marty hurney press conference tidbits

[FelineFANatic]

I actually see and understand your point that it could happen and I do agree with you that it could. I read your posts in other threads.

What I don't understand is why you are pushing it so hard. Are you that diehard of a Peppers fan? Related to him?

Most state laws allow any individual to sue another individual or company for any reason if the grievance is of a worth of $20 or more. For what it's worth Peppers had the ability and money to have sue the Panthers to release him from his original contract for some reason or another. It's easy to sue but it's hard to win. Especially when you legally have no case.

As for this about it not being fair that a player is singled out. This has been a rule in the NFL for the entire time Peppers has been in the league. If he didn't like it then he should have sued a long time before now.[/QUOTE]

Forget suing, he did have a choice if he didn't feel the pre-existing rules were fair. He could have chosen to play in a different league (I know and not make the same money). While I would have liked Peppers to re-sign, he has decided not to. That is his right, just as it is the Team's to tag him. If a solution can't be found, there are a lot worse things than getting paid over $1 million per game to play football.

[carpanfan96]

Are players forced into the union or do they have a choice to be separate from it?

Lavar Arrington wasn't a member of the NFLPA for a while.

[magnus]

That was kind of my point. No we couldn't stop the Falcons from trying but that doesn't mean we couldn't take advantage of the situation as well.

How would that work if that should happen? Would the Panthers then be able to turn around and trade Peppers with that long term contract to any team they wished?

you're talking a contract with $30-40 million in guarantees. All of that would prorate, so you could, but it would cost you dearly.

[Woodie]

If the Panthers put him in a corner, he might challenge the League rule is all I'm saying.

It's not a league rule. It's a rule that was democratically voted for by the players...including Peppers.

Would he win? I don't know. The CBA, which ends soon if I'm not mistaken, could be vulnerable because it isn't fair.

Yet, the players agreed to the terms of the CBA. Peppers would have no grounds to sue. This is labor law 101.

A team can pick out one guy on its roster that it owns as long as it wants (and can afford) to, but the rest of the players are free to come and go as they please?

And yet that player gets highly compensated to be in that position...no oppression here.

Don't kill the messenger. We're talking about a rule that has never been challenged. Julius has the money to do it. If ever there was a spot for a player to challenge it, this is it.

Of course it has never been challenged. Any Lawyer that graduated kindergarten would realize that there is no legal basis for the challenge.

[Woodie]

He could say that the union by agreeing to the current cba didn't have players best interest in mind when making the deal. challenging the fact that PA kept the tags in the cba, which directly in turn affects the lively hood of a player effected by the tag system.

That would be true except that a) the players gave the NFLPA the authority to negotiate on their behalf, and the players voted on, and approved, the terms the union agreed to. The union didn't simply come to an agreement with the league and the players were forced to abide by that deal. They had the opportunity to vote to accept or reject the deal, and chose to accept.

He's part of the PA, but that doesn't mean he agrees with what they think or do.

The problem with this, though, is that whether he agrees with them or not, he is a member of the NFLPA, and part of the agreement for becoming a member is that you will abide by the terms of any association agreements (including the CBA) that are approved by a majority vote of players.

[DaveThePanther2008]

Won't do any good. The Franchise Tag was agreed to by both sides in the CBA. The players and the owners agreed.

It is binding.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. It isn't like the NFL said these are our rules deal with it or don't play. The NFLPA union ratified this agreement and actually I think it is a good deal. Most teams have put millions into their star player and should at very minimum be given the option to get compensation. I believe that the "Tag" is good for the NFL.

There would be no merit to the lawsuit.

Peppers says it isn't about money then getting a deal done shouldn't be that hard to do.

Go Panthers

[Matt Foley]

Trust me, some lawyer out there would love to take that "binding contract" on. I am NOT saying that lawyer would win, okay? I'm saying that the system is unfair to the one player it singles out on each team, and as long as you have something that's not fair, you have a chance in court, and that's all some lawyers need, or think they need.

And all I was saying was that this was an option. There was a time when people viewed free agency as unobtainable. Someone had the balls to take it on and they won.

This is why laws change. People think they are unfair, take them to court, present their case, and sometimes they win.

All of that being said, I hope the Panthers get something worthwhile out of the deal. I don't think it's in their best interests to keep Peppers hostage because the guy doesn't need to play next year and he doesn't need the money. He may just say "Okay, pay me the huge sum of money to sit...if that's what you want."

I want both sides to be happy and not a pissing contest. I think the Panthers would lose.

[mantal]

The NFL is the NFL. It doesn't belong to the fans or the players or anyone else but the owners. It's their game and they agree to share it with us for ungodly amounts of money, but in the end it's their game. You don't like the rules? Start your own league. The rule has been agreed upon by both the owners and the Players Association, it's binding.

If Peppers doesn't like it, there's always Canadian football or the NBA...

[Sandy Claws]

Trust me, some lawyer out there would love to take that "binding contract" on. I am NOT saying that lawyer would win, okay? I'm saying that the system is unfair to the one player it singles out on each team, and as long as you have something that's not fair, you have a chance in court, and that's all some lawyers need, or think they need.

And all I was saying was that this was an option. There was a time when people viewed free agency as unobtainable. Someone had the balls to take it on and they won.

This is why laws change. People think they are unfair, take them to court, present their case, and sometimes they win.

All of that being said, I hope the Panthers get something worthwhile out of the deal. I don't think it's in their best interests to keep Peppers hostage because the guy doesn't need to play next year and he doesn't need the money.

I want both sides to be happy and not a pissing contest. I think the Panthers would lose.

The whole key to your arguement is that you think they have a chance in court. They don't. It won't even make it through the door IF you found a lawyer crazy (or stupid) enough to try. You say it's unfair to 1 player per team but it's been in the CBA through multiple votes. If players felt that strongly, they could have refused to vote for an agreement that had it.

He may just say "Okay, pay me the huge sum of money to sit...if that's what you want."

The only way he gets paid is to sign the tender, which is his commitment to play. He can leave the offer on the table where it hits the cap and sit but he gets nothing.

[Woodie]

Trust me, some lawyer out there would love to take that "binding contract" on. I am NOT saying that lawyer would win, okay? I'm saying that the system is unfair to the one player it singles out on each team, and as long as you have something that's not fair, you have a chance in court, and that's all some lawyers need, or think they need.

And all I was saying was that this was an option. There was a time when people viewed free agency as unobtainable. Someone had the balls to take it on and they won.

This is why laws change. People think they are unfair, take them to court, present their case, and sometimes they win.

All of that being said, I hope the Panthers get something worthwhile out of the deal. I don't think it's in their best interests to keep Peppers hostage because the guy doesn't need to play next year and he doesn't need the money. He may just say "Okay, pay me the huge sum of money to sit...if that's what you want."

I want both sides to be happy and not a pissing contest. I think the Panthers would lose.

You don't understand labor law, and it shows.

[Highlandfire]

Ok lets end this now, NO NFL player has the right to sue on this issue. It is labor law, the players union agreed to it, end of story.

[pantherclaw]

If the Panthers put him in a corner, he might challenge the League rule is all I'm saying. Would he win? I don't know. The CBA, which ends soon if I'm not mistaken, could be vulnerable because it isn't fair. A team can pick out one guy on its roster that it owns as long as it wants (and can afford) to, but the rest of the players are free to come and go as they please?

It isn't fair? Says you.

There was a time, that a franchise could keep a good team together forever. But then FA was born. Which said, players become FA, and can then go to the highest bidder (which would put ALL the control into the players ~ that wouldn't exactly be fair either). So with FA, they also gave teams the Franchise tag, so they could keep up to 1 player a year from walking, while paying them the average of the top 5 of the position. Care to explain to me how that isn't fair?

[Matt Foley]

It isn't fair? Says you.

There was a time, that a franchise could keep a good team together forever. But then FA was born. Which said, players become FA, and can then go to the highest bidder (which would put ALL the control into the players ~ that wouldn't exactly be fair either). So with FA, they also gave teams the Franchise tag, so they could keep up to 1 player a year from walking, while paying them the average of the top 5 of the position. Care to explain to me how that isn't fair?

The draft isn't fair. If you go to college and earn a degree and do very well for yourself, you probably want a job at one of the top firms in your industry, right? You don't want your rights to be owned by the Detriot Lions of accounting, or the Pittsburgh Pirates of medicine.

Down that same path, any rule that keeps a player from pursuing what's best for him after playing out his first or second contract is unfair, too. He's played out his contract. In Peppers' case he's played seven years in Carolina. He can't decide for himself where he can earn a living after seven years?

I think deep down we all know this isn't fair. But the players make so much money we don't care. We pay too much money for Panthers merchandise and tickets and everything else. We figure it's something they just need to live with as part of the deal.

[pantherclaw]

So following your logic, bad teams who get good players shouldn't be able to keep any of those good players, to help those teams get even better.

Panthers sucked pretty miserably before Peppers came along too.

Nothing in the CBA is going to have everyone in 100% agreement with, but it is the resolution that was agreed upon by all parties involved.