Breaking down the TO vs the NFL case.

[Taur]

The only arguement I can see TO having is to argue agaist the entire "Franchise Tag" system. If TO wins in court will this be the end of the Franchise Tag.

I know there was a 23rd deadline for FA players to prevent teams from slapping the franchise tag on them. According to TO, in an interview, his agent filed his paperwork with the NFL on the 24th. To me this is a day late and a dollar short for TO's case unless he is taking on the entire "Franchise" status.

With the NFL still stubling from their last court battle that brought down the entire NCAA free minor league system, seems the NFL would be likely to settle out of court with TO on an individual basis rather than risk another major court decision that would completely wipe out their 'Franchise Tag" label.

Edited to add that this case has nothing to do with the Franchise Tag...My bad.

[Mr. Wednesday]

I believe there's a very important difference -- the franchise tag was established via collective bargaining, the age rule for draft entry was not. I don't think the NFL would have any worries about the franchise tag being stricken by the court.

[Maple Leafs]

Did the 49ers franchise him? I thought that by not filing on time, he actually remained under contract (i.e. no need to franchise him).

[SirFozzie]

actually, apparently, Owens has it in his contract that he had the ability to file by March 2nd or 23rd (I'm at work so can't get the exact date and quote from ESPN.com).. but the league was trying to argue that the CBA supersedes it.

[Pyser]

the niners franchines peterson, their olb...i dont understand where franchised players come into this..

[SirFozzie]

It doesn't matter now that Owens is an Eagle.. but here's the bit from ESPN

"Owens lost his ability to be a free agent because he missed a Feb. 21 deadline to file the paperwork to void the final three years of his contract. He claimed that the deadline was March 2, the start of free agency, based on the language in his contract. The Feb. 21 date came from a side agreement between the union and the NFL when the start date of free agency was changed to March 1."

[rkmsuf]

Did someone say "break it down"...

http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/~fof/for...ad.php?t=23028

[Taur]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

It doesn't matter now that Owens is an Eagle.. but here's the bit from ESPN

"Owens lost his ability to be a free agent because he missed a Feb. 21 deadline to file the paperwork to void the final three years of his contract. He claimed that the deadline was March 2, the start of free agency, based on the language in his contract. The Feb. 21 date came from a side agreement between the union and the NFL when the start date of free agency was changed to March 1."

Thanks for the info. It looks like they did settle out of court. I personally think Baltimore is getting screwed with a 5th round pick for compensation. And, what happens to James Thrash?

[MIJB#19]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

It doesn't matter now that Owens is an Eagle.. but here's the bit from ESPN

"Owens lost his ability to be a free agent because he missed a Feb. 21 deadline to file the paperwork to void the final three years of his contract. He claimed that the deadline was March 2, the start of free agency, based on the language in his contract. The Feb. 21 date came from a side agreement between the union and the NFL when the start date of free agency was changed to March 1."

Language?
Can someone explain to me why this could even be an issue?

Was it in Spanish?
Was it in too complicated English?
Was it in Kewl d00d$ talk?

[SirFozzie]

Ok.. his contract, signed before the lastest collective bargaining agreement, Stated that he could declare for free agency and void his final three years of the contract before March 2nd that year.

The Collective Bargaining Agreement betweem the NFL and the NFLPA, stated that since the "official" beginning of free agency (when teams can start signing FA) was moved up to March 1, that all filing free agents had to get their information in by Feb 23.

It was an issue to see which agreement had the power over the other.

[SunDancer]

I think the Ravens should of fought against the deal. They got screwed, not just cause of it, but because the Eagles, TO affected greatly the Ravens' offseason gameplan.

[SirFozzie]

SunDancer: The odds were pretty good that the arbitrator would have ruled that Owens WAS a Free Agent, and that would mean that the Ravens would have gotten nothing for him.

[CraigSca]

I'm just glad this fine, young gentleman got what he wanted in the end. It's the feel-good story of the year!

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

I'm just glad this fine, young gentleman got what he wanted in the end. It's the feel-good story of the year!

Break out the Crystal...

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

SunDancer: The odds were pretty good that the arbitrator would have ruled that Owens WAS a Free Agent, and that would mean that the Ravens would have gotten nothing for him.

but they wouldn't have lost anything, either. status quo.

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

but they wouldn't have lost anything, either. status quo.

This way.. they get at least a draft pick out of it.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

This way.. they get at least a draft pick out of it.

But they lost out on their chance to get a decent WR. They thought they had Owens, so they passed on Darrel Jackson and Justin McCairns, to name two. They even let Marcus Robinson walk away. Now they're scrambling, big time.

[EagleFan]

Even though they had Owens, he said that he wasn't going to play for them so they had their chance to void the trade and look for alternative solutions.

That would be like telling everyone that you are going to the dance with the hottest girl in school and after she tells you that there is no way in hell she will go with you, you wait until she gets another date (by then the other available girls are spoken for) and you whine about not having anyone to go with.