PDA

View Full Version : Union pushing for Owens release


Mr. Laz
11-10-2005, 12:49 PM
Union wants Eagles to cut Owens

Thursday, November 10, 2005
NEW YORK (AP) - The NFL Players Association wants the Eagles to cut Terrell Owens if they're not going to reinstate him after his four-game suspension is over.

"We're not asking them to play him. We can't force them to do that," Gene Upshaw, the NFLPA's executive director, said yesterday. "But if they're not going to let him come back to practice and do all the other things associated with that, then we want them to cut him, let him become a free agent now."

The union already has appealed the four-game suspension levied on the wide receiver by the Eagles for what coach Andy Reid called "a large number of situations that accumulated over a long period of time."

The appeal will be heard before arbitrator Richard Bloch on Nov. 18.

But Upshaw said that even if the suspension is upheld, the Eagles can't just tell Owens to stay away from the team and its practice facility.

"We are taking the position that's additional punishment," Upshaw told The Associated Press. "It's not fair to a player not to have an additional chance."

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."

In Orchard Park, N.Y., Buffalo Bills safety Troy Vincent, the NFL Players Association president, said it's important Owens gets a fair hearing regarding the four-game suspension imposed by the Eagles.

"You have to (defend a union member)," Vincent said. "That's his right and that's our fiduciary responsibility to protect him, any member of our association."

But as an NFL player, fan and former Eagles player, Vincent wondered how things reached such an explosive point, the resulting publicity overshadowing any other league news.

"It's just unfortunate," he said. "I apologize to the fans and those people that support our sport because we're all affected - all of us, myself included. ... It's just not good for our sport."

Vincent stayed away from taking sides.

"We want the best for T.O. We want the best for the franchise and ultimately what's best for the sport," he said. "Can't we just get along?"

Vincent's comments came during a frenzied week involving T.O., with few signs of the dispute dying down.

The All-Pro wide receiver didn't play in Sunday night's 17-10 loss at Washington, the first of a maximum four-game suspension. The Eagles then plan to deactivate Owens for the rest of the season.

Yesterday, a day after Owens issued a public apology in hopes of being reinstated, the Eagles placed him on the reserve/suspended list, meaning he cannot practice or play with the team.

Vincent can appreciate both Owens and Eagles coach Andy Reid's perspectives.

He defended Reid, saying the coach was as patient as he could be before suspending Owens.

"In my years there with him, he was a no-nonsense, basically zero-tolerance head coach," Vincent said. "It just got to a point where enough is enough."

Vincent also defended Owens, saying his string of outbursts are the result of being frustrated by the Eagles refusal to renegotiate the receiver's contract.

"No one wins in this situation," Vincent said. "At the end, maybe there's a departure, if that's the best solution, if Philadelphia wants a departure and both can go and move on."

Vincent couldn't escape the Owens talk even if he tried after spending part of the Bills' bye last week with his family in suburban Philadelphia.

"You're pumping gas and it's `Hey, what do you think about T.O.?' You're in the grocery store," Vincent said. "With all the good that's going on in the league, that's all you saw."

What surprised Vincent most is how the dispute has disrupted an Eagles team trying to defend its NFC title.

"When you're having so much success, success doesn't warrant those kind of actions," Vincent said. "I think they tried to hash it out time and time again because they knew what the club is capable of with him on the roster. ... And now you just have to look at moving on without No. 81, which is unfortunate."

Asked whether he would want Owens as a teammate, Vincent paused for 7 seconds before saying: "I'd take T.O. I'd take him."

The reason?

"I do believe that some of those situations that occurred could have been prevented," Vincent said. "I just feel like from a leadership standpoint, if the players are all on the same page, some of those actions would not have taken place." NOTE: AP writers Dave Goldberg and John Wawrow wrote this story.

htismaqe
11-10-2005, 01:05 PM
Just like other labor unions, they ignore common sense, undermining their legitimacy...

Skip Towne
11-10-2005, 01:10 PM
That union can suk ma baows. TO should be banished from the league.

Cochise
11-10-2005, 01:14 PM
I wish they would make him try to catch ducks from Kyle Boller like he should have had to!

Hydrae
11-10-2005, 01:15 PM
I could be wrong but I think the salary cap implications will keep this from happening unless the union finds a way to force the issue. Now if the union will agree to waive the cap hit problems then by all means, cut him yesterday.

siberian khatru
11-10-2005, 01:15 PM
Now I may be wrong about this, but I thought the 4-game suspension meant that was the maximum a player could be in the dock without pay. After that, he had to be paid.

So TO isn't being "suspended" an additional 4 games. He's just being inactive, WITH PAY. Which a team should be able to do with any player under contract for any reason (unless, I guess, it comes out of the blue and appears merely to prevent a guy from earning performance bonuses; that would be subject to a grievance).

Mr. Laz
11-10-2005, 01:20 PM
Now I may be wrong about this, but I thought the 4-game suspension meant that was the maximum a player could be in the dock without pay. After that, he had to be paid.

So TO isn't being "suspended" an additional 4 games. He's just being inactive, WITH PAY. Which a team should be able to do with any player under contract for any reason (unless, I guess, it comes out of the blue and appears merely to prevent a guy from earning performance bonuses; that would be subject to a grievance).
He will be paid after the 4 week suspension. All veterans on the opening day roster are guaranteed a full year's payment regardless of being cut or inactivity.

but the union is saying that just being inactive is an additional punishment over the 4 week suspension and therefore exceeds the max.

Area 51
11-10-2005, 01:22 PM
They could assign him to IR. He is mentally defective and might need some professional assesment of his mental state.

Extra Point
11-10-2005, 01:23 PM
Unions: Killing the American Dream for over 50 years

siberian khatru
11-10-2005, 01:23 PM
He will be paid after the 4 week suspension. All veterans on the opening day roster are guaranteed a full year's payment regardless of being cut or inactivity.

but the union is saying that just being inactive is an additional punishment over the 4 week suspension and therefore exceeds the max.

I just think they're wrong. To reiterate, I think the "punishment" aspect surely had to do with money, not playing time. The union originally didn't want teams to indefinitely not pay a player; hence the 4-game limit. But after that, so long as the contract is being honored -- and that always means money, not performance -- I don't think they have a leg to stand on.

But then, I'm not a lawyer, nor have I recently stayed at a Holiday Inn Express.

beavis
11-10-2005, 02:24 PM
He will be paid after the 4 week suspension. All veterans on the opening day roster are guaranteed a full year's payment regardless of being cut or inactivity.
Seriously? Even if they were going to cut him, they still have to pay him? I didn't know that. I guess it doesn't happen all that often to a high profile player.

I'd really like to see him end up in Arizona or some other place with an inept QB and no chance to win more than 5 games. It'd be fun to watch anyway.

beavis
11-10-2005, 02:24 PM
But then, I'm not a lawyer, nor have I recently stayed at a Holiday Inn Express.
But have you saved a bunch of money by switching to Geico?

Mr. Laz
11-10-2005, 02:32 PM
Seriously? Even if they were going to cut him, they still have to pay him? I didn't know that. I guess it doesn't happen all that often to a high profile player.
any player with more than 4 four or more pension-credited seasons in the league gets the "veteran status" iirc have that year's salary guaranteed if they are on the opening day roster. The one exception is a disciplinary situation and that's limited to a 4 game suspension.

if a veteran is cut week 2 ... he still gets full pay for the full year.

RP_McMurphy
11-10-2005, 02:36 PM
Trade his butt to Detroit.........

KCTitus
11-10-2005, 02:47 PM
any player with more than 4 four or more pension-credited seasons in the league gets the "veteran status" iirc have that year's salary guaranteed if they are on the opening day roster. The one exception is a disciplinary situation and that's limited to a 4 game suspension.

if a veteran is cut week 2 ... he still gets full pay for the full year.

I couldnt find this in the CBA. The only guaranteed money is signing bonus, if a player is cut, the salary payments stop. Inactive, they still get paid.

Otter
11-10-2005, 02:48 PM
Just like other labor unions, they ignore common sense, undermining their legitimacy...

AMEN...HALLALLUA

Skip Towne
11-10-2005, 03:00 PM
I want whatever hurts TO the most. Bend over big boy, here comes the Johnson.

Area 51
11-10-2005, 03:36 PM
I want whatever hurts TO the most. Bend over big boy, here comes the Johnson.

The money, it's all about the money.

His value as a player has been diminished. He may be good, but he's not that good!

duncan_idaho
11-10-2005, 03:43 PM
If I owned the Eagles, I'd put TO on the inactive list until I got to the point in his contract where I could him without a big salary hit (which should be about a year and a half away, right?).

See what kind of money a 33 year old receiver who hasn't played an NFL game for two and a half seasons would get... especially considering his baggage.

I'm a vindictive guy, what can I say?

Sully
11-10-2005, 03:50 PM
He's due a huge bonus in March, so it wouldn't be long till it was smarter to cut him.

Bowser
11-10-2005, 04:27 PM
Keep him inactive. And if he wants, he can go by the Eagles' training facility to work out. Just have Hugh Douglas be his spotter.

WilliamTheIrish
11-10-2005, 04:45 PM
No f'n way he should be cut.

1) Because I'm a selfish bastard that wants to see the "me" player get a dose "team."

2) Because I think it would be grossly unfair if the guuy were rewarded with going to a contender ..especially w/in our division.

Releasing him outright to negotiate would tip the balance of any division, surely up the asking price in a possible bidding war, and make him a hero in his own eyes.

F that.

MichaelH
11-10-2005, 04:48 PM
Push TO out, just like a big, hard turd.

unlurking
11-10-2005, 05:27 PM
Have him agree to return some salary or incentive dough to alleviate the cap hit, and I'm sure the Iggles would cut him in a heartbeat.

Phobia
11-10-2005, 07:43 PM
I couldnt find this in the CBA. The only guaranteed money is signing bonus, if a player is cut, the salary payments stop. Inactive, they still get paid.

If a player is on the 53 man roster opening day his salary for the year becomes guaranteed.

Phobia
11-10-2005, 07:44 PM
"There was no suspension there. A team has the right to inactivate a player for whatever reason it wants,"

Upshaw just shot himself in the foot with that statment. Reid can deactivate TO for the remainder of the games because Miss Cleo told him to.

Skip Towne
11-10-2005, 07:46 PM
If a player is on the 53 man roster opening day his salary for the year becomes guaranteed.
Any player or just the veterans?

Phobia
11-10-2005, 07:48 PM
Any player or just the veterans?

Any player who makes the 53 man roster on opening day cannot have his salary prorated. He gets the whole enchilada.

Cochise
11-10-2005, 08:31 PM
I don't understand where Owens would be getting wronged here. He's still going to get paid. They can inactivate him or any other player whenever they want.

What would his agent have them do? Force the Eagles to have him active? Would they force Reid to put him in? Force McNabb to throw him the ball?

I don't see what leverage they could have if he's still being paid.