SectionC3

The contract likely would (at best, from the league's perspective), incorporate the terms of the CBA. Which brings us back to this point - we still have a problem with the ambiguity of the tag language.

Why is that? In simple terms, Sentence #1 speaks only to the tagging club. Sentence #2, as noted in an earlier post, should have been much better written if the intent was to prevent a tagged player from signing a long-term contract with a club other than the tagging club after July 15. To the extent Sentence #1 reflects that the entirety of the clause is to pertain only to the relationship between the tagging club and the player (not too much of a stretch, given the availability of cleaner, plainer language as noted earlier in the thread), then we have found a loophole. Along those lines, Sentence #1 easily could (and probably should) speak to the player, not to the club, e.g., "Any player designated a Franchise Player shall have until . . . July 15 of the League Year . . for which the designation takes effect to sign with any Club, including the Club designating him a Franchise Player, a multiyear contract or extension." Boom. Problem solved. No room for this debate, and no occasion for a sharp agent/attorney to try to get a client like Clowney leverage and big bucks a year earlier than most would expect.

So do I. And, as noted, the phraseology is poor. Here's the sentence in question: "After that date, the player may sign only a one-year Player Contract with his Prior Club for that season, and such Player Contract may not be extended until after the Club’s last regular season game of that League Year." Your interpretation would be rock solid if the language was "the only contract a player may sign until the completion of the Prior Club's last regular season game of that League Year is a one-year Player Contract with his Prior Club for that season." (And, in point of candor, my point would be rock solid if the language read, "After that date, the player may sign with his Prior Club only a one-year Player Contract for that season). In any event, your interpretation would still be pretty close to rock solid if the sentence referenced above is read in isolation. The problem remains that the first sentence of the paragraph (not quoted here) suggests that the limitation on contract applies only to the franchising club. As noted in a prior post, the last clause of the sentence I quoted above creates a problem from the player's perspective - it suggests that a one-year agreement signed by a franchised player can't be extended until after the Prior Club's final regular season game. But that clause must be read in conjunction with the first sentence of the paragraph, which, again, suggests that the prohibition against extension applies only to the relationship between the franchising club and the franchised player. Taking a broader view of this issue, it's common sense that the league is going to interpret this clause the way that you and the Rochester guy (whatever his name is) do. Allowing the player to sign a multi-year agreement with 31 teams, but only a one-year agreement with the franchising team, incentivizes stalling on the part of the player to force a trade to a team eligible to reach a long-term agreement with him. That can't be what owners want. But it would be much better from the player's perspective if he was eligible to sign a long-term agreement with any of the 31 other teams in the league after July 15. In Clowney's case, it might be an $80 million issue. To borrow from Chuck Dickerson, you bet your bippy that I would be all over this if I was his counsel.

Your references are journalist-based. You don't seem to get it. Your beliefs that lawyers contributed to those articles is an assumption. Since you seem to enjoy playing lawyer, instead of citing one article after another by somebody who graduated from Mizzou or Newhouse or wherever, try reading the CBA and prove that I'm wrong. Or find some arb decisions that say I'm wrong. Put your money where your mouth is. I'll be here all day. EDIT: And, for what it's worth, you still can't refute the point that the clause is very, very poorly written and leaves open the possibility that it could be construed my way by an independent arbitrator.

You aren't ruining my day. I do this for a living. It's a bad provision, and it only takes one smart lawyer to exploit it. All you're doing is regurgitating articles by people who are parroting the same misconception. Repetition doesn't add validity to a point. EDIT - the point you emphasize in your quote seems to be a journalist's explanation of the CBA. No CBA language is cited in that passage; by contrast, I quoted it earlier nd explained precisely how the clause could and should be attacked in favor of the player. Along those lines, nothing you've referenced addresses my point (one that you have been unable to rebut, for what it's worth) - the language is ambiguous and it has the potential to cause a problem for the league if a smart agent tries to exploit it. Things like this have happened before even in the NFL context - I believe Brees had a tag grievance that nobody saw coming that he won. On the flip side, the moron who represents Bell didn't realize that Bell could have been subject to a franchise/transition tag for the 2019 season until deep into Bell's holdout. In point of fact, issues like the one I've presented arise all of the time in the "real world." You would be surprised how much your homeowners' and auto policies are litigated, even though the "guts" of those contracts have been around for years, if not for decades.

One more time - what is "actual reported info" - a journalist's interpretation of a contractual provision?

Could AB wear the old helmet model? Yup. Rosenhaus did better than the agents for Brady and Rodgers on that point. And the fact that an issue hasn't been pursued doesn't mean that it lacks merit - it could also mean that nobody has been creative/intelligent enough to identify and attack the point.

Sorry, but you're wrong. The clause "with his Prior Club" suggests that the one-year provision applies only to the franchising club. If the provision was meant to apply to any contract the player might sign with any club, then the better phrasing would have been "The player may sign only a one-year Player Contract for that season." Whether the wanna be lawyers here want to admit it or not, this part of the CBA is poorly drafted and there is wiggle room here.

For what it's worth, the league would have a better argument if the clause read something like "Any player who is designated a Franchise Player shall have until 12:00 p.m. on July 15 to sign a multiyear contract . . . ." The fact that it doesn't read that way supports the idea that the clause is meant to apply to the franchising team, not to the player.

Sure those outlets have lawyers. But did they contribute to the story? And, for what it's worth, you still haven't contradicted my point about the ambiguity of the clause. Finally - maybe, just maybe, it would behoove players to get sharp lawyers for agents as opposed to the knuckleheads a lot of them tend to hire. Drew Rosenhaus might seem like a putz, but look at what he did for Antonio Brown on the helmet issue. He thought of things that nobody else bothered to explore under the CBA, and he kept the issue alive for his client for a lot longer than most would have expected.

Probably written by a sports journalist, not a lawyer. To be taken with a grain of salt. Read the first sentence in this clause. I'm not saying it's dispositive, just "gray" - it looks to me like the prohibition against post-July 15 extensions could apply only to the franchising team. What makes it "gray" is the last clause of the paragraph. The question is whether the first clause (or anything else in the CBA, which I haven't bothered to and won't read) changes the interpretation of this language. With respect to your underlined language, Clowney isn't under contract and therefore is free to negotiate as he sees fit. Not sure how the penalty language would apply to a team to which he is traded if the conversations occur prior to the signing of the franchise tender. *** Any Club designating a Franchise Player shall have until 4:00 p.m., New York time, on July 15 of the League Year (or, if July 15 falls on a Saturday or Sunday, the first Monday thereafter) for which the designation takes effect to sign the player to a multiyear contract or extension. After that date, the player may sign only a one-year Player Contract with his Prior Club for that season, and such Player Contract may not be extended until after the Club’s last regular season game of that League Year.

I'm not completely sure about that. The CBA appears to be "gray" on that point. In my reading the July 15 clause pertains only to the relationship between the player and the "original" club - meaning that the player can't sign anything other than the franchise tender with the franchising club beyond July 15. If, however, the player lands on another roster, then it doesn't look like the prohibition against an extension, etc., would apply to the player's relationship with his new club. Maybe it's been arbitrated and a result contrary to my interpretation was reached - I don't have enough concern to look it up. But I'm not convinced that Clowney couldn't sign long-term with a team other than the Texans to the extent he is traded while on his franchise tender. EDIT: There also could be language elsewhere in the CBA pertinent to this point. I read one paragraph somewhere b/w pages 44 and 51. So to get a clear answer on this somebody would have to read the entire CBA (I assume there's an integration clause in the compact) and check any arbitration decisions on the topic.

No, it's not wrong. He doesn't sign the tender without a destination in place. Houston can't trade him unless he agrees on the destination. And he won't agree on the new destination until, as noted, he "agrees to terms" with a new team - which is different from signing.

Yes he does control his destination. He doesn't get traded until he agrees to terms with a new team. Or, I suppose he could sign the tender and get flipped thereafter. But there's more value for him and for the Texans if he's moved with a contract in place. He will not be a one-and-done player for his new team. The thing I haven't seen mentioned is that we recently hired the former Texans GM, who is big Clowney backer and who theoretically knows Clowney's financial goals and the trade market for Clowney as of a little before the draft IIRC. We should have the inside track on this player.

I can't see them keeping Yeldon over DiMarco simply b/c of ST. Kroft lives near me and he was rolling around on one of those knee scooters until just before camp. I'm not sure how to put this but . . . he didn't exactly look like an NFL player to me when I last saw him. I think conditioning might be/might have been an issue with the foot, and the uneducated guess here is that he starts the year on PUP.

Normally I would agree with you on TE/WR not being linked, but this year with the Kroft situation they might keep for a month a 7th WR who might have a little upside instead of a 4th TE who JAG.

I think you're probably right about that. I'm wondering if the Spain injury isn't too bad if they don't try to sneak both Teller and Boettger to the PS and stash the ninth OL there. I don't like keeping 7 WR, either, but I wonder if they might until Kroft is ready to play.

Agreed. This guy is a real find, particularly given that he was acquired for someone who wasn't going to sniff the roster. Curious to see if they plug him in at G this Thursday. Might allow them to keep only 8 OL in spite of the injury bug.

I think you might be on to something with Foster's attitude. When breaking camp McDermott made a comment about liking the attitudes of "most" of the players. So apparently there's a couple of guys who are rubbing him the wrong way. I assume if they were JAGs they would have been gone by then. And I recall reading camp reports of Foster moping when he was with the 2s. Putting aside the fact that Foster likely would get claimed on waivers, the problem with cutting him is that it removes a big chunk of our top-end speed at that position. We went through this last year - the "catch radius" and "hands" guys didn't work so well for Josh, but when we put more speed in the lineup (Foster, even Thompson) things opened up a lot for him. Cutting Foster leaves Brown as the only real burner. Not so sure that's a great idea. (I guess maybe McKenzie could fill that role, but I don't think he's been used like that.) If all that is true, maybe it comes down to Zay v Foster for the last spot. Zay earned hardest worker in the offseason, and it's going to be hard to cut a guy like that for an attitude problem. It's a dilemma for sure. Maybe they go light at RB and try to go with 7 WR for a couple of weeks to see how things shake out. On that point, I think we may end up keeping 9 OL with the way Bates has played and the nagging injuries at that position in camp, which makes it tough to get a 7th WR on the roster. Figure 2QB, 3TE (Sweeney, Knox, Smith; Kroft to PUP), 9 OL (Dawkins, Spain, Morse, Long, Ford, Nyseke, Feliciano, Bates, Teller/Boettger), 4 RB (McCoy, Gore, Singletary, DiMarco), and then maybe it could be justified until Kroft returns. I don't know that we need Yeldon -- to me Singletary makes him redundant. Perry is a different matter - not sure who's going to play teams. On the other hand, covering kicks isn't as important as it used to be. No matter, it's a tough call.

Yup. Covered the tackle and took more than one full step off the LOS before initiating contact. It was the right call.

This. Daboll wants quickness and speed in the slot. We saw that last year after the bye. I think Zay is in trouble, but I don’t see why they wouldn’t bring him to camp. Based on the collection of WRs, I wonder if DiMarco/TE3 might be in trouble. I realize that the plan is to be flexible on the offensive side of the ball, but stacking speed in the slot works well for Allen. Might not need to go four deep with that type of player.

Outstanding! (But I consider John Brown a hero )

Yup. The incompletion on first down was ridiculous.

He’s a fumbler. He proved it this year.

Good point. I hadn’t thought about June 1, was just working in the idea that they want to bubble wrap him so they can get rid if him after the year. I guess they could rid themselves of him now, unless they don’t want to fire someone during Christmas week.