Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. #1
    Prophet's Avatar
    Prophet is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    17,388

    Teams resisting the poison pill

    TEAMS RESISTING THE POISON PILL
    POSTED 10:38 a.m. EDT, March 13, 2007
    pft.com

    Several readers are sick of hearing about the poison pill, but we think it's currently one of the few hot button labor relations issues between the NFL and the players union.
    And since the guy who writes all the crap on this page is a lawyer, we think the issue is worthy of attention.
    Especially since the Fins-Pats trade is the first sign of trouble.

    But there's more.

    In response to our item from Monday night regarding the question of whether agents are asking for the poison pill, an agent contacted us (unsolicited) and told us this:
    "My agency represents a player who is a restricted free agent and in whom one team in particular seems very interested. The only holdup is that the front office of the new team feels very strongly that the original team will match any offer.
    When I suggested a poison pill deal that would have ensured my client's services, they balked and commented that some higher ups in the organization were reluctant to use any poison pill type clauses in fear of retribution.
    The focus of their fear was not the league but of the original team and that possibility that they or another team would feel free to f--k with one of their restricted players in the future."

    So there you have it.
    Teams are afraid to use the poison pill because they don't want to have the poison pill used against them.
    And, in our view, that attitude (if it becomes commonplace in league circles) is a violation of Article XXIII, Section 1 of the amended CBA, because it represents an implied agreement "to restrict or limit individual Club decision-making . . . concerning the terms or conditions of employment offered to any player for inclusion, or included, in a player contract."

    That's why we keep talking about this story.
    There's now a weapon in every team's free-agency arsenal that the teams are regarding as the equivalent of an atomic bomb.
    But, under the letter and spirit of the CBA, the teams legally can't choose to enter into a wink-nod arrangement that no one will go nuclear.

    Hey, it's six months until the real action on the field begins.
    Until September, this is the closest thing we have to bona fide NFL drama.

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  2. #2
    Zeus's Avatar
    Zeus is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Minnesota.
    Posts
    23,937

    Re: Teams resisting the poison pill

    "Prophet" wrote:
    So there you have it.
    Teams are afraid to use the poison pill because they don't want to have the poison pill used against them.
    And, in our view, that attitude (if it becomes commonplace in league circles) is a violation of Article XXIII, Section 1 of the amended CBA, because it represents an implied agreement "to restrict or limit individual Club decision-making . . . concerning the terms or conditions of employment offered to any player for inclusion, or included, in a player contract."

    That's why we keep talking about this story.
    There's now a weapon in every team's free-agency arsenal that the teams are regarding as the equivalent of an atomic bomb.
    But, under the letter and spirit of the CBA, the teams legally can't choose to enter into a wink-nod arrangement that no one will go nuclear.

    Hey, it's six months until the real action on the field begins.
    Until September, this is the closest thing we have to bona fide NFL drama.
    I don't see being afraid that the team you hit with the poison pill will hit you back with a poison pill as collusion.
    I think that's just part of due diligence, like checking criminal records and stats.

    =Z=

    Thanks to Josdin for the awesome sig!

  3. #3
    cajunvike's Avatar
    cajunvike is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    32,063

    Re: Teams resisting the poison pill

    "Zeus" wrote:
    "Prophet" wrote:
    So there you have it.
    Teams are afraid to use the poison pill because they don't want to have the poison pill used against them.
    And, in our view, that attitude (if it becomes commonplace in league circles) is a violation of Article XXIII, Section 1 of the amended CBA, because it represents an implied agreement "to restrict or limit individual Club decision-making . . . concerning the terms or conditions of employment offered to any player for inclusion, or included, in a player contract."

    That's why we keep talking about this story.
    There's now a weapon in every team's free-agency arsenal that the teams are regarding as the equivalent of an atomic bomb.
    But, under the letter and spirit of the CBA, the teams legally can't choose to enter into a wink-nod arrangement that no one will go nuclear.

    Hey, it's six months until the real action on the field begins.
    Until September, this is the closest thing we have to bona fide NFL drama.
    I don't see being afraid that the team you hit with the poison pill will hit you back with a poison pill as collusion.
    I think that's just part of due diligence, like checking criminal records and stats.

    =Z=
    If the teams tacitly agree not to do it to each other, then it could be construed as such though.
    BANNED OR DEAD...I'LL TAKE EITHER ONE

  4. #4
    Prophet's Avatar
    Prophet is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    17,388

    Re: Teams resisting the poison pill

    "cajunvike" wrote:
    ...If the teams tacitly agree not to do it to each other, then it could be construed as such though.
    ....so what you're saying is that if the bastards do it under the table some asshats can tweak the reality and create a smokescreen that appears to be a conspiracy?
    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  5. #5
    cajunvike's Avatar
    cajunvike is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    32,063

    Re: Teams resisting the poison pill

    "Prophet" wrote:
    "cajunvike" wrote:
    ...If the teams tacitly agree not to do it to each other, then it could be construed as such though.
    ....so what you're saying is that if the bastards do it under the table some asshats can tweak the reality and create a smokescreen that appears to be a conspiracy?
    Pretty much...YES!

    Anti-trust law is pretty tough...of course, the enforcement of it depends on who is in power!
    BANNED OR DEAD...I'LL TAKE EITHER ONE

  6. #6
    Zeus's Avatar
    Zeus is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Minnesota.
    Posts
    23,937

    Re: Teams resisting the poison pill

    "cajunvike" wrote:
    "Zeus" wrote:
    "Prophet" wrote:
    So there you have it.
    Teams are afraid to use the poison pill because they don't want to have the poison pill used against them.
    And, in our view, that attitude (if it becomes commonplace in league circles) is a violation of Article XXIII, Section 1 of the amended CBA, because it represents an implied agreement "to restrict or limit individual Club decision-making . . . concerning the terms or conditions of employment offered to any player for inclusion, or included, in a player contract."

    That's why we keep talking about this story.
    There's now a weapon in every team's free-agency arsenal that the teams are regarding as the equivalent of an atomic bomb.
    But, under the letter and spirit of the CBA, the teams legally can't choose to enter into a wink-nod arrangement that no one will go nuclear.

    Hey, it's six months until the real action on the field begins.
    Until September, this is the closest thing we have to bona fide NFL drama.
    I don't see being afraid that the team you hit with the poison pill will hit you back with a poison pill as collusion.
    I think that's just part of due diligence, like checking criminal records and stats.

    =Z=
    If the teams tacitly agree not to do it to each other, then it could be construed as such though.
    That's the thing - it doesn't sound (from this blurb) like a tacit agreement so much as it reads like "Didja SEE what Seattle did with Burleson after the Vikings signed Hutchinson?"

    =Z=

    Thanks to Josdin for the awesome sig!

Similar Threads

  1. Poison pill goes down easy
    By singersp in forum General NFL Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-10-2007, 05:56 PM
  2. Poison Pill?????
    By PurplePlain in forum General NFL Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-23-2007, 09:06 AM
  3. The Poison Pill Bowl
    By Prophet in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 68
    Last Post: 10-22-2006, 12:07 PM
  4. Props to Rob 'Poison Pill' Brzezinski
    By Prophet in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 03-25-2006, 01:20 AM
  5. Poison Pill in Hutch's contract
    By shawn9876uss in forum Vikings Offseason/Draft/FA Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-13-2006, 09:22 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •