Article viii club discipline

[claymore]

ARTICLE VIII
CLUB DISCIPLINE


Section 1. Maximum Discipline:

(a) For the 2006 League Year, the following maximum discipline schedule will be applicable:

Overweight—maximum fine of $400 per lb., which fine may be assessed no more than twice per week, with each week beginning on Monday and ending on Sunday, and with each fine at least three days apart (e.g., Monday-Thursday, Tuesday-Friday, etc.).

Unexcused late reporting for mandatory off-season minicamp, team meeting, practice, transportation, curfew, scheduled appointment with Club physician or trainer, or scheduled promotional activity—maximum fine of $1,500.

Failure to promptly report injury to Club physician or trainer—maximum fine of $1,500.

Losing, damaging or altering Club-provided equipment—maximum fine of $1,500 and replacement cost, if any.

Throwing football into stands—maximum fine of $1,500.

Unexcused late reporting for or absence from pre-season training camp by a player under contract except those signed as an Unrestricted Free Agent pursuant to Article XIX (Veteran Free Agency)—maximum fine of $14,000 per day.

Unexcused late reporting for or absence from pre-season training camp by a player under contract signed as an Unrestricted Free Agent pursuant to Article XIX (Veteran Free Agency)—maximum fine of $14,000 per day, plus one week’s regular season salary for each pre-season game missed.

Unexcused missed mandatory off-season minicamp, team meeting, practice, curfew, bed check, scheduled appointment with Club physician or trainer, material failure to follow Club rehabilitation directions, or scheduled promotional activity—maximum fine of $8,000.

Material failure to follow rehabilitation program prescribed by Club physician or trainer—maximum fine of $8,000.

Unexcused missed team transportation—maximum fine of $8,000 and transportation expense, if any.

Loss of all or part of playbook, scouting report or game plan—maximum fine of $8,000.

Ejection from game—maximum fine of $14,000.

Conduct detrimental to Club—maximum fine of an amount equal to one week’s salary and/or suspension without pay for a period not to exceed four (4) weeks. This maximum applies without limitation to any deactivation of a player in response to player conduct (other than a deactivation in response to a player’s onfield playing ability), and any such deactivation, even with pay, shall be considered discipline subject to the limits set forth in this section. The Non-Injury Grievance Arbitrator’s decision in Terrell Owens (Nov. 23, 2005) is thus expressly overruled as to any Club decision to deactivate a player in response to the player’s conduct.
The Club will promptly notify the player of any discipline; notice of any Club fine in a category subject to a maximum of $14,000 or above and of any “conduct detrimental” fine or suspension will be sent to the NFLPA.

(b) The amounts set forth in Section 1(a) above and Section 7 below shall be increased for the 2007 League Year, and each League Year thereafter during the term of this Agreement, at the rate of annual TR growth, up to a maximum annual growth of 10% per year.

Section 2. Published Lists: All Clubs must publish and make available to all players at the commencement of pre-season training camp a complete list of the discipline which can be imposed for designated offenses within the limits set by the maximum schedule referred to in Section 1 above.

Section 3. Uniformity: Discipline will be imposed uniformly within a Club on all players for the same offense; however, if the Club’s published list of discipline imposes fines for designated offenses that are less than the limits set by the maximum schedule set forth in Section 1 above, the Club may specify the events which create an escalation of the discipline, not to exceed such maximum limits, provided the formula for escalation is uniform in its application. Nothing in this Section 3 shall preclude any Club from imposing a fine and/or a suspension without pay for conduct detrimental to the Club, as set forth in Section 1(a) above, in any case in which the same player has committed repeated offenses in the same League Year, whether or not the fines imposed for the player’s prior offenses were escalated as described in the immediately preceding sentence of this Section; provided, however, that the NFLPA expressly reserves the right to challenge the imposition of such discipline for conduct detrimental to the Club based upon the absence of just cause and/or any other allowable bases for opposing discipline. Any disciplinary action imposed upon a player by the Commissioner pursuant to Article XI (Commissioner Discipline) will preclude or supersede disciplinary action by the Club for the same act or conduct.

Section 4. Disputes: Any dispute involved in Club discipline may be made the subject of a non-injury grievance under Article IX (Non-Injury Grievance).

Section 5. Deduction: Any Club fine will be deducted at the rate of no more than $1,000 from each pay period, if sufficient pay periods remain; or, if less than sufficient pay periods remain, the fine will be deducted in equal installments over the number of remaining pay periods. This will not apply to a suspension.

Section 6. NFL Drug and Steroid Policies: No Club may impose any discipline against a player, including but not limited to terminating the player’s Player Contract, as a result of that Player’s violation of the Policy on Anabolic Steroids and Related Substances or the NFL Policy and Program for Substances of Abuse, or for failing any drug test, provided, however, that the fact that a player has violated the Policy on Anabolic Steroids and Related Substances or the NFL Policy and Program for Substances of Abuse, or has failed a drug test will not preclude the termination of his Player Contract if such termination is otherwise expressly permissible under this Agreement or the player’s Player Contract.

Section 7. Cumulative Fines: Any player who commits multiple offenses on the same day (e.g., missed mandatory team meeting, late for practice and missed scheduled appointment with trainer) shall be subject to a separate fine for each such offense, within the limits set by the maximum schedule set forth in Section 1 above; provided, however, that the cumulative amount for all such fines on a given day during pre-season training camp shall not exceed $14,000, and that the cumulative amount for all such fines on a given day during the regular season or post-season shall not exceed $20,000. The cumulative fine limits set forth in this Section shall not apply to any violation as to which a player may be fined one week’s regular season salary or to conduct detrimental to the Club. Nothing in this Section shall preclude the Club from denying payment of the Player’s weekly salary or from seeking reimbursement from the Player under any forfeiture provision in the Player’s Contract if such denial of payment or forfeiture is otherwise permissible under both the Player’s Contract and this Agreement. Nor shall anything in this Section preclude a Club from imposing a fine and/or suspension without pay for conduct detrimental to the Club, as set forth in Section 1(a) above, in any case in which the same player has committed repeated offenses in the same League Year, as described in Section 3 above; provided, however, that the NFLPA expressly reserves the right to challenge the imposition of such discipline for conduct detrimental to the Club based upon the absence of just cause and/or any other allowable bases for opposing discipline.

Section 8. Offset of Pre-Season Fine Amounts: In the event that a player under contract is fined in the maximum category of $14,000 per day for unexcused late reporting for or absence from pre-season training camp and, as the result of such late reporting or absence, the Club also witholds payment, or claims reimbursement, under any forfeiture provision in a Player Contract executed prior to March 8, 2006, then there shall be an offset of the cumulative amount of such daily fines against the amount claimed by the Club under the forfeiture provision, or vice versa. In the 2006 League Year, the offset shall be $8,000 per day for each day the player has been fined, representing the difference between the CBA’s prior maximum fine for this category of offense ($6,000 per day) and the new maximum fine for this category of offense ($14,000 per day) effective on March 8, 2006. The amount of such offset shall be increased for the 2007 League Year and each League Year thereafter during the term of this Agreement, at the rate of annual TR growth, up to a maximum of 10% per year. Other than as specifically set forth in this Section, there shall be no offset of fines imposed under this Agreement against claims made by a Club under any forfeiture provision in a Player Contract.

Section 9. Effective Date: The maximum discipline rules set forth above apply to all discipline imposed on or after March 8, 2006.
This applies to Marshall. More to come. But I want someone to show me where it says we can suspend Marshall for more than 4 days.

[Northman]

This applies to Marshall. More to come. But I want someone to show me where it says we can suspend Marshall for more than 4 days.

4 days or weeks? I read 4 weeks.

[CoachChaz]

Sitting his ass on the bench for a meager 2 mil works just as well for me if that's what is needed

[Dortoh]

Whoops

[claymore]

4 days or weeks? I read 4 weeks.

I meant 4 games. or 4 game checks, Im sure the check is all Marshall is really concerned with.

[claymore]

Sitting his ass on the bench for a meager 2 mil works just as well for me if that's what is needed

Thats what I am saying though, what lesson does that teach him, and how does it help us?

[Dortoh]

I meant 4 games. or 4 game checks, Im sure the check is all Marshall is really concerned with.

What I've heard is the reason they on suspended him for the preseason is because then they can add an additional 4 games in the regular season. Not sure how they figure that but that is what NFLN said.

[CoachChaz]

Thats what I am saying though, what lesson does that teach him, and how does it help us?

It's the leverage. If Denver truly wants to, they can keep him in twown for a decent price for 4 more years. That would screw Marshall over. So...if they trade him now, or dont use him...either way, he's useless to the team. So, keep him in check and see if he wakes up and does something to improve his value. If he wants to show "something" to potential suitors, he has to perform for US first.

[Ravage!!!]

What I've heard is the reason they on suspended him for the preseason is because then they can add an additional 4 games in the regular season. Not sure how they figure that but that is what NFLN said.

Exactly. But some were saying that if they suspend Marshall for 4 games, and he continues to do the same thing, they can then suspend him again for another four games.

Clay is saying they can't (and I'm aggreeing with him)...that after the four game suspension, that the Broncos can't really do anything. That he (marshall) can continue to.. uhmm.... not participate(?), act like a child, be an ass.... in practice, or even continue with claiming his hip injury...(or whatevers), and the Broncos can't do anything more.

[Ravage!!!]

It's the leverage. If Denver truly wants to, they can keep him in twown for a decent price for 4 more years. That would screw Marshall over. So...if they trade him now, or dont use him...either way, he's useless to the team. So, keep him in check and see if he wakes up and does something to improve his value. If he wants to show "something" to potential suitors, he has to perform for US first.

How can they keep him for another 4 years? If a new CBA is signed, he goes UFA, right? If its not, he's a RFA?

[claymore]

It's the leverage. If Denver truly wants to, they can keep him in twown for a decent price for 4 more years. That would screw Marshall over. So...if they trade him now, or dont use him...either way, he's useless to the team. So, keep him in check and see if he wakes up and does something to improve his value. If he wants to show "something" to potential suitors, he has to perform for US first.

I think he hs already proved his worth on the field to other clubs. If we kept him for 2 years riding pine, he still makes the same as if he busted his ass.

To me, that isnt leverage.

Yes he would wait a little longer, but oh well. He's stil getting payed.

[claymore]

How can they keep him for another 4 years? If a new CBA is signed, he goes UFA, right? If its not, he's a RFA?

They could franchise him, and pay him like 10-14 mill a year. That would really show him.

[Ravage!!!]

They could franchise him, and pay him like 10-14 mill a year. That would really show him.

:lol: Ok, thats ONE year.....

[claymore]

:lol: Ok, thats ONE year.....

1 year for the CBA (next year) and 2 more for the franchise. I think we can franchise 2 years? And of course this year. If we did that he would be the highest payed pine warmer in the istory of the league.

All we do is lose money in that scenario!

[Ravage!!!]

Oh.. thought you could only franchise a guy for one year

[CoachChaz]

They could franchise him, and pay him like 10-14 mill a year. That would really show him.

10-14? Not really...and it wont get that far. Write it down. Marshall will get his crap together well enough to get on the field and contribute this year. He'll either improve his value or crash and burn.

If the Raiders or Redskins eventually want to pay him 9 mil a year to be an ass, then fine. I really dont care what they pay players or what their team does. But I do know that Brandon proves on a daily basis that he isnt worth that right now.

At the moment, he is more of a value to us as a 3rd or 4th receiver than what teams would likely offer in a trade, so let him throw his fit and get spot duty. I could care less and it doesnt make this team any worse not having him out thee right now.

[Northman]

They could franchise him, and pay him like 10-14 mill a year. That would really show him.


:lol:

Yea, he would get paid and have a full year to get into more off the field issues with all his cache.

[Day1BroncoFan]

So you are saying that once he's been suspended for 4 weeks he cannot be suspended again even if he continues "detrimental behavior to the team".

I think not. If he keeps it up he will be suspended again. I look at that as a per incident basis.

[claymore]

10-14? Not really...and it wont get that far. Write it down. Marshall will get his crap together well enough to get on the field and contribute this year. He'll either improve his value or crash and burn.

If the Raiders or Redskins eventually want to pay him 9 mil a year to be an ass, then fine. I really dont care what they pay players or what their team does. But I do know that Brandon proves on a daily basis that he isnt worth that right now.

At the moment, he is more of a value to us as a 3rd or 4th receiver than what teams would likely offer in a trade, so let him throw his fit and get spot duty. I could care less and it doesnt make this team any worse not having him out thee right now.

He would have to be paid top 5 at his position. I dont know what that number is, somewhere around 10 million a year?

That would be a dumb move for Brandon. He already has the stats. All but a rookie QB is injured right now. Orton has looked like doo doo in the pre-season. I think he stands to lose more money playing than acting like an ass.

His next contract will go off of his previous numbers, and have safe guards written in about his behavior.

[Ravage!!!]

So you are saying that once he's been suspended for 4 weeks he cannot be suspended again even if he continues "detrimental behavior to the team".

I think not. If he keeps it up he will be suspended again. I look at that as a per incident basis.

I don't think so. I don't think the CBA will allow you to do that. The Players Union will not allow you to continue to suspend a player from pay simply because you label him 'detrimental" to a team. Thats too easy to do, and owners/GMs could simply take advantage and not pay. Thus, they have the limit of a 4 game suspension... or....25% of a player's yearly salary.

[claymore]

So you are saying that once he's been suspended for 4 weeks he cannot be suspended again even if he continues "detrimental behavior to the team".

I think not. If he keeps it up he will be suspended again. I look at that as a per incident basis.

Its the way it is. Look at Owens, Porter, and anyone else. The Eagles flat out payed Owens to go home. Which is now illegal/against the CBA.

The only one that can suspend him longer is Goodall. And he has to violate an NFL policy, not a team rule.

[Day1BroncoFan]

If that is true them the teams have nothing.

A player can do whatever they want and piss on all their team mates, fans and anyone else they want to piss on.

I think we should keep him and make him be the water boy.

[Ravage!!!]

If that is true them the teams have nothing.

A player can do whatever they want and piss on all their team mates, fans and anyone else they want to piss on.

I think we should keep him and make him be the water boy.

YEs... a player has a right to piss on their teammates, their fans and anyone else. They are no longer slaves and aren't locked into a team as they were before FA.

Damn, I miss the days of forcing the gladiators to be our entertainment!!! Damn you Cesar!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[CoachChaz]

He would have to be paid top 5 at his position. I dont know what that number is, somewhere around 10 million a year?

That would be a dumb move for Brandon. He already has the stats. All but a rookie QB is injured right now. Orton has looked like doo doo in the pre-season. I think he stands to lose more money playing than acting like an ass.

His next contract will go off of his previous numbers, and have safe guards written in about his behavior.

A guy has two good season, then has injuries and acts like a child...continues this over the next 2 seasons and his numbers go down as a result...and you pay him top 10 money? That's the insanity emplyed by Davis and Snyder and again...I could care less if his dumbass went to either of those two teams.

[claymore]

If that is true them the teams have nothing.

A player can do whatever they want and piss on all their team mates, fans and anyone else they want to piss on.

I think we should keep him and make him be the water boy.

Thats why I said the Broncos have no leverage.

[MOtorboat]

Fine, sit his ass on the bench. Pay him his piddly 2.2 mil, place a high tender on him, and if he ends up a Bronco next year, sit his ass and pay him his piddly 2.2 mil.

Marshall: Coach, I want in.

McDaniels: No.

It's as simple as that. And then when he tries to run on the field, you fine his ass.

[claymore]

A guy has two good season, then has injuries and acts like a child...continues this over the next 2 seasons and his numbers go down as a result...and you pay him top 10 money? That's the insanity emplyed by Davis and Snyder and again...I could care less if his dumbass went to either of those two teams.

Thats only if we franchised him. Because you said we could keep him for 4 years, and that was the only way of doing that, that i know of.

[CoachChaz]

Fine, sit his ass on the bench. Pay him his piddly 2.2 mil, place a high tender on him, and if he ends up a Bronco next year, sit his ass and pay him his piddly 2.2 mil.

Marshall: Coach, I want in.

McDaniels: No.

It's as simple as that. And then when he tries to run on the field, you fine his ass.

Works for me

[MOtorboat]

Thats why I said the Broncos have no leverage.

OK, so they have no leverage in a trade, that doesn't mean Brandon has leverage. Brandon has leverage in nothing because they have every right to keep him and he'll get what the Broncos pay him.

I still don't understand your logic on this, at all.

[Ravage!!!]

No coach or owner is going to pay out a "piddly" two million to a guy hey intend to sit on the bench.

Also.. if you put a high tender on him, you have to pay him more money to be equivalent to the tender. So if you put a high tender on him, you will then have to pay him more money.

[MOtorboat]

No coach or owner is going to pay out a "piddly" two million to a guy hey intend to sit on the bench.

Also.. if you put a high tender on him, you have to pay him more money to be equivalent to the tender. So if you put a high tender on him, you will then have to pay him more money.

OK. Maybe by then, Brandon will get it.

[Day1BroncoFan]

YEs... a player has a right to piss on their teammates, their fans and anyone else. They are no longer slaves and aren't locked into a team as they were before FA.

Damn, I miss the days of forcing the gladiators to be our entertainment!!! Damn you Cesar!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I hope you don't think you read all that BS in my post.

[claymore]

OK, so they have no leverage in a trade, that doesn't mean Brandon has leverage. Brandon has leverage in nothing because they have every right to keep him and he'll get what the Broncos pay him.

I still don't understand your logic on this, at all.

Would you sit on a bench for 2 years making 2 mil a year? Does that sound like leverage to you?

Leverage is taking all his money. Its not a free ride for 2 years.

The reason Brandon has the leverage is because he costs money, is a distraction, takes up a roster spot, and if your not nice to him he raises a ruckus, and further devalues his trade value.

The ONLY loser in that whole situation is the Denver Broncos. That is why I say the tough guy attitude will not, and cannot work for Brandon Marshall.

If they wanted to be tough guys, they did it with the wrong guy.

[Ravage!!!]

OK. Maybe by then, Brandon will get it.

Maybe. But right now, I don'tthink he 'wants' to get it in Denver, and I think thats the point Clay is saying.

Right now the MOST the Broncos can do is sit him for four games. Then what? Sit him on the bench and not play him? Taking up a roster spot with a guy they don't intend on putting in the game, or... will not because of injury? Put him on the IR (can't do that)... can't put him on the PuP. THey either have to sit him on the bench, put him on the practice squad, release him, or TRADE him for something.

I don't think McDaniels or Bowlen will simply accept him being on the team, not being a team member, being a cancer to the locker room and practice field, team meetings (they can't keep him from being at the facility any more)... all the while paying him without the intention of puttting him on the field.

Marshall may be acting like a total d!ckhead, but if he wants to force his way out of Denver.... there isn't much else the team can do other than pay a guy millions for nothing. To you thats punishment.... to me thats just silly. I don't think Bowlen will go for that, not when there is SOME value to be gained by trading him away...even if that trade isn't considered to be the best compensation.

[claymore]

Maybe. But right now, I don'tthink he 'wants' to get it in Denver, and I think thats the point Clay is saying.

Right now the MOST the Broncos can do is sit him for four games. Then what? Sit him on the bench and not play him? Taking up a roster spot with a guy they don't intend on putting in the game, or... will not because of injury? Put him on the IR (can't do that)... can't put him on the PuP. THey either have to sit him on the bench, put him on the practice squad, release him, or TRADE him for something.

I don't think McDaniels or Bowlen will simply accept him being on the team, not being a team member, being a cancer to the locker room and practice field, team meetings (they can't keep him from being at the facility any more)... all the while paying him without the intention of puttting him on the field.

Only thing we can do is PAY him, thats the only way hes gonna "get it" in Denver. I doubt we will get the home field discount though.

[CoachChaz]

I doubt they keep him for the obvious reasons as well, but they can dictate alot of what happens.

Either way, I simply dont care. brandon has done nothing but show the world he is about nothing but money. I am convinced he would sign with Detroit or Oakland if their offer was the highest. That worries me none. I've written him off and the team eventually will too.

[Ravage!!!]

If they wanted to be tough guys, they did it with the wrong guy.

and did it when it probably wasn't necessary, or did it badly. I think a bit of mixture of all. I'm not defending Marshall on his attitude, but i DO hope our coach learns how to approach a player and ease these things before they get to the point of them simply wanting out.

[claymore]

I doubt they keep him for the obvious reasons as well, but they can dictate alot of what happens.

Either way, I simply dont care. brandon has done nothing but show the world he is about nothing but money. I am convinced he would sign with Detroit or Oakland if their offer was the highest. That worries me none. I've written him off and the team eventually will too.

I never wish injuries on anyone, but seeing a contendar lose their #1 wide reciever wouldnt make me sad.

All I want is compensation for Marshall.

[BroncoWave]

This applies to Marshall. More to come. But I want someone to show me where it says we can suspend Marshall for more than 4 days.

I haven't read the whole thread so I don't know if it's been mentioned but the way they could suspend him for more than 4 weeks would be if during or after his suspension he violated more team or league rules, then they could hit him with an additional 4 game suspension.

[MOtorboat]

Would you sit on a bench for 2 years making 2 mil a year? Does that sound like leverage to you?

Leverage is taking all his money. Its not a free ride for 2 years.

The reason Brandon has the leverage is because he costs money, is a distraction, takes up a roster spot, and if your not nice to him he raises a ruckus, and further devalues his trade value.

The ONLY loser in that whole situation is the Denver Broncos. That is why I say the tough guy attitude will not, and cannot work for Brandon Marshall.

If they wanted to be tough guys, they did it with the wrong guy.

No matter what you want to think, or how you spin it, the Broncos hold the cards because of Marshall's previous actions.

They have three options, and they are all their options, not Marshall's. Marshall has two options, and one of them can hurt both his trade value and his monetary value.

Broncos Options
A.) Trade Marshall. It is their discretion as to what they will accept in trade for Brandon Marshall. Brandon Marshall does not have any choice in this.

B.) Pay Marshall. The Broncos control what they offer to him, and apparently have offered him something, that he doesn't like, most likely because its all incentive driven based on his behavior, both on and off the field.

C.) Don't do anything. Marshall is under contract. Ultimately, if the Broncos don't want to accept any trade offers or Marshall won't accept their money offer, then he has no choice but to play nice.

Marshall's Options
A.) Play for the Broncos.

B.) Pout, cry, whine, demand and act out in practice and during games. All this does is get him suspended for four games for conduct detrimental to the team and he loses money.

Again, show me where Marshall holds cards. He, unfortunately, is a commodity in the business of the NFL, and this is his reality.

[claymore]

and did it when it probably wasn't necessary, or did it badly. I think a bit of mixture of all. I'm not defending Marshall on his attitude, but i DO hope our coach learns how to approach a player and ease these things before they get to the point of them simply wanting out.

This is why I said the Organization handled Marshall's ordeal badly. It was a gross miscalculation of the situation.

They should have known all this in January. Maybe handled him with kid gloves until the trial was over so they could assess his trade value, and worked with him.

[CoachChaz]

This is why I said the Organization handled Marshall's ordeal badly. It was a gross miscalculation of the situation.

They should have known all this in January. Maybe handled him with kid gloves until the trial was over so they could assess his trade value, and worked with him.

I pray this never happens...ever

[Day1BroncoFan]

I haven't read the whole thread so I don't know if it's been mentioned but the way they could suspend him for more than 4 weeks would be if during or after his suspension he violated more team or league rules, then they could hit him with an additional 4 game suspension.

They are saying after the first 4 game suspension he can do whatever he wants and the Broncos can't touch him.

[Ravage!!!]

This is why I said the Organization handled Marshall's ordeal badly. It was a gross miscalculation of the situation.

They should have known all this in January. Maybe handled him with kid gloves until the trial was over so they could assess his trade value, and worked with him.

Not so much kid gloves, as simply be approachable and/or approach him. Treat him like an adult and not like a kid (by putting him on the practice squad) and getting SOMETHING worked out relationship wise. Don't dodge and avoid his off field court cases and then ask the team to 'pretend' they don't exist. Acknowledge, stand behind him and say we are THRILLLED for Brandon our teammate, our friend, our family (blah blah blah).

As you said... MANY saw things building up and escalating...why couldn't our coaching staff again? I know they want the "he'll do it our way or no way" attitude, but damn. Lets quit cutting off our nose to spite our face. Lets quit the "toughguy" routine that is simply driving the talent away.

Marshall is absolutely to blame for his attitude on the field. I want everyone to know that I'm, in NO way, justifying his actions at all.

But I do feel that somewhere along the lines, McD's attitude/personality/communication skills are really hurting him and this team. He wants the belicheck respect without earning a drop simply because he has the title "coach" by his name...... and that doesn't work with adults. That may work in HS, and in some colleges....but not in the "business" of the NFL.

[CoachChaz]

Since there are alot in here, i thought I'd mention that I can get Stephen jackson jerseys really cheap for all the Rams fans.

[claymore]

No matter what you want to think, or how you spin it, the Broncos hold the cards because of Marshall's previous actions.

They have three options, and they are all their options, not Marshall's. Marshall has two options, and one of them can hurt both his trade value and his monetary value.

Broncos Options
A.) Trade Marshall. It is their discretion as to what they will accept in trade for Brandon Marshall. Brandon Marshall does not have any choice in this.

B.) Pay Marshall. The Broncos control what they offer to him, and apparently have offered him something, that he doesn't like, most likely because its all incentive driven based on his behavior, both on and off the field.

C.) Don't do anything. Marshall is under contract. Ultimately, if the Broncos don't want to accept any trade offers or Marshall won't accept their money offer, then he has no choice but to play nice.

Marshall's Options
A.) Play for the Broncos.

B.) Pout, cry, whine, demand and act out in practice and during games. All this does is get him suspended for four games for conduct detrimental to the team and he loses money.

Again, show me where Marshall holds cards. He, unfortunately, is a commodity in the business of the NFL, and this is his reality.
Marshall has to wait for the Broncos. That is their leverage.

Ive stated Marshalls leverage. Roster spot, money, trade value, locker room cancer.

I feel he is holding more over the Broncos head than they are his.

If we lose right away this year marshall will be a plague.

[Ravage!!!]

I haven't read the whole thread so I don't know if it's been mentioned but the way they could suspend him for more than 4 weeks would be if during or after his suspension he violated more team or league rules, then they could hit him with an additional 4 game suspension.

They can suspend him for being detrimental to the team....for four games. But they can't simply make things up to suspend him again for another four games. The NFLPA isn't that foolish, hence why they have the four game limit on the "detrimental to team" charge. Thats pretty vague in itself and any coach/gm could use that at any time. Unless he does something against the law, he's not doing anything against the NFL rules.

They can't even send him home, anymore, with pay. THey (the broncos) have to let him on the facilities.

[MOtorboat]

They can suspend him for being detrimental to the team....for four games. But they can't simply make things up to suspend him again for another four games. The NFLPA isn't that foolish, hence why they have the four game limit on the "detrimental to team" charge. Thats pretty vague in itself and any coach/gm could use that at any time. Unless he does something against the law, he's not doing anything against the NFL rules.

They can't even send him home, anymore, with pay. THey (the broncos) have to let him on the facilities.

True...unless he does something...

[claymore]

I haven't read the whole thread so I don't know if it's been mentioned but the way they could suspend him for more than 4 weeks would be if during or after his suspension he violated more team or league rules, then they could hit him with an additional 4 game suspension.

League rules yes. Team rules no. If you find something that says different, I have no argument.

I havent found anything that states a team can suspend longer than 4 weeks.

If there was something out there, TO would have been handled completley different in Philly. Same with Porter, and Moss.

[claymore]

True...unless he does something...

Like violate league rules. If he does that I would laugh and cry because he would devalue his trade value even more.

[Ravage!!!]

True...unless he does something...

which is always a possibility :lol:

Man, would htat be a break for the broncos right now (can't believe we're saying that him DOING something off field would be a GOOD thing)

[MOtorboat]

Like violate league rules. If he does that I would laugh and cry because he would devalue his trade value even more.

And devalue his monetary value. You seem to think that none of this will ever effect what he will get paid...and that's simply not true.

[Ravage!!!]

And devalue his monetary value. You seem to think that none of this will ever effect what he will get paid...and that's simply not true.

Oh.. it absolutely will affect his pay. But right now (and obviously I'm only guessing)... Marshall is making a statement that he wants OUT of Denver, and then will work things out from there with someone else. That the only thing that I can imagine him doing. Figuring he'll get out of Denver, and then work something out once he's with the new team.

[CoachChaz]

And devalue his monetary value. You seem to think that none of this will ever effect what he will get paid...and that's simply not true.

It could be if Davis and Snyder get involved. if that happens, I'd laugh at his big, dumb ass even more

[claymore]

And devalue his monetary value. You seem to think that none of this will ever effect what he will get paid...and that's simply not true.

It will, but seriously TO is the road map. He will make slightly less than TO, which is 5 times what he is making now.

Look at TO, all the shit he pulled and he is making 8-10 a year.

Marshall is almost as good as Boldin or Fitzgerald. He will make less because of what he has done, but it will be way......... more than 2.2 mil a year.

[Ravage!!!]

It will, but seriously TO is the road map. He will make slightly less than TO, which is 5 times what he is making now.

Look at TO, all the shit he pulled and he is making 8-10 a year.

Marshall is almost as good as Boldin or Fitzgerald. He will make less because of what he has done, but it will be way......... more than 2.2 mil a year.

good points. LEss money than he COULD be making is still a lot more than what he is making.

[claymore]

good points. LEss money than he COULD be making is still a lot more than what he is making.

And if he goes out on the field and gets hurt bad he is screwed. Especially if our Medical staff gets ahold of him. :D

[CoachChaz]

Why do some of you even claim to be Broncos fans? The owner sucks, the coach sucks, the trainers suck, the stadium sucks, the team sucks.

Even Cowboys fans dont pull this lame shit

[BroncoWave]

They can suspend him for being detrimental to the team....for four games. But they can't simply make things up to suspend him again for another four games. The NFLPA isn't that foolish, hence why they have the four game limit on the "detrimental to team" charge. Thats pretty vague in itself and any coach/gm could use that at any time. Unless he does something against the law, he's not doing anything against the NFL rules.

They can't even send him home, anymore, with pay. THey (the broncos) have to let him on the facilities.

But what if after a suspension another video out of practice surfaced like the one last week in which Marshall was making a mockery out of practice? Would that not be cause to suspend him again if they can prove to the league that he displayed further conduct detrimental to the team?

[claymore]

Why do some of you even claim to be Broncos fans? The owner sucks, the coach sucks, the trainers suck, the stadium sucks, the team sucks.

Even Cowboys fans dont pull this lame shit

I love the Broncos not the coach. He has to earn that. Bowlen, Im just mad at him a little.

[claymore]

But what if after a suspension another video out of practice surfaced like the one last week in which Marshall was making a mockery out of practice? Would that not be cause to suspend him again if they can prove to the league that he displayed further conduct detrimental to the team?

We might be the first team to find out. But they cant suspend him.

[Ravage!!!]

But what if after a suspension another video out of practice surfaced like the one last week in which Marshall was making a mockery out of practice? Would that not be cause to suspend him again if they can prove to the league that he displayed further conduct detrimental to the team?

Not by traditional union rules. The conduct continued was conduct that he was already punished for... 'detrimental to the team' (or whatever the wording is).

From the Union's standpoint... you punished the player for that behavior. You took away 25% of his prorated bonus, and ten took 25% of his earnings for the season.

As the boss, and you don't want to continue dealing with such behavior, then you are more than welcome to fire him or trade him away to another team (or put him on practice squad and let someone claim him).... or.. you can deal with it and pay him. But you can't keep the player from earning a paycheck (by suspending him rather than releasing him). So its either pay him, or send him on his way so that he can earn a paycheck somewhere else.

[Dortoh]

and did it when it probably wasn't necessary, or did it badly. I think a bit of mixture of all. I'm not defending Marshall on his attitude, but i DO hope our coach learns how to approach a player and ease these things before they get to the point of them simply wanting out.

This is exactly what I've been trying to say. Coach hardass needs to learn some freaking people skills me thinks.

[Day1BroncoFan]

So in other words Marshall's signature on the contract means nothing to him or the NFL.

Thank you Marshall for your excellence and selfless sacrifices for the team, now **** and don't let the door hit you in the hip. :mad:

[claymore]

So in other words Marshall's signature on the contract means nothing to him or the NFL.

Thank you Marshall for your excellence and selfless sacrifices for the team, now **** and don't let the door hit you in the hip. :mad:

CBA needs to change.

[Ravage!!!]

CBA needs to change.

careful what you wish for. The ONLY way they will be able to change how some people /players feel about their rights to hold out, is if you make the NFL contracts guaranteed. Thats the LAST thing I would want. Right now, I much prefer how it is.

[Ravage!!!]

So in other words Marshall's signature on the contract means nothing to him or the NFL.

Thank you Marshall for your excellence and selfless sacrifices for the team, now **** and don't let the door hit you in the hip. :mad:

yeah.. but at the same time... the owner's signature means nothing either.

[The Glue Factory]

This is exactly what I've been trying to say. Coach hardass needs to learn some freaking people skills me thinks.

Marshall on the scout team and ST was his own fault for not knowing the play book. Name a single coach above pop warner that would let someone practice with the starters that didn't have a clue about the playbook.

I don't see how McDaniels could have done anything with Marshall in practice given Marshall's ignorance concerning the playbook. Granted Marshall didn't see his TC assignments as coach giving him opportunities to participate, but what do you expect from a snot nosed kid with his nose buried in his navel up to his eyebrows?

How long did Marshall have to at least look at a playbook and didn't bother? At least as long as Orton and that was long before OTAs, mini-camp and TC for crying out loud!

A lot of this is Marshall's doing and probably heavily influenced by seeing his man Cutler cry baby his way out of town. The fly in Marshall's ointment is that there are a lot more talented WRs than QBs. I agree that Marshall will get paid, TO has proven that. I just don't want it to be from the Broncos given his 4 year old behavior.

[Ravage!!!]

YOu see a LOT of WRs change teams and start for them the following week... knowing the playbook or not. Hard to get up to date on the 'playbook' when you aren't working out with the team, and you aren't handed a playbook (they don't have playbooks).

Putting him on the practice squad, a sure STAR of your team, was meant to do one thing.... embarrass him.

Again... I'm TRULY not defending Marshall's antics on the practice field....at ALLLLL. But lets not turn a blind eye to some of the more obvious things on the field, either.

[The Glue Factory]

Point taken.

At the same token perhaps McDaniels (speculation here) had been trying to bring Marshall around and needed to send a message to him. Just like McJayGate, we only have a limited amount of info to talk about and come to our conclusions in McMarshall.

[Ravage!!!]

Point taken.

At the same token perhaps McDaniels (speculation here) had been trying to bring Marshall around and needed to send a message to him. Just like McJayGate, we only have a limited amount of info to talk about and come to our conclusions in McMarshall.

absolutely. I have no doubts that McDaniels was trying to send a message to Marshall. So the ONLY thing that bothers me here, is that McDaniels methods of communication have seemed to escalate the problems with the players rather than settle them. We obviously don't have a lot of instances to go on, but the two BIG ones this season (two of the most prominant/talented players he broncos have had in a decade) have not worked out well.

Not saying the players, themselves, didn't have some immature moments/quotes/moves (Marshall to the extreme).....but I would prefer if our coach did have more maturity and I do expect more from him than the young millionaires on the team.

I know marshall is acting like an ass. But I know this has been going on for MONTHS now. surely.. SURELY...something along the way could have tipped the coaches off that we needed to simply settle this down before it blew up.

[Kaylore]

We might be the first team to find out. But they cant suspend him.

Yes they can. There are rules in the NFLPA that there are escalators for repeated conduct detrimental to the team which comes with greater fines and/or suspensions. McDaniels alluded to this in his press conference the day after the suspension.

This of course renders the entire point of your thread moot, which I find hilarious.

[Kaylore]

This is exactly what I've been trying to say. Coach hardass needs to learn some freaking people skills me thinks.

And I think the two people he's had a problem with are the biggest pussies in pro sports and until someone of good character has a problem with his supposed people skill problems then I say carry on, McDaniels.

[scott.475]

I've heard a couple couple who know the intricacies of this talk about it on a couple different networks. The 4 week limit is not total for the year, it is 4 weeks at a time, then you HAVE to give the player a chance to come back and prove he has corrected the behavior. If the player has corrected the behavior, then the team has no reason to suspend him again. If he does not correct the behavior, another 4 weeks max, then you have to let him come back and try again. I don't think there is any way the owners would have signed a contract that would let a player hold them hostage by being able to be detrimental throughout the year and still get payed for it.

Keep in mind, a team cannot simply say a player is detrimental, they will need to have clear, documented evidence of the behavior and what they have done up to that point to try and correct it, or they will lose any challenge to the suspension.

[dogfish]

screw that. . . . we should deactivate him for the year, that'll show him!

[dogfish]

until someone of good character has a problem with his supposed people skill problems then I say carry on, McDaniels.

wait, are you trying to say that dortoh doesn't have good character?


:laugh:

[Lonestar]

Its the way it is. Look at Owens, Porter, and anyone else. The Eagles flat out payed Owens to go home. Which is now illegal/against the CBA.

The only one that can suspend him longer is Goodall. And he has to violate an NFL policy, not a team rule.


well being an ass clown as a player in the NFL could very well be a suspend-able thing also.. God only knows what Roger will come up with..

We already know he does not like BM much anyway.. not after that last incident with him getting 3 weeks knocked off his suspension and then him having a altercation in ATL with his fiancé this time 5-6 months later.. after attending anger management classes.. and YES I know it was dropped but Roger knows why that happened also..

[Ravage!!!]

And I think the two people he's had a problem with are the biggest pussies in pro sports and until someone of good character has a problem with his supposed people skill problems then I say carry on, McDaniels.

Seems these 'pussies' weren't problems before......

[Ravage!!!]

I've heard a couple couple who know the intricacies of this talk about it on a couple different networks. The 4 week limit is not total for the year, it is 4 weeks at a time, then you HAVE to give the player a chance to come back and prove he has corrected the behavior. If the player has corrected the behavior, then the team has no reason to suspend him again. If he does not correct the behavior, another 4 weeks max, then you have to let him come back and try again. I don't think there is any way the owners would have signed a contract that would let a player hold them hostage by being able to be detrimental throughout the year and still get payed for it.

Keep in mind, a team cannot simply say a player is detrimental, they will need to have clear, documented evidence of the behavior and what they have done up to that point to try and correct it, or they will lose any challenge to the suspension.

There we go... and that may very well be true. Thats what Claymore was asking... is if anyone knew of anything different than what we read/understood in the document that he posted.

This may very well be true, and if thats the case... changes all arguments as far as what kind of actions Marshall and/or the Broncos can do.

[Ravage!!!]

well being an ass clown as a player in the NFL could very well be a suspend-able thing also.. God only knows what Roger will come up with..

We already know he does not like BM much anyway.. not after that last incident with him getting 3 weeks knocked off his suspension and then him having a altercation in ATL with his fiancé this time 5-6 months later.. after attending anger management classes.. and YES I know it was dropped but Roger knows why that happened also..

well... he can't simply make up rules. That we know. So being an ass-clown can't get you suspended by the commish, since there is nothing against the law about being an ass-clown (good thing for both of us, huh?? :lol: ) :beer:

[Lonestar]

No coach or owner is going to pay out a "piddly" two million to a guy hey intend to sit on the bench.

Also.. if you put a high tender on him, you have to pay him more money to be equivalent to the tender. So if you put a high tender on him, you will then have to pay him more money.

actually they may do so just to set precedent that the coach is in charge and the lunatics are not going to run the asylum..

When you get into labor conflicts most owners or management types re going to go hardliner to set policy.. for next time if nothing else..

I worked for Avis and in SYR we took a 4 week strike that cost the company a ton of money bringing in Managers across the country to save A nickle an hour..

after it was all said and done the strikers took an nickle an hour less than they started out getting in our first offer.. equated to about 20 cents less than they would have got with our final offer.. as each week it went down..


never bet on anything when it comes to labor management disputes..

[claymore]

Yes they can. There are rules in the NFLPA that there are escalators for repeated conduct detrimental to the team which comes with greater fines and/or suspensions. McDaniels alluded to this in his press conference the day after the suspension.

This of course renders the entire point of your thread moot, which I find hilarious.

No, proof makes it moot. Kaylore saying something off the top of his head means nothing.

Find me proof.

find one player ever, in the NFL that has been suspended for more than 4 games for conduct detrimental to the team.

[claymore]

actually they may do so just to set precedent that the coach is in charge and the lunatics are not going to run the asylum..

When you get into labor conflicts most owners or management types re going to go hardliner to set policy.. for next time if nothing else..

I worked for Avis and in SYR we took a 4 week strike that cost the company a ton of money bringing in Managers across the country to save A nickle an hour..

after it was all said and done the strikers took an nickle an hour less than they started out getting in our first offer.. equated to about 20 cents less than they would have got with our final offer.. as each week it went down..


never bet on anything when it comes to labor management disputes..
Im all for a strike, we are going to suck anyway. 60% of the revenues go to the players. Pay them less and reduce ticket costs (yeah right).

[Lonestar]

well... he can't simply make up rules. That we know. So being an ass-clown can't get you suspended by the commish, since there is nothing against the law about being an ass-clown (good thing for both of us, huh?? :lol: ) :beer:


well we all know that he has broadened the interpretations of some of those rules since becoming the Czar.. I suspect they will find a way to get this clowns attention should DEN not be able to suspend him any more..

or God forbid he steps on a crack in the side walk..

or get near a jay walking incident..:laugh::laugh:


they take the IMAGE of the NFL quite seriously.. Billions of dollars are riding on good conduct and image by the players and teams..

remember that the Broncos did not suspend him without consulting the NFL offices..

[Ravage!!!]

well we all know that he has broadened the interpretations of some of those rules since becoming the Czar.. I suspect they will find a way to get this clowns attention should DEN not be able to suspend him any more..

or God forbid he steps on a crack in the side walk..

or get near a jay walking incident..:laugh::laugh:


they take the IMAGE of the NFL quite seriously.. Billions of dollars are riding on good conduct and image by the players and teams..

remember that the Broncos did not suspend him without consulting the NFL offices..

Thats just so they abide by the NFLPA rules

[ursamajor]

What ever happened to creating an organization/atmosphere that became a place that players wanted to come too? Having a coach that was loved by his players. Creating a band of brothers/us against the world type feeling.

Coaches like Landry, Lombardi, Brown, Walsh, Vermeil, Cowher, Fisher, etc.

I think that it is time for McDaniels to push for some solidarity in the locker room. I don't think that Morale is high right now. It has the atmosphere of a mutiny currently.

[claymore]

What ever happened to creating an organization/atmosphere that became a place that players wanted to come too? Having a coach that was loved by his players. Creating a band of brothers/us against the world type feeling.

Coaches like Landry, Lombardi, Brown, Walsh, Vermeil, Cowher, Fisher, etc.

I think that it is time for McDaniels to push for some solidarity in the locker room. I don't think that Morale is high right now. It has the atmosphere of a mutiny currently.

We will get with you nad tell you if the Belichick system works.

At least we arent the Bengals?

Sorry King.

[frauschieze]

Yes they can. There are rules in the NFLPA that there are escalators for repeated conduct detrimental to the team which comes with greater fines and/or suspensions. McDaniels alluded to this in his press conference the day after the suspension.

This of course renders the entire point of your thread moot, which I find hilarious.

Where? That's the whole point of this thread. The first post contains the entirety of the CBA's rules on team punishment. As far as I know, the NFLPA doesn't make the rules as to how a team can punish a player outside of the CBA.

[Kaylore]

What ever happened to creating an organization/atmosphere that became a place that players wanted to come too? Having a coach that was loved by his players. Creating a band of brothers/us against the world type feeling.

Coaches like Landry, Lombardi, Brown, Walsh, Vermeil, Cowher, Fisher, etc.

I think that it is time for McDaniels to push for some solidarity in the locker room. I don't think that Morale is high right now. It has the atmosphere of a mutiny currently.

This isn't true at all. The players are pretty much against Marshall on this one. Why don't you make some more crap up and complain about it, though?

[The Glue Factory]

Seems these 'pussies' weren't problems before......

BM has made a vague statement that the current situation has been building building since before Shanahan was fired. :confused:

[Kaylore]

Where? That's the whole point of this thread. The first post contains the entirety of the CBA's rules on team punishment. As far as I know, the NFLPA doesn't make the rules as to how a team can punish a player outside of the CBA.

It's pretty simple. It doesn't say you can't be suspended again. They can stack suspensions on him for every little thing he does if they want to be hard asses. It's not like once he serves his suspension he can set fire to the team building and he's untouchable because "he already served a suspension." I mean is that what you all here actually were thinking? That he only has to serve for up to four weeks and then the team has their hands tied? Get a clue, people.

[frauschieze]

It's pretty simple. It doesn't say you can't be suspended again. They can stack suspensions on him for every little thing he does if they want to be hard asses. It's not like once he serves his suspension he can set fire to the team building and he's untouchable because "he already served a suspension." I mean is that what you all here actually were thinking? That he only has to serve for up to four weeks and then the team has their hands tied? Get a clue, people.

And that is exactly NOT what you said. You spoke of escalators, greater fines and longer suspensions.

But there are NONE of those things mentioned in the CBA, and even in this post you just say he can be suspended again.

Make up your mind. Which is it?

Personally, I think the words "without limitation" mean that he can be suspended again if he engages in further conduct detrimental to the team. But I do not think he can be suspended any longer than the 4 weeks given or the monetary amounts listed each time.

[NightTrainLayne]

And that is exactly NOT what you said. You spoke of escalators, greater fines and longer suspensions.

But there are NONE of those things mentioned in the CBA, and even in this post you just say he can be suspended again.

Make up your mind. Which is it?

Personally, I think the words "without limitation" mean that he can be suspended again if he engages in further conduct detrimental to the team. But I do not think he can be suspended any longer than the 4 weeks given or the monetary amounts listed each time.

The current two week suspension is part of the "escalation". 4 weeks is the max punishment for any one incident, but teams should arrive at that punishment after an escalating process of lesser punishments.

I think that's what Kaylore was trying to say, and he's getting frustrated, as am I, that no-one is listening to the point that there is no prohibition against a later suspension if the same detrimental behavior surfaces again.

The CBA only states that the maximum punishment for an incident is 4-weeks suspension. But, it doesn't say that teams are only limited to one suspension per season.

[Lonestar]

And that is exactly NOT what you said. You spoke of escalators, greater fines and longer suspensions.

But there are NONE of those things mentioned in the CBA, and even in this post you just say he can be suspended again.

Make up your mind. Which is it?

Personally, I think the words "without limitation" mean that he can be suspended again if he engages in further conduct detrimental to the team. But I do not think he can be suspended any longer than the 4 weeks given or the monetary amounts listed each time.



this is how I read it..

BM comes back 06 Sep and dogs it again in practice gets 4 weeks this time

he comes back after his 4 weeks and beats up the water girl a week later.. 4 weeks

he is back for a couple of weeks and gets called on something in the film room and he calls out a coach for picking on him.. 4 weeks

etc etc etc..

now folks that is not how I want it to happen but I suspect that it could go down like that..

I also want him to come back to camp bust his ass and go to the pro bowl again.. and then we have the option of giving him a contract commensurate with his performance..:salute:


or find him a home some where else where he can beat women and break up TV's without any consequences..:shocked:

[claymore]

It's pretty simple. It doesn't say you can't be suspended again. They can stack suspensions on him for every little thing he does if they want to be hard asses. It's not like once he serves his suspension he can set fire to the team building and he's untouchable because "he already served a suspension." I mean is that what you all here actually were thinking? That he only has to serve for up to four weeks and then the team has their hands tied? Get a clue, people.


The current two week suspension is part of the "escalation". 4 weeks is the max punishment for any one incident, but teams should arrive at that punishment after an escalating process of lesser punishments.

I think that's what Kaylore was trying to say, and he's getting frustrated, as am I, that no-one is listening to the point that there is no prohibition against a later suspension if the same detrimental behavior surfaces again.

The CBA only states that the maximum punishment for an incident is 4-weeks suspension. But, it doesn't say that teams are only limited to one suspension per season.


this is how I read it..

BM comes back 06 Sep and dogs it again in practice gets 4 weeks this time

he comes back after his 4 weeks and beats up the water girl a week later.. 4 weeks

he is back for a couple of weeks and gets called on something in the film room and he calls out a coach for picking on him.. 4 weeks

etc etc etc..

now folks that is not how I want it to happen but I suspect that it could go down like that..

I also want him to come back to camp bust his ass and go to the pro bowl again.. and then we have the option of giving him a contract commensurate with his performance..:salute:


or find him a home some where else where he can beat women and break up TV's without any consequences..:shocked:

All of that is fine and dandy. But its speculation.

Find me proof.

Why wasnt owens suspended more than once? He was just told to "go home, we will pay you to stay there".

It has since been added into the CBA that teams cannot deactivate players.



Terrell Owens: Text of arbitrator Richard Bloch's ruling
http://www.ryanmcbain.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5443

The Four-Game Suspension

Article VIII of the Collective Bargaining Agreement establishes a Maximum Discipline schedule that provides, in relevant part:

Conduct Detrimental to Club -- Maximum fine of an amount equal to one week's salary and/or suspension without pay for a period not to exceed four (4) weeks.

The Removal

The Association also claims the decision of the Club to remove Owens from the playing and practice fields for the remainder of the season (albeit with pay) should be considered discipline that is inappropriate on at least two scores: (1) It exceeds the maximum discipline set forth in Article VIII for Conduct Detrimental and (2) it is disproportionate in relation to the offense. The Club, for its part, observes that the CBA provides no basis for directing a club to play or practice particular Players in games.

If the maximum penalty provisions of Article VIII are to have meaning, it follows that a club cannot expand or extend them merely by crying "coach's discretion."



Please read the arbitration, and understand that a 2nd suspension was not an option. All the eagles could legally (according to the CBA) do was send Owens to the house with pay.

This has since been changed.
"This maximum applies without limitation to any deactivation of a player in response to player conduct (other than a deactivation in response to a player’s onfield playing ability), and any such deactivation, even with pay, shall be considered discipline subject to the limits set forth in this section. The Non-Injury Grievance Arbitrator’s decision in Terrell Owens (Nov. 23, 2005) is thus expressly overruled as to any Club decision to deactivate a player in response to the player’s conduct."

So, again, I ask, where does it say anything about 2nd offenses? Or multiple 4 week suspensions?

The NFL states multiple times, on multiple sites an escalating suspension with a maximum of 4 weeks.

The 4 weeks are total. If you use it up all at once, and it doesnt work, can fire the employee like Ravage has said.

Like it or not, you guys are WRONG, until you find one case where a team has suspended a player for more than 4 games durring the regular season.

[Dirk]

When a team places a player on the "practice squad" are they still under the same rules on teams contacting them?

If so, could the Broncos place BMarsh on the practice squad to keep him out of the mix if he continues to be a disruption?

I mean, the Broncos have to be able to take care of themselves in a situation where a player is disrupting their "business" without the player being able to "do what they want".

I didn't read every post in this thread but most of them. I kind of took it that BMarsh can act an ass each time he comes back which could effect the team. I would think that the Broncos have some kind of way to keep him at bay from the final roster if a good deal doesn't raise it's head.

I just can't believe that he is acting like such a baby. I mean come on, I know 2.2 mil isn't top WR money, but sumbiatch....do your job and get paid.

Some people just don't know how blessed they are. One injury away from getting nothing at all...and they still want more. (I know that the more they can get up front sets them for the future. If they get that injury. But if the team isn't going to give it to you...do your job and get what you have coming.

I am thankful and feel blessed to make what I make. Would I like more? Sure, but I don't act like a baby to get more.

[Ravage!!!]

I believe that if he is on the practice squad, any team could pick him up. But I'm not sure on the details on that

[claymore]

I believe that if he is on the practice squad, any team could pick him up. But I'm not sure on the details on that

He has to clear waivers to go. And he has to have practice squad eligible. Which I doubt he meets being a 3 yrd year player.

[Ravage!!!]

It may mean that if a player is 'detrimental to team'.... you can suspend him for four weeks. If he then (as per example of someone else) sets FIRE to the facilities, you can then suspend him for larson! :lol: But not for the offense of 'detrimental to team.'

Seems it has a maximum amount of money you are able to take away from a player for the one offense (25% of his salary), and THAT would make sense considering normal union laws. Otherwise, a team could simply continue to say a player is being detrimental to the team and not pay him... that wouldn't go well with the union. So they have a maximum amount of money you can take away from an employee for that offense. If he continues this offense to the point that you dont' wish to pay him, then you have the right to fire him. But the union will continue to fight that the employee has a right to work and a right to make a paycheck. Now thats not defending THIS particular player and/or his actions. But it does defend/protect players from a coach/GM/owner in the NFL taking advantage and not paying him.

I wouldn't be surprised that there will be a Marshall clause in the CBA to protect such actions again.

[Ravage!!!]

He has to clear waivers to go. And he has to have practice squad eligible. Which I doubt he meets being a 3 yrd year player.

Hmmm... I knew about clearing waivers, but I did forget about the 'practice squad eligibility' requirements. I don't know them, however.

[NightTrainLayne]

All of that is fine and dandy. But its speculation.

Find me proof.

Why wasnt owens suspended more than once? He was just told to "go home, we will pay you to stay there".

It has since been added into the CBA that teams cannot deactivate players.




Please read the arbitration, and understand that a 2nd suspension was not an option. All the eagles could legally (according to the CBA) do was send Owens to the house with pay.

This has since been changed.

So, again, I ask, where does it say anything about 2nd offenses? Or multiple 4 week suspensions?

The NFL states multiple times, on multiple sites an escalating suspension with a maximum of 4 weeks.

The 4 weeks are total. If you use it up all at once, and it doesnt work, can fire the employee like Ravage has said.

Like it or not, you guys are WRONG, until you find one case where a team has suspended a player for more than 4 games durring the regular season.

Philly sent Owens home for the rest of the season. The arbitrator said that was excessive. This has nothing to do with Marshall's situation, and in fact, the Owens decision is what set the precedent saying that we can't just send him home away from the facility for the entire season even with pay.

Clay, we can't prove a negative. We can't prove that the CBA won't let them suspend him again because what you've posted is silent on that issue. What you've posted doesn't exclude a second suspension. Can you show us where it says in the CBA that a subsequent suspension is prohibited? I've heard two of the talking heads on Sirius NFL state that they could suspend him again if he didn't get his act together. Can you show us anything to rebut that?

[claymore]

It may mean that if a player is 'detrimental to team'.... you can suspend him for four weeks. If he then (as per example of someone else) sets FIRE to the facilities, you can then suspend him for larson! :lol: But not for the offense of 'detrimental to team.'

Seems it has a maximum amount of money you are able to take away from a player for the one offense (25% of his salary), and THAT would make sense considering normal union laws. Otherwise, a team could simply continue to say a player is being detrimental to the team and not pay him... that wouldn't go well with the union. So they have a maximum amount of money you can take away from an employee for that offense. If he continues this offense to the point that you dont' wish to pay him, then you have the right to fire him. But the union will continue to fight that the employee has a right to work and a right to make a paycheck. Now thats not defending THIS particular player and/or his actions. But it does defend/protect players from a coach/GM/owner in the NFL taking advantage and not paying him.

I wouldn't be surprised that there will be a Marshall clause in the CBA to protect such actions again.

A backended work around could be the NFL's detrimental to image policy. They can suspend him for however long they want.

Dexter Manley was the longest which resulted in a lifetime ban. (not sure under what rule he was banned)

[claymore]

Philly sent Owens home for the rest of the season. The arbitrator said that was excessive. This has nothing to do with Marshall's situation, and in fact, the Owens decision is what set the precedent saying that we can't just send him home away from the facility for the entire season even with pay.

Clay, we can't prove a negative. We can't prove that the CBA won't let them suspend him again because what you've posted is silent on that issue. What you've posted doesn't exclude a second suspension. Can you show us where it says in the CBA that a subsequent suspension is prohibited? I've heard two of the talking heads on Sirius NFL state that they could suspend him again if he didn't get his act together. Can you show us anything to rebut that?
No I cant. I cant find anything regarding a 2nd suspension. The closest case I can find is terrel owens case.

I cannot find one case in the history of the NFL where a team suspended a player for more than 4 weeks in one regular season.


If you were the eagles, would you have payed TO to stay at the house, and payed him to stay there, or would you have taken more money from him and handed him another suspension?

If it was legal to suspend him for more than 4 days, I am pretty sure they would have done it.

[NightTrainLayne]

No I cant. I cant find anything regarding a 2nd suspension. The closest case I can find is terrel owens case.

I cannot find one case in the history of the NFL where a team suspended a player for more than 4 weeks in one regular season.


If you were the eagles, would you have payed TO to stay at the house, and payed him to stay there, or would you have taken more money from him and handed him another suspension?

If it was legal to suspend him for more than 4 days, I am pretty sure they would have done it.


Clay. Obviously a player can't be suspended for more than 4 weeks for a charge of detrimental conduct, and of course Philly would have done that if they could have.

The reason the Eagles just sent him home (with pay) was that they thought by doing so that they could essentially get him out of the way for the rest of the season and skirt the 4 game rule with the CBA.

The arbitrator at a later date said that they were wrong, and set a precedent that this couldn't happen in the future. But that decision didn't have anything to do with secondary suspensions.

What I (and others I'm pretty sure) are NOT saying is that they suspend him for four weeks and then immediately after he returns we trump up charges and suspend him again for four weeks. No, that would be wrong, and I'm sure that strategy would fail upon appeal.

But, what we are saying is that after a return for a four-week suspension, if Marshall continues said behavior, and it is intensely documented, and the Broncos again run through a list of escalating discipline that at some point another 4-week suspension would be appropriate.

Now, I might be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time that a law or policy was in effect that was counter-intuitive. But it is certainly counter-intuitive to think that the owner's would allow for an agreement in which at some point the inmates run the asylum. Your argument basically says that after the four weeks are up that Marshall would have carte blanche to do as he pleased.

Kaylor used the burning down the facility analogy, but I would use something more realistic. Does Marshall even have to show up for practice anymore? According to your argument there's nothing the Broncos could do to him.

[Dirk]

I'm sure that there is some type of safety net that the teams have that will allow them to take care of a cancer on the team other than trading them. I mean, if the 4 week rule was set in stone, a player could come back and be a complete ass for the remainder of the season and cause havoc.

They have video proof of his actions and if it continues I am sure they have an iron clad case with or without the union stepping in.

[claymore]

Clay. Obviously a player can't be suspended for more than 4 weeks for a charge of detrimental conduct, and of course Philly would have done that if they could have.

The reason the Eagles just sent him home (with pay) was that they thought by doing so that they could essentially get him out of the way for the rest of the season and skirt the 4 game rule with the CBA.

The arbitrator at a later date said that they were wrong, and set a precedent that this couldn't happen in the future. But that decision didn't have anything to do with secondary suspensions.

What I (and others I'm pretty sure) are NOT saying is that they suspend him for four weeks and then immediately after he returns we trump up charges and suspend him again for four weeks. No, that would be wrong, and I'm sure that strategy would fail upon appeal.

But, what we are saying is that after a return for a four-week suspension, if Marshall continues said behavior, and it is intensely documented, and the Broncos again run through a list of escalating discipline that at some point another 4-week suspension would be appropriate.

Now, I might be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time that a law or policy was in effect that was counter-intuitive. But it is certainly counter-intuitive to think that the owner's would allow for an agreement in which at some point the inmates run the asylum. Your argument basically says that after the four weeks are up that Marshall would have carte blanche to do as he pleased.

Kaylor used the burning down the facility analogy, but I would use something more realistic. Does Marshall even have to show up for practice anymore? According to your argument there's nothing the Broncos could do to him.

I understand what you and everyone else is saying. And I disagree, and I ask you guys to find an example if you are going to argue against it.

Kaylor's analogy wasnt realistic because it would have fallen under the NFL's policy regardless.

[claymore]

I'm sure that there is some type of safety net that the teams have that will allow them to take care of a cancer on the team other than trading them. I mean, if the 4 week rule was set in stone, a player could come back and be a complete ass for the remainder of the season and cause havoc.

They have video proof of his actions and if it continues I am sure they have an iron clad case with or without the union stepping in.

They cannot suspend him for that if they aready used it as evidence for this suspension.

[Dirk]

They cannot suspend him for that if they aready used it as evidence for this suspension.

I know that. But if he comes back and continues to do the same. The team has to have a means of protecting themselves. It can't just die there at the one suspension for the same offense. It just doesn't make sense.

Maybe another incident can't be found because the player wised up and didn't do it again. I don't know.

[claymore]

I know that. But if he comes back and continues to do the same. The team has to have a means of protecting themselves. It can't just die there at the one suspension for the same offense. It just doesn't make sense.

Maybe another incident can't be found because the player wised up and didn't do it again. I don't know.

Yeah right. With as many retard millionaires in the NFL, there isnt one other case of this ever happening?

[Kaylore]

The current two week suspension is part of the "escalation". 4 weeks is the max punishment for any one incident, but teams should arrive at that punishment after an escalating process of lesser punishments.

I think that's what Kaylore was trying to say, and he's getting frustrated, as am I, that no-one is listening to the point that there is no prohibition against a later suspension if the same detrimental behavior surfaces again.

The CBA only states that the maximum punishment for an incident is 4-weeks suspension. But, it doesn't say that teams are only limited to one suspension per season.

This.

Also, suspension for preseason is the first step. Regular season suspensions are next and a bigger deal because that's when he makes his money. Preseason money is pretty small. I'm not sure that they'll fly right out with a four week if he's being a brat again, but they might go one, then two, then three and finally four. All of sudden he's suspended for most of the season. That means also that he'll miss the required number of games played to become a RFA, which would be really bad news for Marshall because then the Broncos wouldn't have to tender him and he'd have to play another year under the current contract, to say nothing of the lack of income and fines he'd accrue. His only option would be to retire from football and try and play arena ball.

So this myth that the team doesn't have much leverage is total crap. They have him by his tiny pink balls and he's basically looking at having his career ruined.

[Kaylore]

Yeah right. With as many retard millionaires in the NFL, there isnt one other case of this ever happening?

Because you take a man's money away and he learns very quickly to come in line. Let me fire this right back at you. Is there an incident where a guy was suspended and then came back and was still a dick head?

[claymore]

Because you take a man's money away and he learns very quickly to come in line. Let me fire this right back at you. Is there an incident where a guy was suspended and then came back and was still a dick head?

Yes. Owens, Porter, Moss, Keyshawn Johnson to name some.

[claymore]

This.

Also, suspension for preseason is the first step. Regular season suspensions are next and a bigger deal because that's when he makes his money. Preseason money is pretty small. I'm not sure that they'll fly right out with a four week if he's being a brat again, but they might go one, then two, then three and finally four. All of sudden he's suspended for most of the season. That means also that he'll miss the required number of games played to become a RFA, which would be really bad news for Marshall because then the Broncos wouldn't have to tender him and he'd have to play another year under the current contract, to say nothing of the lack of income and fines he'd accrue. His only option would be to retire from football and try and play arena ball.

So this myth that the team doesn't have much leverage is total crap. They have him by his tiny pink balls and he's basically looking at having his career ruined.
It means something until you prove you can suspend a player for more than 4 games during the regular season.

All your arguments are based on benching him, and suspending him, when the reality is its never been done.

That would cause the Broncos a huge freakin headache especially if arbitration ensues and they are found in the wroing.

There is a 50% give and take between the players and the organization. The NFLPA and the CBA are set up to where if a player can be cut because he underperforming, than a player can hold out and raise a stink if he is over performing.

If you can prove me wrong please do, because I legitimatley want to know. But please respond with facts and not opinions.

[Kaylore]

It means something until you prove you can suspend a player for more than 4 games during the regular season.

All your arguments are based on benching him, and suspending him, when the reality is its never been done.

That would cause the Broncos a huge freakin headache especially if arbitration ensues and they are found in the wroing.

There is a 50% give and take between the players and the organization. The NFLPA and the CBA are set up to where if a player can be cut because he underperforming, than a player can hold out and raise a stink if he is over performing.

If you can prove me wrong please do, because I legitimatley want to know. But please respond with facts and not opinions.
Wait, just so we're clear, you seriously think that rule means a player can only be suspended once a season regardless of his behavior? I want to be clear that you're being this ridiculous. You think that rule means that once Marshall has served his four weeks he's completely immune to further discipline from the team no matter what he does? You think teams have four suspension weeks to hand out and after that there is absolutely nothing a team can do and the player can completely dick around during practice, be disruptive and ignore everything he's told and the team can do nothing because they "used up" their four weeks?!?

:laugh::lol:

I can see it now. Marshall comes back from suspension and keeps batting down balls and ignores the coaches and they can't do anything about. They are at his mercy because they "used up" his four weeks. And maybe that four week suspension is all they get for that one player for his whole career! I mean it doesn't say in the season either! So it MUST mean that now he's immune from ANY team! No matter where he goes, once those four weeks are done he's untouchable! He's like an ambassador from the land of dick heads and has diplomatic immunity to local jurisdiction!

That someone thinks something so completely crazy is hilarious to me.

I already know what you're going to say, too. "But when has it ever happened!?!? If it hasn't happened it can't happen!" That has to be the dumbest argument I've ever heard. Of course you can get re-suspended for a repeat incident just like every other sports league. This is referring to punishment for one incident! You honestly think the league would agree to making a bad seed untouchable from any further punishment after a mere four weeks? How can you even begin to think something so ridiculous?

The truth is the number of dill holes who have dicked around enough to warrant a suspension for contract detrimental to the team can be counted on one hand. Those that were suspended turned into good soldiers right away and weren't stupid enough to continue their antics when the suspension was over. That's why there are no incidents of repeat offenders; Because no one in the history of the league is stupid enough to keep doing that. Now I will grant that Marshall is stupid and immature enough to become the first. For which he can be suspended for a new incident up to four weeks.

However, Marshall needs money, remember now. That's why he didn't hold out in the first place. He didn't want to pay the 15k a day fines. Clearly hitting his pocket book is the one place he seems to respond. So let's see how things go.

And thanks for the laughs, Claymore. You're a hoot.

[Kaylore]

Yes. Owens, Porter, Moss, Keyshawn Johnson to name some.

Owens is the only guy that was suspended for contract detrimental to the team. I wasn't referring to their personalities. I was referring to players being insubordinate, getting suspended, and then being insubordinate when they got back. There are none.

[claymore]

Wait, just so we're clear, you seriously think that rule means a player can only be suspended once a season regardless of his behavior? I want to be clear that you're being this ridiculous. You think that rule means that once Marshall has served his four weeks he's completely immune to further discipline from the team no matter what he does? You think teams have four suspension weeks to hand out and after that there is absolutely nothing a team can do and the player can completely dick around during practice, be disruptive and ignore everything he's told and the team can do nothing because they "used up" their four weeks?!?

:laugh::lol:

I can see it now. Marshall comes back from suspension and keeps batting down balls and ignores the coaches and they can't do anything about. They are at his mercy because they "used up" his four weeks. And maybe that four week suspension is all they get for that one player for his whole career! I mean it doesn't say in the season either! So it MUST mean that now he's immune from ANY team! No matter where he goes, once those four weeks are done he's untouchable! He's like an ambassador from the land of dick heads and has diplomatic immunity to local jurisdiction!

That someone thinks something so completely crazy is hilarious to me.

I already know what you're going to say, too. "But when has it ever happened!?!? If it hasn't happened it can't happen!" That has to be the dumbest argument I've ever heard. Of course you can get re-suspended for a repeat incident just like every other sports league. This is referring to punishment for one incident! You honestly think the league would agree to making a bad seed untouchable from any further punishment after a mere four weeks? How can you even begin to think something so ridiculous?

The truth is the number of dill holes who have dicked around enough to warrant a suspension for contract detrimental to the team can be counted on one hand. Those that were suspended turned into good soldiers right away and weren't stupid enough to continue their antics when the suspension was over. That's why there are no incidents of repeat offenders; Because no one in the history of the league is stupid enough to keep doing that. Now I will grant that Marshall is stupid and immature enough to become the first. For which he can be suspended for a new incident up to four weeks.

However, Marshall needs money, remember now. That's why he didn't hold out in the first place. He didn't want to pay the 15k a day fines. Clearly hitting his pocket book is the one place he seems to respond. So let's see how things go.

And thanks for the laughs, Claymore. You're a hoot.
Post a link. Im not reading a page os speculation that has already been speculated.

Owens is the only guy that was suspended for contract detrimental to the team. I wasn't referring to their personalities. I was referring to players being insubordinate, getting suspended, and then being insubordinate when they got back. There are none.

I know what you were referring to. And you are still wrong.

[dogfish]

lol. . . somebody just get mike pereira on the phone already. . . .

[Kaylore]

Post a link. Im not reading a page os speculation that has already been speculated.
Translation: I'm embarrassed at getting owned and will now hide behind a negative proof fallacy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof)


I know what you were referring to. And you are still wrong.
This is ironic considering your burden of proof issues. "Post a link" as you like to say.:coffee:

[Kaylore]

OK! I found it Claymore, and it's even more hilarious because it's in THE VERY ARTICLE YOU POSTED! And it's not two paragraphs down!


Section 3. Uniformity: Discipline will be imposed uniformly within a Club on all players for the same offense; however, if the Club’s published list of discipline imposes fines for designated offenses that are less than the limits set by the maximum schedule set forth in Section 1 above, the Club may specify the events which create an escalation of the discipline, not to exceed such maximum limits, provided the formula for escalation is uniform in its application. Nothing in this Section 3 shall preclude any Club from imposing a fine and/or a suspension without pay for conduct detrimental to the Club, as set forth in Section 1(a) above, in any case in which the same player has committed repeated offenses in the same League Year, whether or not the fines imposed for the player’s prior offenses were escalated as described in the immediately preceding sentence of this Section; provided, however, that the NFLPA expressly reserves the right to challenge the imposition of such discipline for conduct detrimental to the Club based upon the absence of just cause and/or any other allowable bases for opposing discipline. Any disciplinary action imposed upon a player by the Commissioner pursuant to Article XI (Commissioner Discipline) will preclude or supersede disciplinary action by the Club for the same act or conduct.

In layman's terms nothing can prevent the team from issuing as many disciplinary actions as it sees fit for repeat offenders. The NFLPA reserves the right to investigate that the coach is treating the player fairly and that there is just cause, but he can be suspended and fined as many times as the team wants.

YOU HAVE BEEN OWNED!

[MOtorboat]

Oh my.

[Poet]

It's the leverage. If Denver truly wants to, they can keep him in twown for a decent price for 4 more years. That would screw Marshall over. So...if they trade him now, or dont use him...either way, he's useless to the team. So, keep him in check and see if he wakes up and does something to improve his value. If he wants to show "something" to potential suitors, he has to perform for US first.

/Thread.

[claymore]

Translation: I'm embarrassed at getting owned and will now hide behind a negative proof fallacy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof)


This is ironic considering your burden of proof issues. "Post a link" as you like to say.:coffee::rolleyes:


OK! I found it Claymore, and it's even more hilarious because it's in THE VERY ARTICLE YOU POSTED! And it's not two paragraphs down!

In layman's terms nothing can prevent the team from issuing as many disciplinary actions as it sees fit for repeat offenders. The NFLPA reserves the right to investigate that the coach is treating the player fairly and that there is just cause, but he can be suspended and fined as many times as the team wants.

YOU HAVE BEEN OWNED!
You are still wrong.

1. It states (in laymans terms) that team punishments need to be uniform to all players. "Discipline will be imposed uniformly within a Club on all players for the same offense;"

2. It states (in laymans terms) If the player is an ongoing issue and the final straw was something mentioned in section one of Article 7 the club can explain why the escalation occured. The Organization must prove that the punishments recieved were uniform, and does not exceed maximum limits"however, if the Club’s published list of discipline imposes fines for designated offenses that are less than the limits set by the maximum schedule set forth in Section 1 above, the Club may specify the events which create an escalation of the discipline, not to exceed such maximum limits," provided the formula for escalation is uniform in its application.

3. It states (in laymans terms) That if you fine someone, according to the list in section 1a for repeated offenses that you can still suspend the player without pay for conduct detrimental to the Club, as set forth in Section 1a. Regardless of the fact they have been disciplined previously for Article 1a violation. "Nothing in this Section 3 shall preclude any Club from imposing a fine and/or a suspension without pay for conduct detrimental to the Club, as set forth in Section 1(a) above, in any case in which the same player has committed repeated offenses in the same League Year, whether or not the fines imposed for the player’s prior offenses were escalated as described in the immediately preceding sentence of this Section"

The gist...... If you fine a player, you can tack that offense on as reasoning for the suspension. Escalating punishments. Warnings, Fines, suspensions. Uniform punsihments resulting in fines do not take away the right to suspend a player for conduct detrimental to the organization.

Read it again slowly, and stop taking it personally.


Conduct detrimental to Club—maximum fine of an amount equal to one week’s salary and/or suspension without pay for a period not to exceed four (4) weeks. This maximum applies without limitation to any deactivation of a player in response to player conduct (other than a deactivation in response to a player’s onfield playing ability), and any such deactivation, even with pay, shall be considered discipline subject to the limits set forth in this section. The Non-Injury Grievance Arbitrator’s decision in Terrell Owens (Nov. 23, 2005) is thus expressly overruled as to any Club decision to deactivate a player in response to the player’s conduct.
The Club will promptly notify the player of any discipline; notice of any Club fine in a category subject to a maximum of $14,000 or above and of any “conduct detrimental” fine or suspension will be sent to the NFLPA.

(b) The amounts set forth in Section 1(a) above and Section 7 below shall be increased for the 2007 League Year, and each League Year thereafter during the term of this Agreement, at the rate of annual TR growth, up to a maximum annual growth of 10% per year.

Section 2. Published Lists: All Clubs must publish and make available to all players at the commencement of pre-season training camp a complete list of the discipline which can be imposed for designated offenses within the limits set by the maximum schedule referred to in Section 1 above.

Section 3. Uniformity: Discipline will be imposed uniformly within a Club on all players for the same offense; however, if the Club’s published list of discipline imposes fines for designated offenses that are less than the limits set by the maximum schedule set forth in Section 1 above, the Club may specify the events which create an escalation of the discipline, not to exceed such maximum limits, provided the formula for escalation is uniform in its application. Nothing in this Section 3 shall preclude any Club from imposing a fine and/or a suspension without pay for conduct detrimental to the Club, as set forth in Section 1(a) above, in any case in which the same player has committed repeated offenses in the same League Year, whether or not the fines imposed for the player’s prior offenses were escalated as described in the immediately preceding sentence of this Section; provided, however, that the NFLPA expressly reserves the right to challenge the imposition of such discipline for conduct detrimental to the Club based upon the absence of just cause and/or any other allowable bases for opposing discipline. Any disciplinary action imposed upon a player by the Commissioner pursuant to Article XI (Commissioner Discipline) will preclude or supersede disciplinary action by the Club for the same act or conduct.

[Kaylore]

Claymore, all that is talking about is that punishments have to be uniform from player to player and fall within the guidelines created by the NFL. That's standard for any company. You can't punish player X differently than player Y if they both committed the same act. That doesn't say anything about how often a player can be punished.

in fact, it has nothing to do with what you're original point was; That supposedly after four games the team can "do nothing" to a player after he's been suspended. Your own post listed the rules that explicitly state that prior suspension doesn't preclude them from suspending again for conduct detrimental team. So basically the point of your thread, that after he's suspended they can't do anything more, which aside from lacking any common sense (and why anyone would seriously entertain that possibility as a reality is beyond me) is proved moot in the rules from your own post.


Nothing in this Section 3 shall preclude any Club from imposing a fine and/or a suspension without pay for conduct detrimental to the Club, as set forth in Section 1(a) above, in any case in which the same player has committed repeated offenses in the same League Year,

That's it, Claymore. There's no way around it. It says it right there in black in white. Marshall can be suspended in the same year for the same incident over and over again, if he's that stupid (and unfortunately he is).

And let's be clear. This is really about you hating McDaniels enjoying when players defy him because of your personal dislike of him. You want Marshall to have leverage because you want to see life difficult for McDaniels. That's why you're being stubborn and obtuse about this. The fact is Marshall is at the organizations mercy and he could lose a lot of money and credibility around the league by continuing his actions. He's already lost a lot with his teammates. He has to show up or risk further damage to his career.

Just admit you were wrong. It's in your own post and you're just making yourself look silly at this point.

[NightTrainLayne]

Claymore, all that is talking about is that punishments have to be uniform from player to player and fall within the guidelines created by the NFL. That's standard for any company. You can't punish player X differently than player Y if they both committed the same act. That doesn't say anything about how often a player can be punished.

in fact, it has nothing to do with what you're original point was; That supposedly after four games the team can "do nothing" to a player after he's been suspended. Your own post listed the rules that explicitly state that prior suspension doesn't preclude them from suspending again for conduct detrimental team. So basically the point of your thread, that after he's suspended they can't do anything more, which aside from lacking any common sense (and why anyone would seriously entertain that possibility as a reality is beyond me) is proved moot in the rules from your own post.



That's it, Claymore. There's no way around it. It says it right there in black in white. Marshall can be suspended in the same year for the same incident over and over again, if he's that stupid (and unfortunately he is).

And let's be clear. This is really about you hating McDaniels enjoying when players defy him because of your personal dislike of him. You want Marshall to have leverage because you want to see life difficult for McDaniels. That's why you're being stubborn and obtuse about this. The fact is Marshall is at the organizations mercy and he could lose a lot of money and credibility around the league by continuing his actions. He's already lost a lot with his teammates. He has to show up or risk further damage to his career.

Just admit you were wrong. It's in your own post and you're just making yourself look silly at this point.

As the peace-maker here, I don't think Claymore actually wants McD to fail. Claymore's a good guy, and he is worried about his team.

I don't agree with him on this point, but he's not someone (and there are some) who would delight in the Broncos playing poorly just to say "I told you so.".

Claymore is one of the few who will admit he's wrong and come back into the fold when McD is successful. So, play nice with him. The rest of us all love him despite his awkward, white-trash step-child manner.

[claymore]

Claymore, all that is talking about is that punishments have to be uniform from player to player and fall within the guidelines created by the NFL. That's standard for any company. You can't punish player X differently than player Y if they both committed the same act. That doesn't say anything about how often a player can be punished.

in fact, it has nothing to do with what you're original point was; That supposedly after four games the team can "do nothing" to a player after he's been suspended. Your own post listed the rules that explicitly state that prior suspension doesn't preclude them from suspending again for conduct detrimental team. So basically the point of your thread, that after he's suspended they can't do anything more, which aside from lacking any common sense, and why anyone would seriously entertain that possibility as a reality, is proved moot in the rules from your own post.



That's it, Claymore. There's no way around it. It say it right there in black in white. Marshall can be suspended in the same year for the same incident over and over again, if he's that stupid (and unfortunately he is).

And let's be clear. This is really about you hating McDaniels enjoying when players defy him because of your personal dislike of him. You want Marshall to have leverage because you want to see life difficult for McDaniels. That's why you're being stubborn and obtuse about this. The fact is Marshall is at the organizations mercy and he could lose a lot of money credibility around the league by continuing his actions. He has show up or risk further damage to his career.

Just admit you were wrong. It's in your own post and you're just making yourself look silly at this point.I believe this because its true. Im not going to try and determine why this bothers you so bad.


It states teams will administer punnishment uniformly, That a fine that occured earlier in the year can be used as evidence for suspension, and that that a player that has recieved a fine for the same offense stated in article 1 a can be suspended for the same offense.


Your great big breakthru says nothing about exceeding the maximum suspension of 4 games/4 game checks.


Nothing in this Section 3 shall preclude any Club from imposing a fine and/or a suspension without pay for conduct detrimental to the Club, as set forth in Section 1(a) above, in any case in which the same player has committed repeated offenses in the same League Year,

Basically, if you fine a guy for being fat($400 dollars per pound) it doesnt effect the suspension.

[MOtorboat]

I'm sorry, clay, but if a player commits multiple offenses in the same year he can be fined/suspended twice.

End of story.

Move on.

[claymore]

As the peace-maker here, I don't think Claymore actually wants McD to fail. Claymore's a good guy, and he is worried about his team.

I don't agree with him on this point, but he's not someone (and there are some) who would delight in the Broncos playing poorly just to say "I told you so.".

Claymore is one of the few who will admit he's wrong and come back into the fold when McD is successful. So, play nice with him. The rest of us all love him despite his awkward, white-trash step-child manner.

Thanks for the build up. :D

[NightTrainLayne]

Thanks for the build up. :D

Well, you're not usually so pig-headed, but Kaylore doesn't know that yet, so I'm trying to help you guys get along.

Did I build you up too much? Are you more of a foster kid than a step-child? :laugh:

[claymore]

I'm sorry, clay, but if a player commits multiple offenses in the same year he can be fined/suspended twice.

End of story.

Move on.

Im sorry MO, but you can only keep Brandon out of 4 games this year. Thats it.

[claymore]

Well, you're not usually so pig-headed, but Kaylore doesn't know that yet, so I'm trying to help you guys get along.

Did I build you up too much? Are you more of a foster kid than a step-child? :laugh:

You probably did.

[Lonestar]

Im sorry MO, but you can only keep Brandon out of 4 games this year. Thats it.


well MO gets the first 4 weeks, I get dibs on the second time, and Mtn man gets the last four..

that make it better..

give it a rest ..

hopefully the moron will come back after his sabbatical with Rod and have a brand new perspective on being a Bronco.. and all of this bickering will be MOOT..

[Kaylore]

Im sorry MO, but you can only keep Brandon out of 4 games this year. Thats it.

Claymore, you're the only one in the world who believes this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znowCx_y7nU

[claymore]

well MO gets the first 4 weeks, I get dibs on the second time, and Mtn man gets the last four..

that make it better..

give it a rest ..

hopefully the moron will come back after his sabbatical with Rod and have a brand new perspective on being a Bronco.. and all of this bickering will be MOOT..


Claymore, you're the only one in the world who believes this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znowCx_y7nU


The collective bargaining agreement states that a player can be suspended for up to four games without pay for conduct detrimental to the team. However, the Eagles could decide to pay Owens to stay home the rest of the season.
http://www.redorbit.com/news/general/296846/owens_former_teammate_involved_in_fight/




A club no longer can discipline a player as Philadelphia did Terrell Owens last season. Under the new agreement, the maximum discipline a team can impose on a player is suspension without pay for four weeks -- in essence, a reversal of the Owens decision of last year. The Eagles suspended the wide receiver for four games then removed him from the team and its premises for the rest of the season. Owens complained but lost when an arbitrator ruled in favor of Philadelphia. In essence, the new agreement means clubs like Philadelphia cannot deactivate players as long-term punishment. They can continue to deactivate them week-to-week, but they cannot -- as Philadelphia did -- remove them for extended periods of time as disciplinary measures.
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/9298153



The result of these changes to the 2006 CBA and SSA is that
signing bonuses are now protected from players’ bad acts much more
than under the 2002 Agreement. While there still may be cases in which
a player retires or holds out for an entire season, previously paid bonuses
are always protected; bonuses are protected from total forfeiture due to
drug and alcohol use; holdouts will forfeit bonuses only during the
period in which they hold out; repeated arrests or other activities that
may be found to be conduct detrimental cannot result in a suspension
greater than four games; and players can make statements about the
coaches, club, and other players and ensure that they are not subject to
signing bonus forfeiture. In short, signing bonuses and any previously
paid or earned performance or roster bonuses are now truly guaranteed.http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=david_weiss


Gotta go home. believe what ya'll want/

[NightTrainLayne]

Gotta go home. believe what ya'll want/

Clay. . .that still just says that essentially the punishment is four-games max for each instance that it is enforced. You are reading too much into it.

[claymore]

Clay. . .that still just says that essentially the punishment is four-games max for each instance that it is enforced. You are reading too much into it.

I think I found the golden ticket. It came from a Florio article.....


And, in this case, there could be multiple rounds. The CBA allows the teams to impose multiple suspensions of up to four weeks. So, if Marshall doesn't change his ways, he might be suspended again and again.

I hope he is right, and I would kinda like to see this happen.

Marshall has zero leverage if Florio is right.

[Poet]

Claymore, I can tell you that when TO was in Philly I heard this debate before.

You get suspended four games, and you can keep getting suspended in case you keep doing the same exact things. Yes, there are appeals and this and that but that's the gist of it.

It's going to be a huge headache for both sides. It may be a bigger headache for the Broncos. That being said, it's a headache for the Broncos and a battle they can't lose.

[claymore]

Claymore, I can tell you that when TO was in Philly I heard this debate before.

You get suspended four games, and you can keep getting suspended in case you keep doing the same exact things. Yes, there are appeals and this and that but that's the gist of it.

It's going to be a huge headache for both sides. It may be a bigger headache for the Broncos. That being said, it's a headache for the Broncos and a battle they can't lose.

I agree. Its such a huge statement. I think thats why I am / was so obsessed with finding the truth. I trust florio's comment because he is a lawyer, and used to the NFL and the CBA.

I still think the CBA is weak, and left up to interpretation. Since we the Broncos will most likely suck next year, I am more than willing to get something good in place and risk a strike.

That is its own thread though bada, blada//////////

[horsepig]

Not so much kid gloves, as simply be approachable and/or approach him. Treat him like an adult and not like a kid (by putting him on the practice squad) and getting SOMETHING worked out relationship wise. Don't dodge and avoid his off field court cases and then ask the team to 'pretend' they don't exist. Acknowledge, stand behind him and say we are THRILLLED for Brandon our teammate, our friend, our family (blah blah blah).

As you said... MANY saw things building up and escalating...why couldn't our coaching staff again? I know they want the "he'll do it our way or no way" attitude, but damn. Lets quit cutting off our nose to spite our face. Lets quit the "toughguy" routine that is simply driving the talent away.

Marshall is absolutely to blame for his attitude on the field. I want everyone to know that I'm, in NO way, justifying his actions at all.

But I do feel that somewhere along the lines, McD's attitude/personality/communication skills are really hurting him and this team. He wants the belicheck respect without earning a drop simply because he has the title "coach" by his name...... and that doesn't work with adults. That may work in HS, and in some colleges....but not in the "business" of the NFL.

Maybe it will, maybe it won't, but as a fan I'm willing to wait and see. NFL football is a team game.

The great 49'er teams will not flood the HOF. A few, sure, but the real guys in the trenches (like alot of past Broncos like TJ) will never even get a nominatuon.

The Patriots do it this way also. They just get a lot of pub for it.

The Cowboys did it with humongous payrolls and glamor and glitter and get a lot of HOF nominations.

All I'm saqyung is that the no "stars" team approach not only makes sense, it seems to work very well.

[NightTrainLayne]

I agree. Its such a huge statement. I think thats why I am / was so obsessed with finding the truth. I trust florio's comment because he is a lawyer, and used to the NFL and the CBA.

I still think the CBA is weak, and left up to interpretation. Since we the Broncos will most likely suck next year, I am more than willing to get something good in place and risk a strike.

That is its own thread though bada, blada//////////

I wish that you trusted me. . . :(

[Poet]

Maybe it will, maybe it won't, but as a fan I'm willing to wait and see. NFL football is a team game.

The great 49'er teams will not flood the HOF. A few, sure, but the real guys in the trenches (like alot of past Broncos like TJ) will never even get a nominatuon.

The Patriots do it this way also. They just get a lot of pub for it.

The Cowboys did it with humongous payrolls and glamor and glitter and get a lot of HOF nominations.

All I'm saqyung is that the no "stars" team approach not only makes sense, it seems to work very well.
Ty Law, Bruschi, Rodney Harrison, Tom Brady, and Matt Light will probably all get in.


I agree with your point in general, though.

[Lonestar]

Ty Law, Bruschi, Rodney Harrison, Tom Brady, and Matt Light will probably all get in.


I agree with your point in general, though.


well Harrison was indeed a Charger for a long time before retiring to NE..

Bruschi just might deserves it and Brady is a shoe in unless he gets caught in a APO stall with a little boy..

[ursamajor]

This isn't true at all. The players are pretty much against Marshall on this one. Why don't you make some more crap up and complain about it, though?

Make crap up? Gimme a break.