him to go to another team now when they ahve announced he wont' be with them next year (and are not allowing him to play again this year)...

Aaron Rodgers is moving forward in his career simply by being on the Packer's roster...

 

[larry_boy_44]

They are saying "we are going to fire you, but we aren't going to for 6 months to screw you over in your next job..."

that is illegal

It is not illegal, for the most part because T.O. doesn't actually work for the Eagles. He is contracted out by the Eagles to perform a service and the Eagles, like most employers who have contractors, the employer reserves the right to say, "We don't want you coming to our office any more."

the illegal part is that they aren't allowing him to move on...

A better example...If you are arguing that T.O. should be released, what is your reasoning for not forcing the Charger's hand with Phillip Rivers as well? Could you explain to me the difference?

Somebody beat me to it.

The Chargers haven't told Rivers he isn't welcome at practice, games, or the team facilities... They also haven't told Rivers he is going to be cut in the off-season...

 

[Godsbrother]

They are saying "we are going to fire you, but we aren't going to for 6 months to screw you over in your next job..."

that is illegal

It is not illegal, for the most part because T.O. doesn't actually work for the Eagles. He is contracted out by the Eagles to perform a service and the Eagles, like most employers who have contractors, the employer reserves the right to say, "We don't want you coming to our office any more."

the illegal part is that they aren't allowing him to move on...

Sure they will, once his contract is up...

 

[BlueOnion]

After his suspension I think the Eagles should bring him back to the team. In practices he can play on the scout team and on special teams. In games he can play gunner or wedge buster on kicks and can play in the wedge on returns. Let him learn how the other half lives. Let him do the grunt work which I'm certain he will think is beneath him. He'll quit in no time, problem solved.

This is really the best idea.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

  larry, stop

"illegal"   

how's this:it is illegal for your job to give you a bad reference, they can't prohibit you from moving on...

The Eagles have announced that htey are done with him...

this suspension and benching is harming his future career, which is illegal for an employer to do, they cannot prohibit you from moving on in your career...

You have just made new labor law, congrats. Apparently noncompete clauses have just been wiped out by your ruling.

 

[BlueOnion]

They are saying "we are going to fire you, but we aren't going to for 6 months to screw you over in your next job..."

that is illegal

It is not illegal, for the most part because T.O. doesn't actually work for the Eagles. He is contracted out by the Eagles to perform a service and the Eagles, like most employers who have contractors, the employer reserves the right to say, "We don't want you coming to our office any more."

the illegal part is that they aren't allowing him to move on...

A better example...If you are arguing that T.O. should be released, what is your reasoning for not forcing the Charger's hand with Phillip Rivers as well? Could you explain to me the difference?

Somebody beat me to it.

The Chargers haven't told Rivers he isn't welcome at practice, games, or the team facilities... They also haven't told Rivers he is going to be cut in the off-season...

Regardless, Phillip Rivers wants to move on with his career and play football. San Diego is refussing him to do both.

 

[larry_boy_44]

  larry, stop

"illegal"   

how's this:it is illegal for your job to give you a bad reference, they can't prohibit you from moving on...

The Eagles have announced that htey are done with him...

this suspension and benching is harming his future career, which is illegal for an employer to do, they cannot prohibit you from moving on in your career...

You have just made new labor law, congrats. Apparently noncompete clauses have just been wiped out by your ruling.

but TO didn't sign a non-compete clause, so that has no bearing on this...and I didn't make a new labor law, if you give a bad reference to your former employees they can sue your company (and are likely to win)...

 

[Bushead]

  larry, stop

"illegal"   

how's this:it is illegal for your job to give you a bad reference, they can't prohibit you from moving on...

The Eagles have announced that htey are done with him...

this suspension and benching is harming his future career, which is illegal for an employer to do, they cannot prohibit you from moving on in your career...

How exactly is this harming his future career? I think most everyone in the NFL knows his talent level. How does him sitting for the next 8 games diminish his value? He continues to be compensated for those games less the couple that he is suspended for, so he is no worse or better off for this year now than when the season started. He can go out and look for employment for next year starting now, all the while getting paid for not doing anything.I would argue his mouth and his agent have harmed his future career far more than anything the Eagles could dream of doing.

Please stop using illegal when it is not applicable. While it may not be a wise decision to give a bad reference it is certainly not illegal.

 

[larry_boy_44]

They are saying "we are going to fire you, but we aren't going to for 6 months to screw you over in your next job..."

that is illegal

It is not illegal, for the most part because T.O. doesn't actually work for the Eagles. He is contracted out by the Eagles to perform a service and the Eagles, like most employers who have contractors, the employer reserves the right to say, "We don't want you coming to our office any more."

the illegal part is that they aren't allowing him to move on...

A better example...If you are arguing that T.O. should be released, what is your reasoning for not forcing the Charger's hand with Phillip Rivers as well? Could you explain to me the difference?

Somebody beat me to it.

The Chargers haven't told Rivers he isn't welcome at practice, games, or the team facilities... They also haven't told Rivers he is going to be cut in the off-season...

Regardless, Phillip Rivers wants to move on with his career and play football. San Diego is refussing him to do both.

doesn't matter, he's the backup QB, he's on the team, the Chargers are fulfilling thier part of the contract...They have not told him that he is unnoficially cut until the off-season when he is officially cut...

the Eagles, however, did tell TO that he is unofficially cut until the off-season when they will officially cut him...

 

[radballs.]

If the Eagles really think T.O. is a cancer in the locker room, why not release him so that a potential playoff team can pick him up thus destroying said team's chances of making it to the post season. Wouldn't this increase the Eagles chances of making the playoffs? In their minds, I assume they would think that T.O. would be the perfect Trojan horse for one of their competitors.

 

[TommyGilmore]

They are saying "we are going to fire you, but we aren't going to for 6 months to screw you over in your next job..."

that is illegal

It is not illegal, for the most part because T.O. doesn't actually work for the Eagles. He is contracted out by the Eagles to perform a service and the Eagles, like most employers who have contractors, the employer reserves the right to say, "We don't want you coming to our office any more."

the illegal part is that they aren't allowing him to move on...

A better example...If you are arguing that T.O. should be released, what is your reasoning for not forcing the Charger's hand with Phillip Rivers as well? Could you explain to me the difference?

Somebody beat me to it.

The Chargers haven't told Rivers he isn't welcome at practice, games, or the team facilities... They also haven't told Rivers he is going to be cut in the off-season...

So then, by your logic, the only thing the Eagles need to do to make this legit is for them to tell Owens, "You're welcome at practice, games, and team facilities, and we're not going to cut you in the offseason".Then they can sit him on the bench, never activate him for a game, and cut him in the offseason.

Right?

 

[BlueOnion]

They are saying "we are going to fire you, but we aren't going to for 6 months to screw you over in your next job..."

that is illegal

It is not illegal, for the most part because T.O. doesn't actually work for the Eagles. He is contracted out by the Eagles to perform a service and the Eagles, like most employers who have contractors, the employer reserves the right to say, "We don't want you coming to our office any more."

the illegal part is that they aren't allowing him to move on...

A better example...If you are arguing that T.O. should be released, what is your reasoning for not forcing the Charger's hand with Phillip Rivers as well? Could you explain to me the difference?

Somebody beat me to it.

The Chargers haven't told Rivers he isn't welcome at practice, games, or the team facilities... They also haven't told Rivers he is going to be cut in the off-season...

Regardless, Phillip Rivers wants to move on with his career and play football. San Diego is refussing him to do both.

doesn't matter, he's the backup QB, he's on the team, the Chargers are fulfilling thier part of the contract...They have not told him that he is unnoficially cut until the off-season when he is officially cut...

the Eagles, however, did tell TO that he is unofficially cut until the off-season when they will officially cut him...

How come Phillip Rivers desire to move on with his career carries less weigh than T.O.'s desire to move on with his career?

 

[larry_boy_44]

They are saying "we are going to fire you, but we aren't going to for 6 months to screw you over in your next job..."

that is illegal

It is not illegal, for the most part because T.O. doesn't actually work for the Eagles. He is contracted out by the Eagles to perform a service and the Eagles, like most employers who have contractors, the employer reserves the right to say, "We don't want you coming to our office any more."

the illegal part is that they aren't allowing him to move on...

A better example...If you are arguing that T.O. should be released, what is your reasoning for not forcing the Charger's hand with Phillip Rivers as well? Could you explain to me the difference?

Somebody beat me to it.

The Chargers haven't told Rivers he isn't welcome at practice, games, or the team facilities... They also haven't told Rivers he is going to be cut in the off-season...

So then, by your logic, the only thing the Eagles need to do to make this legit is for them to tell Owens, "You're welcome at practice, games, and team facilities, and we're not going to cut you in the offseason".Then they can sit him on the bench, never activate him for a game, and cut him in the offseason.

Right?

honestly, its too late for that, they already told him that he's getting cut and, basically, un-officially cut him until then (all they are really doing is not letting him find a new team now)

 

[Irish]

After his suspension I think the Eagles should bring him back to the team. In practices he can play on the scout team and on special teams. In games he can play gunner or wedge buster on kicks and can play in the wedge on returns. Let him learn how the other half lives. Let him do the grunt work which I'm certain he will think is beneath him. He'll quit in no time, problem solved.

TO is a lot of things, but one of them is not a quitter while he is on the field.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

  larry, stop

"illegal"   

how's this:it is illegal for your job to give you a bad reference, they can't prohibit you from moving on...

The Eagles have announced that htey are done with him...

this suspension and benching is harming his future career, which is illegal for an employer to do, they cannot prohibit you from moving on in your career...

You have just made new labor law, congrats. Apparently noncompete clauses have just been wiped out by your ruling.

but TO didn't sign a non-compete clause, so that has no bearing on this...and I didn't make a new labor law, if you give a bad reference to your former employees they can sue your company (and are likely to win)...

Really? Seriously when you have no idea what you are talking about it is time to listen.Please share yuor expertise in the area of labor law. Start with where you obtained your J.D.

My initial statement was to your general statement which was wrong. As to Owens he signed a contract to perform exclusively for the Eagles during it's term. They honor that contract when they pay him. Public player evaluations and assignments are part and parcel of the contract so they do nothing wrong when they evaluate Owens publically. Oh, and in general, though most employers don't give negative references for fear of being sued, it is not because they are likely to lose, it is because they don't want the headache of being sued. So long as the reference is factual they would and should win.

BTW my J.D. is so old and worn I received it while you were still looking forward to grade school.

 

[larry_boy_44]

They are saying "we are going to fire you, but we aren't going to for 6 months to screw you over in your next job..."

that is illegal

It is not illegal, for the most part because T.O. doesn't actually work for the Eagles. He is contracted out by the Eagles to perform a service and the Eagles, like most employers who have contractors, the employer reserves the right to say, "We don't want you coming to our office any more."

the illegal part is that they aren't allowing him to move on...

A better example...If you are arguing that T.O. should be released, what is your reasoning for not forcing the Charger's hand with Phillip Rivers as well? Could you explain to me the difference?

Somebody beat me to it.

The Chargers haven't told Rivers he isn't welcome at practice, games, or the team facilities... They also haven't told Rivers he is going to be cut in the off-season...

Regardless, Phillip Rivers wants to move on with his career and play football. San Diego is refussing him to do both.

doesn't matter, he's the backup QB, he's on the team, the Chargers are fulfilling thier part of the contract...They have not told him that he is unnoficially cut until the off-season when he is officially cut...

the Eagles, however, did tell TO that he is unofficially cut until the off-season when they will officially cut him...

How come Phillip Rivers desire to move on with his career carries less weigh than T.O.'s desire to move on with his career?

because no where in the contract does it say that a player is required to have playing time...The Eagles aren't not giving TO playing time, they announced that they are cutting him in 6 months and until then he isn't allowed to play, which is hampering him from furthering his career...

 

[BlueOnion]

If the Eagles really think T.O. is a cancer in the locker room, why not release him so that a potential playoff team can pick him up thus destroying said team's chances of making it to the post season. Wouldn't this increase the Eagles chances of making the playoffs? In their minds, I assume they would think that T.O. would be the perfect Trojan horse for one of their competitors.

I think the Eagles really think T.O. is a great guy at heart. However, they probably fear that T.O. will not be able to get his contract at this time and will have to finish the season making less money than he would under the current contract with the Eagles. In the Eagle's mind, I think they know NFL contracts better than T.O. and just want to ensure he can still provide for his family over the winter.

 

[larry_boy_44]

  larry, stop

"illegal"   

how's this:it is illegal for your job to give you a bad reference, they can't prohibit you from moving on...

The Eagles have announced that htey are done with him...

this suspension and benching is harming his future career, which is illegal for an employer to do, they cannot prohibit you from moving on in your career...

You have just made new labor law, congrats. Apparently noncompete clauses have just been wiped out by your ruling.

but TO didn't sign a non-compete clause, so that has no bearing on this...and I didn't make a new labor law, if you give a bad reference to your former employees they can sue your company (and are likely to win)...

Really? Seriously when you have no idea what you are talking about it is time to listen.Please share yur expertise in the area of labor law. Start with where you obtained your J.D.

My initial statement was to your general statement which was wrong. As to Owens he signed a contract to perform exclusively for the eagles during it's term. They honor that contract when they pay him. public player evaluations and assignments are part and parcel of the contract so they do nothing wrong when they evaluate Owens publically. Oh, and in general, though most employers don't give negative references for fear of being sued it is not because they are likely to lose, it is because they don't want the headache of being sued. So long as the reference is factual they would and should win.

BTW my J.D. is so old and worn i received it while you were still looking forward to grade school.

well, a good friend of mine was told the opposite of waht you said by her superiors when she was a supervisor and responsible for hiring/firing/giving references...

 

[BlueOnion]

because no where in the contract does it say that a player is required to have playing time...

The Eagles aren't not giving TO playing time, they announced that they are cutting him in 6 months and until then he isn't allowed to play, which is hampering him from furthering his career...

Explain to me how you don't contradict yourself with the two bolded comments above?

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

BTW larry. T.O. and Rosenhaus announced their intention to conduct themselves in bad faith this year. On public television during his hold out he promised he would be a distraction and that the eagles would regret not renegotiating his contract. He does not have a legal leg to stand on and the Eagles lawyers know this. The fact that ESPN hasn't yet thought of this angle does not lessen this point.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

  larry, stop

"illegal"   

how's this:it is illegal for your job to give you a bad reference, they can't prohibit you from moving on...

The Eagles have announced that htey are done with him...

this suspension and benching is harming his future career, which is illegal for an employer to do, they cannot prohibit you from moving on in your career...

You have just made new labor law, congrats. Apparently noncompete clauses have just been wiped out by your ruling.

but TO didn't sign a non-compete clause, so that has no bearing on this...and I didn't make a new labor law, if you give a bad reference to your former employees they can sue your company (and are likely to win)...

Really? Seriously when you have no idea what you are talking about it is time to listen.Please share yur expertise in the area of labor law. Start with where you obtained your J.D.

My initial statement was to your general statement which was wrong. As to Owens he signed a contract to perform exclusively for the eagles during it's term. They honor that contract when they pay him. public player evaluations and assignments are part and parcel of the contract so they do nothing wrong when they evaluate Owens publically. Oh, and in general, though most employers don't give negative references for fear of being sued it is not because they are likely to lose, it is because they don't want the headache of being sued. So long as the reference is factual they would and should win.

BTW my J.D. is so old and worn i received it while you were still looking forward to grade school.

well, a good friend of mine was told the opposite of waht you said by her superiors when she was a supervisor and responsible for hiring/firing/giving references...

Your good friend was given the safest position to take, the cowards position taken by firms and companies just wishing to avoid angry frivolous suits as they consume a lot of time. Just because it is the absolute safe harbor position to take does not make it the law.BTW my employer's H.R. department takes the cowards position on our advice as well.

 

[mad sweeney]

Bottom line if the Special Master determines that TO cannot be suspended for the rest of the year, then the Eagles will simply deactivate him with pay or whatever it was that TB did with Keyshawn. TO will not play again for the Eagles, and the Eagles will not allow him to go to another team in 2005. At this point it is simply a matter of calling it a suspension or a deactivation. The Eagles have moved on for this...so should all the owner who have TO on their team.

Yeah, I don't know how it's double punishment when he gets paid. 4 game suspension, punishment over. Deactivation with pay is worth about $1million with zero effort from TO. Somebody double punish me!!It's the union's job to protest any action in favor of the player, but the best case scenario is that the Eagles reactivate him and sit him on the practice squad. I don't see TO practicing all year and not playing. His resume speaks for himself, he's not losing out by getting paid to sit the last 5 games. Teams already know what he can do. Shutting up and taking this quietly is the BEST he can do to try and show suitors that he might be able to behave in the future.

 

[Bushead]

  larry, stop

"illegal"   

how's this:it is illegal for your job to give you a bad reference, they can't prohibit you from moving on...

The Eagles have announced that htey are done with him...

this suspension and benching is harming his future career, which is illegal for an employer to do, they cannot prohibit you from moving on in your career...

You have just made new labor law, congrats. Apparently noncompete clauses have just been wiped out by your ruling.

but TO didn't sign a non-compete clause, so that has no bearing on this...and I didn't make a new labor law, if you give a bad reference to your former employees they can sue your company (and are likely to win)...

Really? Seriously when you have no idea what you are talking about it is time to listen.Please share yur expertise in the area of labor law. Start with where you obtained your J.D.

My initial statement was to your general statement which was wrong. As to Owens he signed a contract to perform exclusively for the eagles during it's term. They honor that contract when they pay him. public player evaluations and assignments are part and parcel of the contract so they do nothing wrong when they evaluate Owens publically. Oh, and in general, though most employers don't give negative references for fear of being sued it is not because they are likely to lose, it is because they don't want the headache of being sued. So long as the reference is factual they would and should win.

BTW my J.D. is so old and worn i received it while you were still looking forward to grade school.

well, a good friend of mine was told the opposite of waht you said by her superiors when she was a supervisor and responsible for hiring/firing/giving references...

It is normally good HR policy not to comment on employees outside of that they worked for the company from X date to Y date. It is for the exact reason that Ditkaless cited, it is less of a hassle and eliminates the potential for lawsuits. Even if the company wins the lawsuit, it still costs money that the company would prefer not to spend on an employee that they dismissed for some reason. So your friend was probably told exactly what you cited, as it was probably company policy. That does not make it illigal or part of any labor law.

 

[TommyGilmore]

They are saying "we are going to fire you, but we aren't going to for 6 months to screw you over in your next job..."

that is illegal

It is not illegal, for the most part because T.O. doesn't actually work for the Eagles. He is contracted out by the Eagles to perform a service and the Eagles, like most employers who have contractors, the employer reserves the right to say, "We don't want you coming to our office any more."

the illegal part is that they aren't allowing him to move on...

A better example...If you are arguing that T.O. should be released, what is your reasoning for not forcing the Charger's hand with Phillip Rivers as well? Could you explain to me the difference?

Somebody beat me to it.

The Chargers haven't told Rivers he isn't welcome at practice, games, or the team facilities... They also haven't told Rivers he is going to be cut in the off-season...

So then, by your logic, the only thing the Eagles need to do to make this legit is for them to tell Owens, "You're welcome at practice, games, and team facilities, and we're not going to cut you in the offseason".Then they can sit him on the bench, never activate him for a game, and cut him in the offseason.

Right?

honestly, its too late for that, they already told him that he's getting cut and, basically, un-officially cut him until then (all they are really doing is not letting him find a new team now)

Why can't the Eagles say, "Oops, we misspoke, we're not planning to cut you after all"?I would appreciate it if you could cite the section of labor law which states "Employers Are Never Allowed To Revise Statements".

 

[BigJim®]

I don't know why people keep using the word "law." For crying out loud, T.O. is in a labor dispute which involves interpretation of a collective bargaining contract. There are no laws involved. Thank you.

Pretty much the truth. However the labor dispute does revolve around a collective bargaining agreement which is a legally binding contract. And any difference in the intrepretation of this legal document will fall under contractual law and labor agreement law.But BigJim is right, no law has been broken. At best, there has been a breech of contract.

But breach of contract can lead to criminal actions through state regulations. Trust me, I have a friend who is a contractor (electric) and the state can file criminal charges on the failure to fulfill a contract agreement. Course we don't live in Philly so who knows?

So Pennsylvania may file criminal charges against the Eagles for paying a guy to do absolutely nothing? I mean my god, has this board gone totally insane?

 

[Godsbrother]

bottom line is this, TO is under contract and will be paid under that contract when he serves his suspension. So the Eagles are living up to their end of the deal that TO and his agent signed.

 

[fatness]

They are telling him that he is suspended for 4 games, then he is not welcome at practice, at the team facilities, or at games... They are also saying that they are cutting him in the off-season...

Therefore, they ARE prohibiting him from moving on with his career by not allowing him to go to another team now when they ahve announced he wont' be with them next year (and are not allowing him to play again this year)...

They are allowing him to move ahead with his career at the end of the season (a time that works better for the Eagles) instead of right now (a time which might work better for Owens). Teams are not in any way required to release a player at the moment they've finally made a decision that that player is not in their future plans. They release them when it suits the team (and sometimes when it suits the player, when it's a player who has shown them long years of service and who wants to try to "catch on elsewhere", for example).

 

[Bushead]

I don't know why people keep using the word "law." For crying out loud, T.O. is in a labor dispute which involves interpretation of a collective bargaining contract. There are no laws involved. Thank you.

Pretty much the truth. However the labor dispute does revolve around a collective bargaining agreement which is a legally binding contract. And any difference in the intrepretation of this legal document will fall under contractual law and labor agreement law.But BigJim is right, no law has been broken. At best, there has been a breech of contract.

But breach of contract can lead to criminal actions through state regulations. Trust me, I have a friend who is a contractor (electric) and the state can file criminal charges on the failure to fulfill a contract agreement. Course we don't live in Philly so who knows?

So Pennsylvania may file criminal charges against the Eagles for paying a guy to do absolutely nothing? I mean my god, has this board gone totally insane?

Funny enough, I own an electrical contracting company in Pennsylvania. I have never heard of crimal charges being filed for a breech of contract. In fact, I don't think the state has any role to play in contract disputes. If one party feels the contract has been violated they can pursue action (and not crimial) against the other party through whatever means the contract provides or through the court system if dispute resolution is not spelled out in the contract.Does anyone really believe that states have any interest in adminstering or governing private contracts?

 

[roadkill1292]

Sorry, Larry and his fellow doubters, the Eagles retain the right to his services for as long as they abide by the terms of the contract, i.e., they pay him the agreed amount. The best I see the NFLPA doing with its intervention is to shorten the duration of the suspension. As long as the Eagles are writing paychecks, they're not in breach and TO is stuck with them until given his release.

 

[toxicbees]

This is simply not true. You may have those rules at your company, but there is not federal law that mandates such. In Pennsyvania, I can fire any employee at any time for any reason I want (assuming that the reason is a discrimatory one covered by federal regs, ie age), and the employee has zero recourse. I can absolutely keep track of an employee digging their own grave and fire them when I have had enough.

Lets also not forget, in TO's case, this is not the first time he was warned. He was sent home from training camp for a week for being a jerk and telling his coaches and teamates not to talk to him. Around that time, the Eagles sent a letter to at least TO and his agent (probably the NFLPA as well) outlining the reasons he was sent home and what would be expected of him when he returned. During this same timeframe, TO publically announced on several occasions that he would return to the team but he was going to be a disrutption. He has proceeded to do exactly that. He was almost certainly given a number of verbal warnings (I have nothing to back this up, just speculation here) between that time and now. Finally after his latest outburst, he was given two options, appoligize to those that you have attacked in the press or you will be removed from the team. He chose to play a game, calling the Eagles bluff, and appogized to those he felt like appoligizing to, disregarding specific instructions his employer gave him. Willful misconduct? Probably just plain stupidity, but nonetheless he had full control of his future and he chose the path he would take, not the Eagles.

I cannot see how the Eagles are not well within their rights to deactivate the guy for the rest of the year.

Going on your argument, why would your employer put such an ultimatum on you. You must apologize or else I'm going to take away your money and not let you do the thing you love. The Eagles did this, TO apologized, apparently that apology was not accepted.This is as much a fault of the Eagles as it is TO. It takes two sides to disagree.

If the Eagles don't plan on playing him, don't just deactivate the guy so he can't play on a competitor. The Eagles are scared he's going to burn him. Because that's exactly what TO will do, because he's that good and the Eagles know it..

 

[BigJim®]

Here's my final $.02 on this topic, I promise.

On the 4 game suspension issue:

The ONLY thing T.O. can hope to come out of this hearing is that his suspension is being reduced from 4 to 3 games, and the only fact an arbitrator will consider is whether (1) Owens was "suspended" for the Redskin game, and (2) if so, was this based upon the same "suspendable act." No one in this forum knows sufficient facts to conclude this issue. Based upon the fact it was reported everywhere that he was technically deactivated for the Redskin game, not suspended, that means he was paid for that game and thus his 4-game suspension should be upheld.

* The fact that player X was only suspended by Team Y for 1 game for kicking an old lady has zero bearing on an arbitrators decision regarding "Are the Eagles entitled to suspend Owens for 4 games under the CBA?" The two sides negotiated a CBA which allowed for 4 game suspensions. Unless the CBA states that a suspension duration must consider prior player suspensions by different teams for different acts, an arbitrator will absolutely not read this into the CBA. There is no way in hell an arbitrator is going to be looking at team rights everytime a player is suspended by more than 1 game.

On deactivation following the suspension:

An arbitrator will look at the specific CBA requirements/guidelines applicable to "deactivations." If the rules simply say a team must specify its 8 inactive players by Friday PM before gameday, that is all an arbitrator has to work with. He will not read into this that deactivated players must be deactivated for cause. He will not read into this that deactivated players must be the lowest string player at a particular position. He will not read into this that a player cannot be deactivated if the team has a better chance of winning with this player active. Lastly, he will not determine that deactivation is the same as suspension if the player is being paid. These are two completely different scenarios, one being paid, another being unpaid.

* The Keyshawn Johnson situation has zero bearing on this. Zero bearing means it doesn't "help" Owens as some are presuming, it just means the team/player CBA rights under this circumstance have never been debated formally and no conclusions have ever been established.

* I'd be shocked if there is any guarantee of playing time, wearing a uniform or ability to stand on the sidelines in the CBA. My nearly 100% suspicion is this agreement only cares about will the player be paid, or will he not be paid. If the players union wanted a guarantee that highly skilled players must be activated when healthy, they should have negotiated that into the agreement.

 

[Bushead]

This is simply not true.  You may have those rules at your company, but there is not federal law that mandates such.  In Pennsyvania, I can fire any employee at any time for any reason I want (assuming that the reason is a discrimatory one covered by federal regs, ie age), and the employee has zero recourse.  I can absolutely keep track of an employee digging their own grave and fire them when I have had enough.

Lets also not forget, in TO's case, this is not the first time he was warned.  He was sent home from training camp for a week for being a jerk and telling his coaches and teamates not to talk to him.  Around that time, the Eagles sent a letter to at least TO and his agent (probably the NFLPA as well) outlining the reasons he was sent home and what would be expected of him when he returned.  During this same timeframe, TO publically announced on several occasions that he would return to the team but he was going to be a disrutption.  He has proceeded to do exactly that.  He was almost certainly given a number of verbal warnings (I have nothing to back this up, just speculation here) between that time and now.  Finally after his latest outburst, he was given two options, appoligize to those that you have attacked in the press or you will be removed from the team.  He chose to play a game, calling the Eagles bluff, and appogized to those he felt like appoligizing to, disregarding specific instructions his employer gave him.  Willful misconduct?  Probably just plain stupidity, but nonetheless he had full control of his future and he chose the path he would take, not the Eagles.

I cannot see how the Eagles are not well within their rights to deactivate the guy for the rest of the year.

Going on your argument, why would your employer put such an ultimatum on you. You must apologize or else I'm going to take away your money and not let you do the thing you love. The Eagles did this, TO apologized, apparently that apology was not accepted.This is as much a fault of the Eagles as it is TO. It takes two sides to disagree.

If the Eagles don't plan on playing him, don't just deactivate the guy so he can't play on a competitor. The Eagles are scared he's going to burn him. Because that's exactly what TO will do, because he's that good and the Eagles know it..

Your employer could put that ultimatum on you for a number of reasons. In this case the Eagles believe that TO, in his berating of the team and organization, was damaging their business. He had already done what they considered conduct detrimental and could have been suspended immediatly. Instead, they gave him yet another chance to correct the damage. He chose not to.They probably are scared of him, which is exactly why he will not play for anyone this year. They would be stupid to do otherwise.

 

[Ksquared]

If there was not a big $8 million bonus due in the spring, the Eagles would certainly be looking to trade Owens. By the logic of some of the previous posters, you would be removing the Eagles ability to trade a player they have under contract until they release him. Since everyone in the league knows that he will be released, no one will pay the price for a trade, but that does not keep the Eagles from having the right to trade him for a bag of chips if they wanted until they release him.

 

[toxicbees]

If the Eagles really think T.O. is a cancer in the locker room, why not release him so that a potential playoff team can pick him up thus destroying said team's chances of making it to the post season. Wouldn't this increase the Eagles chances of making the playoffs? In their minds, I assume they would think that T.O. would be the perfect Trojan horse for one of their competitors.

I think the Eagles really think T.O. is a great guy at heart. However, they probably fear that T.O. will not be able to get his contract at this time and will have to finish the season making less money than he would under the current contract with the Eagles. In the Eagle's mind, I think they know NFL contracts better than T.O. and just want to ensure he can still provide for his family over the winter.

I guess that's why they're trying to get his signing bonus back.

 

[BlueOnion]

If the Eagles really think T.O. is a cancer in the locker room, why not release him so that a potential playoff team can pick him up thus destroying said team's chances of making it to the post season.  Wouldn't this increase the Eagles chances of making the playoffs?  In their minds, I assume they would think that T.O. would be the perfect Trojan horse for one of their competitors.

I think the Eagles really think T.O. is a great guy at heart. However, they probably fear that T.O. will not be able to get his contract at this time and will have to finish the season making less money than he would under the current contract with the Eagles. In the Eagle's mind, I think they know NFL contracts better than T.O. and just want to ensure he can still provide for his family over the winter.

I guess that's why they're trying to get his signing bonus back.

Everybody knows that if you let someone get away with something, then you are nothing more than an enabler. I am sure the Eagles are genuinely interested TO's well being.

 

[gzilla]

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."

The excessive-penalty argument is one of three the union will use with Bloch.

The union will also argue that the five-game deactivation violates the agreement because it exceeds the maximum four-game suspension allowed under the rules for player misconduct. And it will say the penalty is a double punishment for Owens, because the team had already suspended him for last Sunday's game against the Washington Redskins.

As part of its case before arbitrator Richard Bloch on Nov. 18, the players' union will show examples of other incidents involving player misconduct that resulted in penalties far less severe than the four-game suspension and five-week deactivation of Owens.

In one case, a player ran into the tunnel before the first half of a game ended because he was angry with his coach. The coach subsequently suspended the player for one game. In another, a player refused to practice when he was told he'd be working with the scout team instead of the starting unit. That player was also suspended for a game.

My TakeTO will be back this year. This is the letter of the law, there really is no debate. This is a union, they have a collective bargaining agreement barring teams from doing what Philadelphia is doing.

He's either going to be on the Eagles practice squad or released, where Houston or Green Bay will have the first choice to claim him.

Philidelphia will not want him back on their team, that much we all know, they will release him.

Trade for him now because he's value will never be lower.

I think that your take is wrong. The collective bargaining agreement does in fact allow the team to suspend a player for 4 games due to conduct detrimental to the team. I think that's a pretty easy point to prove considering many players on the Eagles team have validated that T.O.'s words and actions are bad for the team.Subsequent to that, TO will be on the team, he will get paid, but the Eagles will choose not to play him (because they feel they are more likely to win without him playing). Furthermore, they will choose to keep him on the team (because they feel that they are more likely to win with TO on the team...or more precisely, with him not on another team).

I find it humorous that you say that "There is no debate."

 

[Brock Middlebrook]

Here's my final $.02 on this topic, I promise.

On the 4 game suspension issue:

The ONLY thing T.O. can hope to come out of this hearing is that his suspension is being reduced from 4 to 3 games, and the only fact an arbitrator will consider is whether (1) Owens was "suspended" for the Redskin game, and (2) if so, was this based upon the same "suspendable act." No one in this forum knows sufficient facts to conclude this issue. Based upon the fact it was reported everywhere that he was technically deactivated for the Redskin game, not suspended, that means he was paid for that game and thus his 4-game suspension should be upheld.

* The fact that player X was only suspended by Team Y for 1 game for kicking an old lady has zero bearing on an arbitrators decision regarding "Are the Eagles entitled to suspend Owens for 4 games under the CBA?" The two sides negotiated a CBA which allowed for 4 game suspensions. Unless the CBA states that a suspension duration must consider prior player suspensions by different teams for different acts, an arbitrator will absolutely not read this into the CBA. There is no way in hell an arbitrator is going to be looking at team rights everytime a player is suspended by more than 1 game.

On deactivation following the suspension:

An arbitrator will look at the specific CBA requirements/guidelines applicable to "deactivations." If the rules simply say a team must specify its 8 inactive players by Friday PM before gameday, that is all an arbitrator has to work with. He will not read into this that deactivated players must be deactivated for cause. He will not read into this that deactivated players must be the lowest string player at a particular position. He will not read into this that a player cannot be deactivated if the team has a better chance of winning with this player active. Lastly, he will not determine that deactivation is the same as suspension if the player is being paid. These are two completely different scenarios, one being paid, another being unpaid.

* The Keyshawn Johnson situation has zero bearing on this. Zero bearing means it doesn't "help" Owens as some are presuming, it just means the team/player CBA rights under this circumstance have never been debated formally and no conclusions have ever been established.

* I'd be shocked if there is any guarantee of playing time, wearing a uniform or ability to stand on the sidelines in the CBA. My nearly 100% suspicion is this agreement only cares about will the player be paid, or will he not be paid. If the players union wanted a guarantee that highly skilled players must be activated when healthy, they should have negotiated that into the agreement.

The Eagles very public and repeated statements that the deactivation is a form of punishment violates the CBA.

 

[SuperJohn96]

I heard on the radio a long interview with T.O.s union rep Bartleman or something like that...

...and he said everyone is wrong to keep bringing up the Keyshawn incident for a comparison.

So the union says what the Bucs did to Keyshawn was wrong but he didn't contest it so everyone just ASSUMED that it was a legal thing for the Bucs to do according to the CBA...

His rep said the last measure of discipline officially recorded against TO this year was a $150 for being late to a meeting in training camp...or something like that.

There are a lot of .... "Assumes", "something like that's" and "well ... maybe's"

When I wrote assume, I am not saying the union assumed anything, but the union is saying that others (fans & media?) are the ones making incorrect assumptions about the Keyshawn situation.The "something like that's" and "well ... maybe's" are my own words because, well, I couldn't remember what was said exactly...or something like that

 

[BigJim®]

The Eagles very public and repeated statements that the deactivation is a form of punishment violates the CBA.

Hogwash. Plese link me these "very public and repeated statements." I don't believe they exist. PUBLICALLY, Andy Reid made a single brief statment and that statement was:"Terrell Owens has been suspended by the team for four games for conduct detrimental to the team and he will not be returning to play for the team even after the conclusion of that suspension," Reid said. "The league has been notified by the Players' Union that they will be grieving our right to take that action.

"I do want it to be clear that this decision is a result of a large number of situations that accumulated over a long period of time, during which Terrell had been warned repeatedly about the consequences of his actions. Even with the activities that took place last week, we gave Terrell every opportunity to avoid this outcome."

Contrary to what you are stating as fact, this statement does not convey a "punishment." It conveys "consequences" to an ongoing player control issue (i.e. that the team will pay him free money to sit at home rather than allow one malcontent to disrupt the rest of the team). I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that statement was penned by an Eagles attorney who understands the distinction.

[Now that is my final $.02 unless someone else misrepresents fact]

 

[Frills]

McNair's (Texans owner) take on Owens

From http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/sports/3451298

"Texans owner Bob McNair would love to have a chance to acquire a lot of NFL players to help solve his problems, but Philadelphia receiver Terrell Owens is not one of them.

During a break in preparations for Sunday's game at unbeaten Indianapolis, McNair was asked if he would consider signing Owens once Philadelphia has washed its hands of him.

"He's almost dismantled the Eagles; why would you wish that on us?" McNair said with a laugh. "I've already got enough problems."

 

[Gigantomachia]

I don't know why people keep using the word "law." For crying out loud, T.O. is in a labor dispute which involves interpretation of a collective bargaining contract. There are no laws involved. Thank you.

Pretty much the truth. However the labor dispute does revolve around a collective bargaining agreement which is a legally binding contract. And any difference in the intrepretation of this legal document will fall under contractual law and labor agreement law.But BigJim is right, no law has been broken. At best, there has been a breech of contract.

But breach of contract can lead to criminal actions through state regulations. Trust me, I have a friend who is a contractor (electric) and the state can file criminal charges on the failure to fulfill a contract agreement. Course we don't live in Philly so who knows?

So Pennsylvania may file criminal charges against the Eagles for paying a guy to do absolutely nothing? I mean my god, has this board gone totally insane?

Yes.And yes.

 

[Gigantomachia]

I don't know why people keep using the word "law." For crying out loud, T.O. is in a labor dispute which involves interpretation of a collective bargaining contract. There are no laws involved. Thank you.

Pretty much the truth. However the labor dispute does revolve around a collective bargaining agreement which is a legally binding contract. And any difference in the intrepretation of this legal document will fall under contractual law and labor agreement law.But BigJim is right, no law has been broken. At best, there has been a breech of contract.

But breach of contract can lead to criminal actions through state regulations. Trust me, I have a friend who is a contractor (electric) and the state can file criminal charges on the failure to fulfill a contract agreement. Course we don't live in Philly so who knows?

So Pennsylvania may file criminal charges against the Eagles for paying a guy to do absolutely nothing? I mean my god, has this board gone totally insane?

Funny enough, I own an electrical contracting company in Pennsylvania. I have never heard of crimal charges being filed for a breech of contract. In fact, I don't think the state has any role to play in contract disputes. If one party feels the contract has been violated they can pursue action (and not crimial) against the other party through whatever means the contract provides or through the court system if dispute resolution is not spelled out in the contract.Does anyone really believe that states have any interest in adminstering or governing private contracts?

Again, yes. Wyoming can file criminal charges for contract breeches if something deemed necessary for the community is delayed causing hardship for others. I guess you easterners don't care about such trivilities as community. Funny caring so much about TO being a "disruption to the team."

Irony. Well, if you look at it right

 

[Bushead]

I don't know why people keep using the word "law." For crying out loud, T.O. is in a labor dispute which involves interpretation of a collective bargaining contract. There are no laws involved. Thank you.

Pretty much the truth. However the labor dispute does revolve around a collective bargaining agreement which is a legally binding contract. And any difference in the intrepretation of this legal document will fall under contractual law and labor agreement law.But BigJim is right, no law has been broken. At best, there has been a breech of contract.

But breach of contract can lead to criminal actions through state regulations. Trust me, I have a friend who is a contractor (electric) and the state can file criminal charges on the failure to fulfill a contract agreement. Course we don't live in Philly so who knows?

So Pennsylvania may file criminal charges against the Eagles for paying a guy to do absolutely nothing? I mean my god, has this board gone totally insane?

Yes.And yes.

This is not worth continuing unless you can provide some proof that such a law exists, in Wyoming or Pennsylvania.