TO back in 2005 (Speculation) (1 Viewer)

[Red Apples]

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.

 

[Cossack]

To be honest with you I think you are wrong but I hope he does come back. Now, I do have TO and would love to see him play again but that is not the main reason. I do think this last incident has been completely manipualted by the media aka ESPN for there own benefit. TO is a total f-ing ###### and should have seen the trap he was walking into, given. He should have know better then to deal with a scumbag like Drew Rosenhaus, obviously. But he should not be suspended for blatent ESPN spin doctering. The crasy part is that the Eagles also fell right into the trap by capitualing to what an overated, bloated, tabloid of a sports news network demanded of them. ESPN is no better than any of the other crappy news networks that have nothing better to do than ruin lives, ala the runaway bride or create a sh-tstorm out of the completely mundane. Sorry Ranting... Bottom line...TO ain't coming back this year. but he should

 

[toxicbees]

I hope he comes back, he's as talented as they come. If he can pump out 4 more years, he's a sure fire bet for the hall of fame.

 

[TCFF]

After four games, the Eagles must play TO. I don't think they collective bargarining agreement says anything about guaranteed playing time or reps in practice. As long as the Eagles pay TO after the fourth week I don't see where the union has a leg to stand on.

 

[Snotbubbles]

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.

 

[NJ]

What TB did to Keyshawn is exactly what Philly is doing TO. The only difference is that Philly suspended him for 4 games before deactivating him so they don't have to pay him for those 4 games. After that, they will deactivate him for the remainder of the season and he will be paid, but will not play.About the only thing the union can fight is the suspension itself. If they can get it overturned, then it will increase the number of games that TO is actually paid for, but he will still be deactivated and not play but he'll collect his game checks. This is exactly what happened to Keyshawn.

 

[Tackling Dummies]

Next question!

 

[Sweeper]

I do think this last incident has been completely manipualted by the media aka ESPN for there own benefit.

Dont forget or lose siggt of the fact that it was manipulated by the iggles as well. But bottom line is that the Eagles have dug in, and dug in deep. They can not sway and will not sway from their decision. They have commited, like I have never seen a team commit to anything before, to playing without TO and they have emphatically stated that TO is no longer an Eagle. The difference between the orginization being forced to "take him back" or not, be deactivated (while payed) or sit at home on a suspention without pay is merely semantics and will only matter to the lawers, agents and the leage.

Bottom Line .... TO only chance to put on an Eagles uniform is at the pro bowl. I would not be too worried about what they call TO's "suspension", he is done playing for them. And they have stated that they will pay if they are forced to by the league ... but he will not be back - and they wont release him becuase the last thing they want is him on a team that will beat them.

Now I am Ranting ..... and i agree with Tacklin Dummies ..... please, please, please lets move on from TO and talk about something else.

 

[SaintArnold]

What TB did to Keyshawn is exactly what Philly is doing TO. The only difference is that Philly suspended him for 4 games before deactivating him so they don't have to pay him for those 4 games. After that, they will deactivate him for the remainder of the season and he will be paid, but will not play.

About the only thing the union can fight is the suspension itself. If they can get it overturned, then it will increase the number of games that TO is actually paid for, but he will still be deactivated and not play but he'll collect his game checks. This is exactly what happened to Keyshawn.

Keyshawn did not file a grievance or try to fight it. Key is not any sort of legal precedent, even though he's cited as such throughout these forums.

 

[Godsbrother]

To be honest with you I think you are wrong but I hope he does come back. Now, I do have TO and would love to see him play again but that is not the main reason. I do think this last incident has been completely manipualted by the media aka ESPN for there own benefit. TO is a total f-ing ###### and should have seen the trap he was walking into, given. He should have know better then to deal with a scumbag like Drew Rosenhaus, obviously. But he should not be suspended for blatent ESPN spin doctering. The crasy part is that the Eagles also fell right into the trap by capitualing to what an overated, bloated, tabloid of a sports news network demanded of them. ESPN is no better than any of the other crappy news networks that have nothing better to do than ruin lives, ala the runaway bride or create a sh-tstorm out of the completely mundane.

Sorry Ranting...

Bottom line...TO ain't coming back this year.

but he should

Blaming ESPN for "manipulating" TO and Drew Rosenhaus. ESPN goes overboard on everything to the point where you want to throw up but they aren't responsible for what comes out of TO's mouth. Nor were they in the locker room when the fight broke out. And I don't think they came up with that lame attempt at an apology that TO initially gave.

If his idiot agent really loved him so much he would have advised his client to keep his mouth shut and just play football. TO is a fool and Rosenhaus is a creep. They both deserve each other.

 

[BlueOnion]

T.O. will not be back this season.

Let us assume the best case scenario, T.O. gets cut and is a free agent.

- The current market for a free agent is pretty dried up. There is a limited amount of cap space allocated each season (32 teams x Salary Cap ceiling). If this available cap space quickly evaporates from March 1 (opening of free agency) to June 1st (June 1st cuts), how much of the available market has evaporated from June 1st to November 1st?

So T.O. and Drew Rosenhaus have two options:

1) They can try to get a long term deal done this year, but I don't know what type of contract a team could really offer. I am pretty sure it will be nothing close to a contract T.O. could sign this March.

2) T.O. and DR could sign a very low 1-year (rest of the season contract) to get T.O. on the playing field. But if it is T.O. and DR to get T.O. the biggest contract they can, it hardly makes sense to put him on the field for peanuts and risk injury prior to March 1st.

So even if T.O. is released by the Eagles in the coming weeks, it hardly makes any sense for T.O. to sign with a new team.

 

[BlueOnion]

The more I think about it, if the Eagles really want to screw with T.O., they should go ahead and cut him.For T.O. to play this year for another team, he would probably hve to do one of two things:1) Sign a contract for the league minimum to play out the rest of the year and risk injury. No way I think DR risks a second Javon Walker situation in the same year.2) Sign a below market value 5 or 7 year contract for the league minimum in year 1, but have a significant signing bonus so the team could prorate the signing bonus over 5 ot 7 years instead of just 1. This would definitely work, but am pretty sure such a contract would be well below market value ((considering the evaporated cap space by the league as a whole) and T.O. would demand to redo his contract this March.

 

[BigJim®]

TO will be back this year. This is the letter of the law, there really is no debate completely unsubstantiated conclusion drawing by me pending the determination of an arbitrator.

Fixed

 

[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.He said the union approached Keyshawn about taking action against the Bucs in the same way they are now for T.O. but he declined.He (TO's rep) said that what the Bucs did was against the CBA, but if the player doesn't want to contest it, then the union can't do anything about it.He also added that if a player willingly signed for LESS than the league minimum as agreed to in the CBA, then the team would be inviolation, but the union couldn't fight it if the player did not want to contest it...just as an example of how the CBA can be sidestepped...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...FWIW, I don't know what the Eagles are going to do if TO wins his decision, but man (and I do NOT agree with TO's behaviour), I really think the Eagles messsed this one up...According to the CBA, the players have the same rights as we do with regards to discipline.Imagine if you were being a tool at work the way TO was...we have various laws in place that determine how we must be disciplined...verbal warning, 1 day leave, suspension, firing, etc...Your employer cannot keep track of you digging your grave and then fire you when they collect enough info on you. They have to start with small measures of discipline that escalate as you continue to violate rules.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.So his argument is pretty solid that the 4 game suspension is overboard. And if/when the Eagles deactivate TO after the suspension, they are going to file a grievance against that too...

 

[GhostOfAnAlias]

TO will be back this year. This is the letter of the law

If this were true, then what would prevent ANY player from simply "demanding" that his team cut him?

Owens might be able to force Philly to activate him, but there is absolutely no way he can force them to play him or cut him.

"Best" case scenario: he suits up for every game but never plays a single down.

 

[Raiders Fan]

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.

He said the union approached Keyshawn about taking action against the Bucs in the same way they are now for T.O. but he declined.

He (TO's rep) said that what the Bucs did was against the CBA, but if the player doesn't want to contest it, then the union can't do anything about it.

He also added that if a player willingly signed for LESS than the league minimum as agreed to in the CBA, then the team would be inviolation, but the union couldn't fight it if the player did not want to contest it...just as an example of how the CBA can be sidestepped...

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...

FWIW, I don't know what the Eagles are going to do if TO wins his decision, but man (and I do NOT agree with TO's behaviour), I really think the Eagles messsed this one up...

According to the CBA, the players have the same rights as we do with regards to discipline.

Imagine if you were being a tool at work the way TO was...we have various laws in place that determine how we must be disciplined...verbal warning, 1 day leave, suspension, firing, etc...

Your employer cannot keep track of you digging your grave and then fire you when they collect enough info on you. They have to start with small measures of discipline that escalate as you continue to violate rules.

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.

So his argument is pretty solid that the 4 game suspension is overboard. And if/when the Eagles deactivate TO after the suspension, they are going to file a grievance against that too...

This is how I feel about the situation.. Nobody is saying that TO isn't a crybaby but he does have rights and what most people don't realize that this is a UNION and it's not as easy as ok lets just suspend him and then deactivate. If his last infraction was a $150 fine then this I can understand a fight. I think TO has some leg to stand on but what that is, is still unknown. What can he do?? Can the Eagles just deactivate him or can the union force a release? This is the stuff we are waiting to see..

 

[BigJim®]

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.

He said the union approached Keyshawn about taking action against the Bucs in the same way they are now for T.O. but he declined.

He (TO's rep) said that what the Bucs did was against the CBA, but if the player doesn't want to contest it, then the union can't do anything about it.

He also added that if a player willingly signed for LESS than the league minimum as agreed to in the CBA, then the team would be inviolation, but the union couldn't fight it if the player did not want to contest it...just as an example of how the CBA can be sidestepped...

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...

FWIW, I don't know what the Eagles are going to do if TO wins his decision, but man (and I do NOT agree with TO's behaviour), I really think the Eagles messsed this one up...

According to the CBA, the players have the same rights as we do with regards to discipline.

Imagine if you were being a tool at work the way TO was...we have various laws in place that determine how we must be disciplined...verbal warning, 1 day leave, suspension, firing, etc...

Your employer cannot keep track of you digging your grave and then fire you when they collect enough info on you. They have to start with small measures of discipline that escalate as you continue to violate rules.

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.

So his argument is pretty solid that the 4 game suspension is overboard. And if/when the Eagles deactivate TO after the suspension, they are going to file a grievance against that too...

As has been mentioned, he would only be gaining the right to practice with the team following a suspension, with only the length of the suspension being in question [my personal guess is that the suspension would at best only be reduced to 3 games if the arbitrator rules that suspending TO for the Redskin game + 4 additioanal games exceeds the 4 game max]. Regardless, a team can absolutely 'deactivate' any player it chooses for any reason, as all teams do for a handful of players on a weekly basis, usually the same player or two for much of the entire season depending upon positional depth.

 

[JaxBill]

I think it would be humorous if the union fought for TO to play again and forced the Eagles to activate him. Then Andy Reid could tell him he's the new wedgebuster on special teams. If TO disagrees, then 4 more games without pay.

 

[BigJim®]

I think it would be humorous if the union fought for TO to play again and forced the Eagles to activate him. Then Andy Reid could tell him he's the new wedgebuster on special teams. If TO disagrees, then 4 more games without pay.

Exactly. And as another poster mentioned, TO could be sent to "Field 2" on a daily basis to run wind sprints while the rest of the team practices. There are probably a thousand ways for the Eagles to remain in strict compliance with the CBA and not reward TO for his antics.

 

[Brock Middlebrook]

intent can be argued hereWith 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.

 

[larry_boy_44]

To be honest with you I think you are wrong but I hope he does come back.  Now, I do have TO and would love to see him play again but that is not the main reason.  I do think this last incident has been completely manipualted by the media aka ESPN for there own benefit.  TO is a total f-ing ###### and should have seen the trap he was walking into, given.  He should have know better then to deal with a scumbag like Drew Rosenhaus, obviously.  But he should not be suspended for blatent ESPN spin doctering. The crasy part is that the Eagles also fell right into the trap by capitualing to what an overated, bloated, tabloid of a sports news network demanded of them.  ESPN is no better than any of the other crappy news networks that have nothing better to do than ruin lives, ala the runaway bride or create a sh-tstorm out of the completely mundane.

Sorry Ranting...

Bottom line...TO ain't coming back this year. 

but he should

Blaming ESPN for "manipulating" TO and Drew Rosenhaus. ESPN goes overboard on everything to the point where you want to throw up but they aren't responsible for what comes out of TO's mouth. Nor were they in the locker room when the fight broke out. And I don't think they came up with that lame attempt at an apology that TO initially gave.

If his idiot agent really loved him so much he would have advised his client to keep his mouth shut and just play football. TO is a fool and Rosenhaus is a creep. They both deserve each other.

what fight did TO get in with someone???link?

 

[BlueOnion]

Imagine if you were being a tool at work the way TO was...we have various laws in place that determine how we must be disciplined...verbal warning, 1 day leave, suspension, firing, etc...

T.O. is not being fired. He just being relocated to another part of the organization (inactive list) to improve the current working condition for all employees. If somebody was being a tool at work, I don't think it would be out of the question to relocate the guys work station to another part of the building to reduce said employees exposure to other productive employees.

 

[BigJim®]

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.

 

[Winston Smith]

Interestingly, in my league TO was cut. I think I'll grab him just to see how this shakes out.

 

[Gigantomachia]

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.

Exactly. Plus, if the Eagles really want to just "be out of the situation" as they have stated publicly, why not just cut TO and make everyone happy?Clearly the Eagles are trying to punish TO for not playing nice with others and have shown themselves to be as classless as TO if not worse in some respects.

All TO had done was lead the team in receptions/yardage/TDs among receivers; what a *******.

 

[BlueOnion]

Clearly the Eagles are trying to punish TO for not playing nice with others and have shown themselves to be as classless as TO if not worse in some respects.

I think the Eagles are doing him a favor by not cutting him, but that is just my own opinion (expressed above).

 

[Gigantomachia]

Imagine if you were being a tool at work the way TO was...we have various laws in place that determine how we must be disciplined...verbal warning, 1 day leave, suspension, firing, etc...

T.O. is not being fired. He just being relocated to another part of the organization (inactive list) to improve the current working condition for all employees. If somebody was being a tool at work, I don't think it would be out of the question to relocate the guys work station to another part of the building to reduce said employees exposure to other productive employees.

But if the argument if for "production," are you really suggesting that we are to believe the Eagle will be more productive without TO??

 

[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.

 

[Irish]

What TB did to Keyshawn is exactly what Philly is doing TO. The only difference is that Philly suspended him for 4 games before deactivating him so they don't have to pay him for those 4 games. After that, they will deactivate him for the remainder of the season and he will be paid, but will not play.

About the only thing the union can fight is the suspension itself. If they can get it overturned, then it will increase the number of games that TO is actually paid for, but he will still be deactivated and not play but he'll collect his game checks. This is exactly what happened to Keyshawn.

Keyshawn did not file a grievance or try to fight it. Key is not any sort of legal precedent, even though he's cited as such throughout these forums.

This is exactly what I was gonna post. People forget that Johnson wanted out of TB as bad as the team wanted to get rid of Keyshawn. This is not the case with Owens, he wants to play this year. Yeah the Eagles could just make TO inactive for the games, but they must let TO participate as part of the team or the Union will argue that it is an illegal extended suspension from the team.

 

[Gigantomachia]

The more I think about it, if the Eagles really want to screw with T.O., they should go ahead and cut him.

For T.O. to play this year for another team, he would probably hve to do one of two things:

1) Sign a contract for the league minimum to play out the rest of the year and risk injury. No way I think DR risks a second Javon Walker situation in the same year.

2) Sign a below market value 5 or 7 year contract for the league minimum in year 1, but have a significant signing bonus so the team could prorate the signing bonus over 5 ot 7 years instead of just 1. This would definitely work, but am pretty sure such a contract would be well below market value ((considering the evaporated cap space by the league as a whole) and T.O. would demand to redo his contract this March.

Very interesting points. On the other hand, I could see TO signing for the minimum just to have a chance to play against the Eagles and crush them. No seriously, I think TO would do something like that.

 

[BlueOnion]

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.

 

[BlueOnion]

Very interesting points. On the other hand, I could see TO signing for the minimum just to have a chance to play against the Eagles and crush them. No seriously, I think TO would do something like that.

I agree with your assesment about T.O., but do you think Drew Rosenhaus would let him?

 

[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?

 

[larry_boy_44]

the Eagles are wrong here...in announcing that TO will NEVER play for the Eagles again they have said that htis suspension and benching is simply to punish him by not allowing another team to sign him...and that's I would laugh so hard if the Union forces to Eagles to cut him...

 

[Gigantomachia]

Very interesting points.  On the other hand, I could see TO signing for the minimum just to have a chance to play against the Eagles and crush them.  No seriously, I think TO would do something like that.

I agree with your assesment about T.O., but do you think Drew Rosenhaus would let him?

After watching the statements on ESPN, I don't really think Rosey has that much influence on TO. Couldn't TO just get another agent of Rosey gave him any ####?

 

[larry_boy_44]

Imagine if you were being a tool at work the way TO was...we have various laws in place that determine how we must be disciplined...verbal warning, 1 day leave, suspension, firing, etc...

T.O. is not being fired. He just being relocated to another part of the organization (inactive list) to improve the current working condition for all employees. If somebody was being a tool at work, I don't think it would be out of the question to relocate the guys work station to another part of the building to reduce said employees exposure to other productive employees.

no, he's being suspended (part of which with pay) until the team feels like they might want to fire him officially, but they have announced that they are going to be officially firing him... its just a matter of when

 

[Gigantomachia]

the Eagles are wrong here...

in announcing that TO will NEVER play for the Eagles again they have said that htis suspension and benching is simply to punish him by not allowing another team to sign him...

and that's

I would laugh so hard if the Union forces to Eagles to cut him...

I :chokesbackpride: agree with the boy.

 

[Deranged Hermit]

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.

It's because most are completely ignorant of the situation and are either:1) talking out their ###

or

2) Just repeating (incorrectly) what they heard elsewhere

 

[BlueOnion]

Imagine if you were being a tool at work the way TO was...we have various laws in place that determine how we must be disciplined...verbal warning, 1 day leave, suspension, firing, etc...

T.O. is not being fired. He just being relocated to another part of the organization (inactive list) to improve the current working condition for all employees. If somebody was being a tool at work, I don't think it would be out of the question to relocate the guys work station to another part of the building to reduce said employees exposure to other productive employees.

no, he's being suspended (part of which with pay) until the team feels like they might want to fire him officially, but they have announced that they are going to be officially firing him... its just a matter of when

I can buy this. If the Eagles have made it clear their intent is to release him at the end of the year, then they should release him now. However, I think the Eagles are doing T.O. a favor by not releasing him.

 

[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.

 

[Sweeper]

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"The last thing the Players Union does is assume ... if only for the hundreds of other players they have to look out for.

Even if the point is "moo" (like a cow's opinion) the union will battle endlessly to have things work out in their favor. Even if it is a matter of how it is officialy labeled or the specific wording of the "suspension"/"benching"/"dropping" becuase it sets precident that can affect many many other contracts and players.

Think ... if the union does nothing here and two years from now there is a similar situation with a differernt player, there would now be the very strong argument of "well the eagles did it with TO ... .so we have the right to do it too". Not to mention how this will affect the owners/coaches the mentality that they can do what they want.

The unions wont want to give up even an inch ... if only to protect the Players and their interest, even if it is for the future and players other then TO (actually, especially players OTHER then TO).

 

[Bushead]

Imagine if you were being a tool at work the way TO was...we have various laws in place that determine how we must be disciplined...verbal warning, 1 day leave, suspension, firing, etc...

Your employer cannot keep track of you digging your grave and then fire you when they collect enough info on you. They have to start with small measures of discipline that escalate as you continue to violate rules.

grievance against that too...

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.

 

[Deranged Hermit]

I would laugh so hard if the Union forces to Eagles to cut him...

The union, or anyone else, cannot FORCE the Eagles to do anything in regards to cutting ANY player whether it be owens or Steve Spach. How hard is that to understand for you people?Owens is under contract and is so for another 5 years. As long as he gets paid, they can deactivate him whenever they want.

 

[Deranged Hermit]

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.

 

[Bushead]

What TB did to Keyshawn is exactly what Philly is doing TO.  The only difference is that Philly suspended him for 4 games before deactivating him so they don't have to pay him for those 4 games.  After that, they will deactivate him for the remainder of the season and he will be paid, but will not play.

About the only thing the union can fight is the suspension itself.  If they can get it overturned, then it will increase the number of games that TO is actually paid for, but he will still be deactivated and not play but he'll collect his game checks.  This is exactly what happened to Keyshawn.

Keyshawn did not file a grievance or try to fight it. Key is not any sort of legal precedent, even though he's cited as such throughout these forums.

This is exactly what I was gonna post. People forget that Johnson wanted out of TB as bad as the team wanted to get rid of Keyshawn. This is not the case with Owens, he wants to play this year. Yeah the Eagles could just make TO inactive for the games, but they must let TO participate as part of the team or the Union will argue that it is an illegal extended suspension from the team.

So, if Keyshawn wanted out of Tampa and Tampa wanted to get rid of him, why didn't they just cut him so both sides would be happy? Why was it OK for Tampa to bench him and potentially ruin his career rather than just releasing him? He obviously also wanted to play just like TO as he is still playing today. I still fail to see the distinction between these two.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Imagine if you were being a tool at work the way TO was...we have various laws in place that determine how we must be disciplined...verbal warning, 1 day leave, suspension, firing, etc...

Your employer cannot keep track of you digging your grave and then fire you when they collect enough info on you. They have to start with small measures of discipline that escalate as you continue to violate rules.

grievance against that too...

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.

but the Eagles aren't firing him, yet...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

 

[larry_boy_44]

I would laugh so hard if the Union forces to Eagles to cut him...

The union, or anyone else, cannot FORCE the Eagles to do anything in regards to cutting ANY player whether it be owens or Steve Spach. How hard is that to understand for you people?Owens is under contract and is so for another 5 years. As long as he gets paid, they can deactivate him whenever they want.

the Eagles have all but announced that they are cutting him in the off-season...Better:

the union should force the Eagles to give him the 8 million dollar roster bonus now or cut him...

since they've all but announced that he is getting cut...

 

[Capella]

larry, stop"illegal"

 

[Irish]

What TB did to Keyshawn is exactly what Philly is doing TO. The only difference is that Philly suspended him for 4 games before deactivating him so they don't have to pay him for those 4 games. After that, they will deactivate him for the remainder of the season and he will be paid, but will not play.

About the only thing the union can fight is the suspension itself. If they can get it overturned, then it will increase the number of games that TO is actually paid for, but he will still be deactivated and not play but he'll collect his game checks. This is exactly what happened to Keyshawn.

Keyshawn did not file a grievance or try to fight it. Key is not any sort of legal precedent, even though he's cited as such throughout these forums.

This is exactly what I was gonna post. People forget that Johnson wanted out of TB as bad as the team wanted to get rid of Keyshawn. This is not the case with Owens, he wants to play this year. Yeah the Eagles could just make TO inactive for the games, but they must let TO participate as part of the team or the Union will argue that it is an illegal extended suspension from the team.

So, if Keyshawn wanted out of Tampa and Tampa wanted to get rid of him, why didn't they just cut him so both sides would be happy? Why was it OK for Tampa to bench him and potentially ruin his career rather than just releasing him? He obviously also wanted to play just like TO as he is still playing today. I still fail to see the distinction between these two.

No, Keyshawn did not want to play for Gruden and was very happy collecting his paycheck at home. TB was smart in not cutting Johnson because in the offseason they traded him for Galloway. Keyshawn could have filed a grievance and the Union wanted him to, but Keyshawn didn't want to because he wanted out of TB and was still getting paid.

 

[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."