Does anyone know what he (Pasquarelli) is talking about?

John Galt · 02-22-2004, 02:01 PM

I was reading this week's Tip Sheet and saw this:

"Oh, yeah, beyond the potential tampering investigation, there could be one more blockbuster league matter -- one that can't be divulged at this time but which could surface in the next couple weeks -- with which the Washington organization will be forced to deal."

You can read the whole thing at:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/column...len&id=1741531

Does anyone have any idea what this could be?

QuikSand · 02-22-2004, 02:06 PM

"Washington organization" is a particularly cumbersome phrase... might it pertain to the mini-controversies surrounding the "Redskins" trademark and/or the team name generally?

Eaglesfan27 · 02-22-2004, 02:10 PM

Perhaps, but does that really seem like a "blockbuster league matter."

John Galt · 02-22-2004, 02:11 PM

I didn't mention that possibility in my first post, but that was my thought (and hope). It would be very interesting for the league to get involved in that issue given the Redskins won their last appeal on the copyright issue.

And on a completely separate note, I laughed hysterically at the quote at the bottom of the Tip Sheet:

"When I was in the fourth grade, I was kind of fat, (and weighed) something like 155 pounds. And I was playing in a league where the (weight) limit was 150 pounds. So I put myself into a trash bag, ran around in it, figuring that I would lose weight by sweating it off. It didn't work, though, because my mother found out. She thought I was crazy and made me stop." -- Oklahoma defensive tackle Tommie Harris, at the combine, when asked how much he loves playing football

John Galt · 02-22-2004, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

Perhaps, but does that really seem like a "blockbuster league matter."

But who really uses the words "blockbuster" and "league matter" together. I'm trying to think of other possibilities - the only others that come to mind are some problems on the Brunell trade or Gibbs hiring.

Fritz · 02-22-2004, 02:37 PM

did I miss something? the page said "there is no tampering...."

Easy Mac · 02-22-2004, 02:38 PM

I think its understood that Pasquirelli never knows what he's talking about.

Barkeep49 · 02-22-2004, 02:38 PM

Look at what was said about Ted Washington for the tampering bit.

mckerney · 02-22-2004, 02:49 PM

I have no idea, though it looks like it could surface within the next couple weeks.

Maple Leafs · 02-22-2004, 03:11 PM

Not sure it would qualify as a blockbuster, but does anyone know if the Skins talked to any minority candidates before hiring Gibbs?

John Galt · 02-22-2004, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

Not sure it would qualify as a blockbuster, but does anyone know if the Skins talked to any minority candidates before hiring Gibbs?

Yeah, Green and Rhodes and maybe others.

Easy Mac · 02-22-2004, 03:48 PM

They interviewed men, right? Men are a minority in America.

Anthony · 02-22-2004, 04:10 PM

the only thing i can think of is another issue of steroid usage by Redskins players.

cthomer5000 · 02-22-2004, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by QuikSand

"Washington organization" is a particularly cumbersome phrase... might it pertain to the mini-controversies surrounding the "Redskins" trademark and/or the team name generally?

This would be my initial thought, but given the fact that the Redskins have been successful lately in defending the name I would find the timing strange.

Subby · 02-22-2004, 04:34 PM

Pastabelly has a weird obsession with the 'Skins...

Pyser · 02-22-2004, 05:17 PM

ive always liked pasquarelli, especially in his sportsline days....am i the only one?

AgPete · 02-22-2004, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Galt

I was reading this week's Tip Sheet and saw this:

"Oh, yeah, beyond the potential tampering investigation, there could be one more blockbuster league matter -- one that can't be divulged at this time but which could surface in the next couple weeks -- with which the Washington organization will be forced to deal."

You can read the whole thing at:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/column...len&id=1741531

Does anyone have any idea what this could be?

Damn, the suspense is killing me now. This better be big because I'm going to check Sportscenter every night now waiting to hear the news.

ISiddiqui · 02-22-2004, 05:58 PM

Very interesting... the blockbuster league matter could be the name or something to do with Gibbs.

cthomer5000 · 02-22-2004, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

...or something to do with Gibbs.

any further thoughts on this? Maybe his racing team ownership is an issue?

ISiddiqui · 02-22-2004, 06:12 PM

That's a good guess... but of course we are all just speculating.

ShovelMonkey · 02-22-2004, 06:30 PM

In a surprising move to many in the league, Redskins owner Daniel Snyder announced that he will ritually cut off one finger for each loss the 'Skins suffer in the upcoming season.

When asked to comment, Coach Joe Gibbs said, "Well, I hope we don't lose more than ten games then."

Commissioner Paul Tagliabue has refused to comment on this unusual motivational method. An anonymous league source, however, has said that "...The no fun league may now be the no finger league."

Franklinnoble · 02-22-2004, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Subby

Pastabelly has a weird obsession with the 'Skins...

Yeah... and he's soooo popular over at extremeskins.com

tucker342 · 02-22-2004, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Galt

I didn't mention that possibility in my first post, but that was my thought (and hope). It would be very interesting for the league to get involved in that issue given the Redskins won their last appeal on the copyright issue.

And on a completely separate note, I laughed hysterically at the quote at the bottom of the Tip Sheet:

"When I was in the fourth grade, I was kind of fat, (and weighed) something like 155 pounds. And I was playing in a league where the (weight) limit was 150 pounds. So I put myself into a trash bag, ran around in it, figuring that I would lose weight by sweating it off. It didn't work, though, because my mother found out. She thought I was crazy and made me stop." -- Oklahoma defensive tackle Tommie Harris, at the combine, when asked how much he loves playing football

LOL That's great

sooner333 · 02-23-2004, 01:25 AM

Nevermind, I was stupid, and didn't read carefully enough.

Maybe they tried to talk to a coordinator that was coaching in the playoffs.

RealDeal · 02-23-2004, 02:00 AM

I think the story here is that the Skins supposedly tampered with Lawyer Milloy last season.

Subby · 02-23-2004, 06:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

Yeah... and he's soooo popular over at extremeskins.com

And hailredskins.com

Logan · 02-23-2004, 07:37 AM

I guess he was talking about this?

http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/for...ad.php?t=21982

cuervo72 · 02-23-2004, 07:57 AM

Has Danny Boy run out of money? (probably not....but hey, while we're throwing things out there).

QuikSand · 02-23-2004, 07:58 AM

A trade for Portis doesn't exactly seem like a "league matter" to me - but I suppose that could be the allusion.

Ksyrup · 02-23-2004, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by QuikSand

A trade for Portis doesn't exactly seem like a "league matter" to me - but I suppose that could be the allusion.

I'm assuming football has different rules than baseball regarding contract negotiations with players already on another team. In baseball, we always hear about the "72 hour window," whereas in football, the Brunell trade-and-sign went off without much mention of Tagliabue. However, is there at least a requirement that such negotiations be reported by the teams involved? Or, perhaps the Redskins initiated this whole thing directly with Portis upon hearing his contract squabbles? Surely that would be a problem.

Unless there's something else we're missing or haven't been told, these are the only things I can come up with that would be Portis-related.

Maple Leafs · 02-23-2004, 08:33 AM

It just seems strange that acquiring a superstar RB would be something a team "will be forced to deal" with. Odd phrasing.

cthomer5000 · 02-23-2004, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

It just seems strange that acquiring a superstar RB would be something a team "will be forced to deal" with. Odd phrasing.

I agree. Unless it was just really bad writing, I can't believe this is what he was talking about.

Ksyrup · 02-23-2004, 08:41 AM

What if he's suggesting that Washington will be forced to deal with the consequences of its actions in connection with a matter being reviewed by the league? Then, it could be anything, including something connected to the Portis trade. Although, the more I think about it, the less I think it has anything to do with the Portis trade, since Pasquarelli appears to know what the issue is, but is not divulging it. If he knew of the potential trade, he would have reported at least the trade, if not this "league issue," immediately.

Ksyrup · 02-23-2004, 08:42 AM

My money is on the Redskins name being the issue, although why it would come up at this particular time, I have no idea.

Passacaglia · 02-23-2004, 09:54 AM

I think it has to do with them signing Ellsworth Toohey as their franchise QB.

Maple Leafs · 02-23-2004, 10:15 AM

Of course, it's possible that Pasq knows what the issue is, but his editor doesn't, and the editor reworked his text to make it sound more dramatic.

Fidatelo · 02-23-2004, 10:46 AM

I don't think he had a clue about the Portis thing. Read that article, he puts his money on the Redskins acquiring Duce Staley, and later in the article says that the Broncos will be releasing Mike Anderson because they have Portis and the youngsters and can't afford to pay Anderson so much to be a backup.

I suspect whatever he was talking about has yet to come to light... if it ever will.

JAG · 02-24-2004, 07:55 AM

Maybe this? This seems like a weird time for this to come out though.

hxxp://www.washingtontimes.com/sports/20040224-120525-2631r.htm

Agent: Arrington got cheated

By Jody Foldesy
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The agent for linebacker LaVar Arrington has accused the Washington Redskins of shortchanging his client $6.5 million in the contract he signed at the end of last season, NFL sources said yesterday.

Agent Carl Poston claims the Redskins turned a version of the contract in to the league that was different from the one the three-time Pro Bowl player agreed to. But the Redskins vehemently deny any wrongdoing, and the NFL Players Association hasn't yet determined whether Poston's accusation has merit.

The NFLPA is investigating the claim and will move forward if it finds enough evidence of impropriety by Washington, sources said. The NFL Management Council would be the arbiter.

But the Redskins issued a quick and detailed denial when contacted about the charge last night. Through team spokesman Karl Swanson, Redskins contract specialist Eric Schaffer had this to say:

"The agent's claim is ridiculous. Details of the proposal were reviewed with the agent numerous times. Details of the contract were reviewed numerous times, and he made changes. The final contract was approved in writing before the agent recommended LaVar sign it. The agent initialed every page to acknowledge his approval before he signed it. That is the contract that was filed with the league."

Neither Poston nor NFLPA general counsel Richard Berthelsen returned phone calls seeking comment. NFL spokesman Greg Aeillo said he had heard nothing about the accusation.

Arrington's deal was valued at nine years (including the 2003 season) and $68 million when it reached the league. Poston apparently believes his client agreed to a nine-year, $74.5 million contract. However, it should be noted Poston initially advertised the deal as nine years, $80 million.

The deal was signed just before the end of last season to take advantage of the Redskins' leftover 2003 salary cap space. But the contract raised immediate questions from league observers because it gave Washington cap relief and more contract years but rewarded Arrington with little extra value.

The NFLPA has not determined where the contract might have lost the $6.5 million. Several sources indicated Poston might have to come forward with more evidence for a case to be heard.

Even if the charge ends up being dropped, it doesn't help the Redskins' track record of questionable business practices. In the past six months, the organization has drawn attention for suspected tampering in two cases.

The first instance came on the eve of last season, when the New England Patriots released safety Lawyer Milloy. SI.com quoted Milloy saying his agent — incidentally, Poston — contacted the Redskins before his release and that "the Redskins gave us a bigger offer than the Patriots."

The NFL investigated the claim, but apparently no wrongdoing was found. League officials admit tampering is extremely difficult to prove because both parties simply can deny any wrongdoing. In fact, it is well-known in league circles that clubs often have conversations with agents that border on tampering if not broach it.

The Redskins drew attention for potential tampering again this month when a pair of newspaper reports claimed the club had contact with agent Angelo Wright regarding Patriots defensive tackle Ted Washington.

But that instance doesn't seem to be meriting much investigation. The reports didn't seem cognizant of any potential wrongdoing, and Wright and Redskins vice president of football operations Vinny Cerrato later denied contact. Aeillo dismissed the Washington situation in a conversation last night.

EDITED for better readability.

cthomer5000 · 02-24-2004, 08:26 AM

This sounds like it at least has potential to be what Pasquerelli was talking about.

Shady.

QuikSand · 02-24-2004, 08:31 AM

Has to be it.

As an aside... it's amazing how spacing and formatting can make such a difference in readability. (Not on you, JAG - I know you just pasted this) That was very hard for me to read from the screen.

ScottVib · 02-24-2004, 08:48 AM

Pretty sure that it's the Arrington contract situation. Now doesn't the league copy have to have Arrington's signature on it as well?

If so, then if Arrington was stupid enough to sign the wrong contract then he almost deserves to get screwed.

rkmsuf · 02-24-2004, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScottVib

Pretty sure that it's the Arrington contract situation. Now doesn't the league copy have to have Arrington's signature on it as well?

If so, then if Arrington was stupid enough to sign the wrong contract then he almost deserves to get screwed.

He doesn't have time to read all that...

JAG · 02-24-2004, 08:59 AM

Quik, it's funny, I thought the same thing after I saw it posted here.

Scott, agreed (although really it's the agent who was stupid to let him sign off on it...way to protect your client).

Ksyrup · 02-24-2004, 09:36 AM

Since I deal with contracts all of the time, I have to say that this was likely the agent's fault. In my business - which has people slightly more business-savvy than your typical professonal athlete - the client may read over the first proposal and subsequent changes, but when it comes down to signing the final version, the client will usually rely on the attorney/agent to have provided them with the correct version, and they just sign it.

I can't imagine the general athlete being more involved in the process than that, and even that is probably overstating the involvement of most athletes in contract negotiations.

QuikSand · 02-24-2004, 09:43 AM

And if the team's claim here is accurate:

Quote:

The agent initialed every page to acknowledge his approval before he signed it.

...then this isn't even something you could put onto the back of the "dumb player" - it was just a screw-up by the agent, plain and simple. And unless the team had a contract with the agent's mark all over it, I rather doubt they would say that they did.

Sorry, Sinclair-oh-Lewis, I think you're S-O-L here.

John Galt · 02-24-2004, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by QuikSand

And if the team's claim here is accurate:

...then this isn't even something you could put onto the back of the "dumb player" - it was just a screw-up by the agent, plain and simple. And unless the team had a contract with the agent's mark all over it, I rather doubt they would say that they did.

Sorry, Sinclair-oh-Lewis, I think you're S-O-L here.

It is most likely an agent screwup, but in his defense, it is not like there is one single term in these massive contracts that determines the final cash amounts. This is a reason all agents should have law degrees. I don't know if Poston does, but these contracts are pretty damn complicated for employment agreements and determining the final wage is not to easy with all the conditions and terms. Still, I wonder if the Redskins had two different people speaking with different contract amounts in mind. The contract is probably going to be binding, but if anyone in the organization was promising more, it is going to leave a bad taste in Lavar's mouth.

The one thing that makes me wonder about the contract from the Redskins side is that effectively added no value to Lavar - that is just weird.

ScottVib · 02-24-2004, 10:29 AM

It may leave a bad taste in Lavar's mouth but even without the 7 million dollars he's virtually uncuttable for awhile so he'll have to get over it.

02-22-2004, 02:10 PM	#3
Eaglesfan27 Hall Of Famer Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: New Jersey	Perhaps, but does that really seem like a "blockbuster league matter." __________________ Retired GM of the eNFL 2007 Super Bowl Champion Philadelphia Eagles (19-0 record.) GM of the WOOF 2006 Doggie Bowl Champion Atlantic City Gamblers. GM of the IHOF 2019 and 2022 IHOF Bowl Champion Asheville Axemen.

02-22-2004, 02:11 PM	#4
John Galt Pro Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: The Internets	I didn't mention that possibility in my first post, but that was my thought (and hope). It would be very interesting for the league to get involved in that issue given the Redskins won their last appeal on the copyright issue. And on a completely separate note, I laughed hysterically at the quote at the bottom of the Tip Sheet: "When I was in the fourth grade, I was kind of fat, (and weighed) something like 155 pounds. And I was playing in a league where the (weight) limit was 150 pounds. So I put myself into a trash bag, ran around in it, figuring that I would lose weight by sweating it off. It didn't work, though, because my mother found out. She thought I was crazy and made me stop." -- Oklahoma defensive tackle Tommie Harris, at the combine, when asked how much he loves playing football __________________ I do mind, the Dude minds. This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man. - The Dude

02-22-2004, 02:37 PM	#6
Fritz Lethargic Hooligan Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: hello kitty found my wallet at a big tent revival and returned it with all the cash missing	did I miss something? the page said "there is no tampering...." __________________ donkey, donkey, walk a little faster

02-22-2004, 03:11 PM	#10
Maple Leafs Coordinator Join Date: Jan 2002	Not sure it would qualify as a blockbuster, but does anyone know if the Skins talked to any minority candidates before hiring Gibbs? __________________ Down Goes Brown: Toronto Maple Leafs Humor and Analysis

02-22-2004, 05:58 PM	#18
ISiddiqui Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Decatur, GA	Very interesting... the blockbuster league matter could be the name or something to do with Gibbs. __________________ "A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams

02-22-2004, 02:06 PM	#2
QuikSand lolzcat Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Annapolis, Md	"Washington organization" is a particularly cumbersome phrase... might it pertain to the mini-controversies surrounding the "Redskins" trademark and/or the team name generally?

02-22-2004, 02:38 PM	#7
Easy Mac Registered User Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Here	I think its understood that Pasquirelli never knows what he's talking about.

02-22-2004, 02:38 PM	#8
Barkeep49 Coordinator Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Not too far away	Look at what was said about Ted Washington for the tampering bit.

02-22-2004, 02:49 PM	#9
mckerney Coordinator Join Date: Oct 2000	I have no idea, though it looks like it could surface within the next couple weeks.

02-22-2004, 03:48 PM	#12
Easy Mac Registered User Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Here	They interviewed men, right? Men are a minority in America.

02-22-2004, 04:10 PM	#13
Anthony Banned Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Astoria, NY, USA	the only thing i can think of is another issue of steroid usage by Redskins players.

02-22-2004, 04:34 PM	#15
Subby lolzcat Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: sans pants	Pastabelly has a weird obsession with the 'Skins...

02-22-2004, 05:17 PM	#16
Pyser Pro Rookie Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Los Angeles	ive always liked pasquarelli, especially in his sportsline days....am i the only one?

02-22-2004, 06:12 PM	#20
ISiddiqui Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Decatur, GA	That's a good guess... but of course we are all just speculating. __________________ "A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams

02-22-2004, 06:30 PM	#21
ShovelMonkey H.S. Freshman Team Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Central PA	In a surprising move to many in the league, Redskins owner Daniel Snyder announced that he will ritually cut off one finger for each loss the 'Skins suffer in the upcoming season. When asked to comment, Coach Joe Gibbs said, "Well, I hope we don't lose more than ten games then." Commissioner Paul Tagliabue has refused to comment on this unusual motivational method. An anonymous league source, however, has said that "...The no fun league may now be the no finger league." __________________ It only hurts for a little while... Last edited by ShovelMonkey : 02-22-2004 at 06:30 PM.

02-23-2004, 01:25 AM	#24
sooner333 College Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Norman, OK	Nevermind, I was stupid, and didn't read carefully enough. Maybe they tried to talk to a coordinator that was coaching in the playoffs. Last edited by sooner333 : 02-23-2004 at 01:26 AM.

02-23-2004, 02:00 AM	#25
RealDeal High School Varsity Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: here	I think the story here is that the Skins supposedly tampered with Lawyer Milloy last season.

02-23-2004, 07:37 AM	#27
Logan Head Coach Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: NYC	I guess he was talking about this? http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/for...ad.php?t=21982

02-23-2004, 07:57 AM	#28
cuervo72 Head Coach Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Maryland	Has Danny Boy run out of money? (probably not....but hey, while we're throwing things out there). __________________ null

02-23-2004, 07:58 AM	#29
QuikSand lolzcat Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Annapolis, Md	A trade for Portis doesn't exactly seem like a "league matter" to me - but I suppose that could be the allusion.

02-23-2004, 08:33 AM	#31
Maple Leafs Coordinator Join Date: Jan 2002	It just seems strange that acquiring a superstar RB would be something a team "will be forced to deal" with. Odd phrasing. __________________ Down Goes Brown: Toronto Maple Leafs Humor and Analysis

02-23-2004, 08:41 AM	#33
Ksyrup This guy has posted so much, his fingers are about to fall off. Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: In Absentia	What if he's suggesting that Washington will be forced to deal with the consequences of its actions in connection with a matter being reviewed by the league? Then, it could be anything, including something connected to the Portis trade. Although, the more I think about it, the less I think it has anything to do with the Portis trade, since Pasquarelli appears to know what the issue is, but is not divulging it. If he knew of the potential trade, he would have reported at least the trade, if not this "league issue," immediately. __________________ M's pitcher Miguel Batista: "Now, I feel like I've had everything. I've talked pitching with Sandy Koufax, had Kenny G play for me. Maybe if I could have an interview with God, then I'd be served. I'd be complete."

02-23-2004, 08:42 AM	#34
Ksyrup This guy has posted so much, his fingers are about to fall off. Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: In Absentia	My money is on the Redskins name being the issue, although why it would come up at this particular time, I have no idea. __________________ M's pitcher Miguel Batista: "Now, I feel like I've had everything. I've talked pitching with Sandy Koufax, had Kenny G play for me. Maybe if I could have an interview with God, then I'd be served. I'd be complete."

02-23-2004, 09:54 AM	#35
Passacaglia Coordinator Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Big Ten Country	I think it has to do with them signing Ellsworth Toohey as their franchise QB. __________________ Pride and Prejudice -- an FOF9 Lions dynasty, starting 1966

02-23-2004, 10:15 AM	#36
Maple Leafs Coordinator Join Date: Jan 2002	Of course, it's possible that Pasq knows what the issue is, but his editor doesn't, and the editor reworked his text to make it sound more dramatic. __________________ Down Goes Brown: Toronto Maple Leafs Humor and Analysis

02-23-2004, 10:46 AM	#37
Fidatelo Pro Starter Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Winnipeg, MB	I don't think he had a clue about the Portis thing. Read that article, he puts his money on the Redskins acquiring Duce Staley, and later in the article says that the Broncos will be releasing Mike Anderson because they have Portis and the youngsters and can't afford to pay Anderson so much to be a backup. I suspect whatever he was talking about has yet to come to light... if it ever will. __________________ "Breakfast? Breakfast schmekfast, look at the score for God's sake. It's only the second period and I'm winning 12-2. Breakfasts come and go, Rene, but Hartford, the Whale, they only beat Vancouver maybe once or twice in a lifetime."

02-24-2004, 07:55 AM	#38
JAG Grizzled Veteran Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: St. Paul, MN	Maybe this? This seems like a weird time for this to come out though. hxxp://www.washingtontimes.com/sports/20040224-120525-2631r.htm Agent: Arrington got cheated By Jody Foldesy THE WASHINGTON TIMES The agent for linebacker LaVar Arrington has accused the Washington Redskins of shortchanging his client $6.5 million in the contract he signed at the end of last season, NFL sources said yesterday. Agent Carl Poston claims the Redskins turned a version of the contract in to the league that was different from the one the three-time Pro Bowl player agreed to. But the Redskins vehemently deny any wrongdoing, and the NFL Players Association hasn't yet determined whether Poston's accusation has merit. The NFLPA is investigating the claim and will move forward if it finds enough evidence of impropriety by Washington, sources said. The NFL Management Council would be the arbiter. But the Redskins issued a quick and detailed denial when contacted about the charge last night. Through team spokesman Karl Swanson, Redskins contract specialist Eric Schaffer had this to say: "The agent's claim is ridiculous. Details of the proposal were reviewed with the agent numerous times. Details of the contract were reviewed numerous times, and he made changes. The final contract was approved in writing before the agent recommended LaVar sign it. The agent initialed every page to acknowledge his approval before he signed it. That is the contract that was filed with the league." Neither Poston nor NFLPA general counsel Richard Berthelsen returned phone calls seeking comment. NFL spokesman Greg Aeillo said he had heard nothing about the accusation. Arrington's deal was valued at nine years (including the 2003 season) and $68 million when it reached the league. Poston apparently believes his client agreed to a nine-year, $74.5 million contract. However, it should be noted Poston initially advertised the deal as nine years, $80 million. The deal was signed just before the end of last season to take advantage of the Redskins' leftover 2003 salary cap space. But the contract raised immediate questions from league observers because it gave Washington cap relief and more contract years but rewarded Arrington with little extra value. The NFLPA has not determined where the contract might have lost the $6.5 million. Several sources indicated Poston might have to come forward with more evidence for a case to be heard. Even if the charge ends up being dropped, it doesn't help the Redskins' track record of questionable business practices. In the past six months, the organization has drawn attention for suspected tampering in two cases. The first instance came on the eve of last season, when the New England Patriots released safety Lawyer Milloy. SI.com quoted Milloy saying his agent — incidentally, Poston — contacted the Redskins before his release and that "the Redskins gave us a bigger offer than the Patriots." The NFL investigated the claim, but apparently no wrongdoing was found. League officials admit tampering is extremely difficult to prove because both parties simply can deny any wrongdoing. In fact, it is well-known in league circles that clubs often have conversations with agents that border on tampering if not broach it. The Redskins drew attention for potential tampering again this month when a pair of newspaper reports claimed the club had contact with agent Angelo Wright regarding Patriots defensive tackle Ted Washington. But that instance doesn't seem to be meriting much investigation. The reports didn't seem cognizant of any potential wrongdoing, and Wright and Redskins vice president of football operations Vinny Cerrato later denied contact. Aeillo dismissed the Washington situation in a conversation last night. EDITED for better readability. Last edited by JAG : 02-24-2004 at 09:01 AM.

02-24-2004, 08:31 AM	#40
QuikSand lolzcat Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Annapolis, Md	Has to be it. As an aside... it's amazing how spacing and formatting can make such a difference in readability. (Not on you, JAG - I know you just pasted this) That was very hard for me to read from the screen.

02-24-2004, 08:48 AM	#41
ScottVib High School Varsity Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: My Computer	Pretty sure that it's the Arrington contract situation. Now doesn't the league copy have to have Arrington's signature on it as well? If so, then if Arrington was stupid enough to sign the wrong contract then he almost deserves to get screwed. Last edited by ScottVib : 02-24-2004 at 08:50 AM.

02-24-2004, 08:59 AM	#43
JAG Grizzled Veteran Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: St. Paul, MN	Quik, it's funny, I thought the same thing after I saw it posted here. Scott, agreed (although really it's the agent who was stupid to let him sign off on it...way to protect your client).

02-24-2004, 09:36 AM	#44
Ksyrup This guy has posted so much, his fingers are about to fall off. Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: In Absentia	Since I deal with contracts all of the time, I have to say that this was likely the agent's fault. In my business - which has people slightly more business-savvy than your typical professonal athlete - the client may read over the first proposal and subsequent changes, but when it comes down to signing the final version, the client will usually rely on the attorney/agent to have provided them with the correct version, and they just sign it. I can't imagine the general athlete being more involved in the process than that, and even that is probably overstating the involvement of most athletes in contract negotiations. __________________ M's pitcher Miguel Batista: "Now, I feel like I've had everything. I've talked pitching with Sandy Koufax, had Kenny G play for me. Maybe if I could have an interview with God, then I'd be served. I'd be complete."

02-24-2004, 10:29 AM	#47
ScottVib High School Varsity Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: My Computer	It may leave a bad taste in Lavar's mouth but even without the 7 million dollars he's virtually uncuttable for awhile so he'll have to get over it.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)