Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 95

Thread: Broncos the NFL's cheapest team?

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    1,153

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Northman View Post
    You would think it would be that obvious.
    Well don't agree with me to fast . If you ask me the reason Doom was forced to sign an RFA tender is due more so to the conduct of the owners in opting out of the CBA and the governing rules enacted for the "final year" in the CBA then the Broncos organization itself. That said, I think one can use "good faith bargaining" in this context in a broader sense then defined by the Labor Relations Act.
    Temp sig till I find another one

  2. The Following User High Fived BigBroncLove For This Post:


  3. #62
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Adopted Bronco:
    Doom!
    Posts
    3,759

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigBroncLove View Post
    Well don't agree with me to fast . If you ask me the reason Doom was forced to sign an RFA tender is due more so to the conduct of the owners in opting out of the CBA and the governing rules enacted for the "final year" in the CBA then the Broncos organization itself. That said, I think one can use "good faith bargaining" in this context in a broader sense then defined by the Labor Relations Act.
    Shakety boobs, Shakety boobs, Shakety boobs...

    Wait wut?
    To all the armed forces... present, past, and future.
    Thanks, Reid!

    Click the sig to read JetRazor's and my story! PM me with any questions!
    I love my wife!

  4. The Following 2 Users High Fived LordTrychon For This Post:


  5. #63
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    1,153

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LordTrychon View Post
    Shakety boobs, Shakety boobs, Shakety boobs...

    Wait wut?
    I said you're welcome.
    Temp sig till I find another one

  6. The Following User High Fived BigBroncLove For This Post:


  7. #64
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Adopted Bronco:
    Gene Mingo
    Posts
    3,813

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigBroncLove View Post
    You have to understand, those are definition under the Labor relations act of 1935 (also known under its latin term, bona fide) for good faith negotiation when it is in regard to labor relations such as the collective bargaining agreement. In reference to negotiating in good faith for a contract between a player and organization the term can be used in a broader sense. I don't agree that negotiating in good faith is not forcing one side to react in a specific way, especially when the governing rules prohibit the player mroe then the negotiating party. However in this case negotiating in good faith is far more open to interpretation and can be used from excessively unreasonable offers by a single party to the actual conduct outlined in the labor relations act.

    There is also a form of good faith negotiation in the Uniform Commercial Code, but that has to do with merchants buying goods in good faith at price. My underlying point is, there are mroe than one application of the term. The labor relations act and the terms defined in US law for good faith labor negotiation I feel personally can not be applied exclusively and prohibitively as far as the use of "good faith negotiation" to these negotiations between Doom and the Broncos. IMO one must allow a broader use of a rather vague term when using legal jargon to a process that utilizes it when it is undefined by that specific law.
    You're correct. Temp's definition of good faith doesn't apply here since Doom isnt a labor body. The simplest legal definition of good faith from Black's Law is

    Honesty; a sincere intention to deal fairly with others.

    Since we dont really know the Bronco's intention yet and since they traditionally have treated their players well, I'll give the FO a bit more time before I slander the basturds.

    JDL could clear this up.
    Some of those that work forces
    Are the same that burn crosses

  8. #65
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    1,153

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Softskull View Post
    You're correct. Temp's definition of good faith doesn't apply here since Doom isnt a labor body. The simplest legal definition of good faith from Black's Law is

    Honesty; a sincere intention to deal fairly with others.

    Since we dont really know the Bronco's intention yet and since they traditionally have treated their players well, I'll give the FO a bit more time before I slander the basturds.

    JDL could clear this up.
    I personally prefer this definition by legal dictionary when applied in a broader set of circumstances.

    honest intent to act without taking an unfair advantage over another person or to fulfill a promise to act, even when some legal technicality is not fulfilled. The term is applied to all kinds of transactions.
    Temp sig till I find another one

  9. The Following 2 Users High Fived BigBroncLove For This Post:


  10. #66

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigBroncLove View Post
    You have to understand, those are definition under the Labor relations act of 1935 (also known under its latin term, bona fide) for good faith negotiation when it is in regard to labor relations such as the collective bargaining agreement. In reference to negotiating in good faith for a contract between a player and organization the term can be used in a broader sense. I don't agree that negotiating in good faith is not forcing one side to react in a specific way, especially when the governing rules prohibit the player mroe then the negotiating party. However in this case negotiating in good faith is far more open to interpretation and can be used from excessively unreasonable offers by a single party to the actual conduct outlined in the labor relations act.

    There is also a form of good faith negotiation in the Uniform Commercial Code, but that has to do with merchants buying goods in good faith at price. My underlying point is, there are mroe than one application of the term. The labor relations act and the terms defined in US law for good faith labor negotiation I feel personally can not be applied exclusively and prohibitively as far as the use of "good faith negotiation" to these negotiations between Doom and the Broncos. IMO one must allow a broader use of a rather vague term when using legal jargon to a process that utilizes it when it is undefined by that specific law.
    1.) I'm an attorney. I understand what "good faith" is.

    2.) The definitions I put forth are accurate and current.

    3.) The UCC does not make the Denver actions a breach of "good faith".

    4.) Your opinion about a broader use is simply incorrect, when talking about how the term is applied in our country with regard to clauses like the one at hand (tender). "Good faith" in contract negotiations is specific, albeit something that can be an object of contention. Simply holding a party to terms of a contract, even while 'threatening' to enforce the terms of said contract, is NOT a breach of good faith just because the other party won't like the terms involved.

    5.) What you agree with is irrelevant to the subject. IMO, the Bill of Rights is being viewed in a horribly wrong manner by the United States Congress, President and Supreme Court. The writings of the founding fathers back me up on this with, essentially, a 100% match. That's irrelevant because, under modern ruling, I'm in the minority. The question here isn't what you (or Tned or Northman, etc...) FEEL to be good faith. The question is what is actually considered to be good faith.

    From what we know, nothing the Broncos organization has done regarding the Dumervil contract has been a breach.
    Last edited by Tempus Fugit; 06-21-2010 at 09:05 PM.
    "The work doesn't care who does it."

  11. The Following User High Fived Tempus Fugit For This Post:


  12. #67
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    1,153

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tempus Fugit View Post
    1.) I'm an attorney. I understand full well what "good faith" is.

    2.) The definitions I put forth are accurate and current.

    3.) The UCC does not make the Denver actions a breach of "good faith".

    4.) Your opinion about a broader use is simply incorrect, with regards to how the term is applied in our country. "Good faith" in contract negotiations is specific, albeit something that can be an object of contention. Simply holding a party to terms of a contract, even while 'threatening' to enforce the terms of said contract, is NOT a breach of good faith just because the other party won't like the terms involved.

    5.) What you agree with is irrelevant to the subject. IMO, the Bill of Rights is being viewed in a horribly wrong manner by the United States Congress, President and Supreme Court. The writings of the founding fathers back me up on this with, essentially, a 100% match. That's irrelevant because, under modern ruling, I'm in the minority. The question here isn't what you (or Tned or Northman, etc...) FEEL to be good faith. The question is what is actually considered to be good faith.

    From what we know, nothing the Broncos organization has done regarding the Dumervil contract has been a breach.
    Heheheh, oh no! your an attorney! I just think its funny when people start throwing around titles to achieve a better stance in argumentative debate.

    2) They are accurate, except that you cannot apply the term "good faith" in context of law when the law does not specifically apply to the situation under debate. I'd love to apply civil rights law to property law, but you just don't do it, because they don't mix. Hence you don't apply legal terms to debate not regarding legal matters.

    3)The UCC reference was showing you, which I feel you have lacked to grasp, that there is not a singular definition for "good faith negotiations" even in legal matters. That under UCC the definition of "good faith negotiations" is extremely different then the Labor Relations Act. Case in point that your definition and its exclusive application is a flawed podium to be standing on.

    4) If you had read my response in full you would know I agreed that simply using the governing rules that binds both the Broncos and Dumervil to the Broncos advantage was not a breach of what I feel can be considered the broader context of "good faith negotiations".

    5)What matters here is the context in which you apply terms. Words have several meaning in english. Hence why you can use "further" in several fashions. This is no different. It may have emerged as a legal term but its application in the larger English codex of language is not exclusive and to debate so is rahter short sighted (and obviously like your bill of rights issues, in the minority).
    Last edited by BigBroncLove; 06-21-2010 at 09:17 PM.
    Temp sig till I find another one

  13. The Following User High Fived BigBroncLove For This Post:


  14. #68

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigBroncLove View Post
    Heheheh, oh no! your an attorney! I just think its funny when people start throwing around titles to achieve a better stance in argumentative debate.
    Read the post of the person I was responding to and you should understand why I mentioned it:

    You have to understand, those are definition under the Labor relations act of 1935 (also known under its latin term, bona fide) for good faith negotiation when it is in regard to labor relations such as the collective bargaining agreement. In reference to negotiating in good faith for a contract between a player and organization the term can be used in a broader sense.
    (And, yes, I do know who that person was)

    Quote Originally Posted by BigBroncLove View Post
    2) (by the way, what happened to one, or do you only count that when your getting paid by the hour?) They are accurate, except that you cannot apply the term "good faith" in context of law when the law does not specifically apply to the situation under debate. I'd love to apply civil rights law to property law, but you just don't do it, because they don't mix. Hence you don't apply legal terms to debate not regarding legal matters.
    Someone erroneously claiming that the definition doesn't apply does NOT mean that the definition doesn't apply.

    Quote Originally Posted by BigBroncLove View Post
    3)The UCC reference was showing you, which I feel you have lacked to grasp, that there is not a singular definition for "good faith negotiations" even in legal matters. That under UCC the definition of "good faith negotiations" is extremely different then the Labor Relations Act. Case in point that your definition and its exclusive application is a flawed podium to be standing on.
    Since the issue in question is not a sale of goods and the governing law is of a different nature, the applicability of your UCC comment was nil. Or, to put it another way,

    (b) "Good faith" in the case of a merchant means honesty in fact and the observance of reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing in the trade.
    Is all well and good, but this is not a television purchase.


    Quote Originally Posted by BigBroncLove View Post
    4) If you had read my response in full you would know I agreed that simply using the governing rules that binds both the Broncos and Dumervil to the Broncos advantage was not a breach of what I feel can be considered the broader context of "good faith negotiations".
    I did read your response in full. That's how I was able to respond to the sections specifically. My point regarding your response follow up to the sentence you're citing, which was:

    However in this case negotiating in good faith is far more open to interpretation and can be used from excessively unreasonable offers by a single party to the actual conduct outlined in the labor relations act.
    That's simply an incorrect read on the situation at hand.


    Quote Originally Posted by BigBroncLove View Post
    5)What matters here is the context in which you apply terms. Words have several meaning in english. Hence why you can use "further" in several fashions. This is no different. It may have emerged as a legal term but its application in the larger English codex of language is not exclusive and to debate so is rahter short sighted (and obviously like your bill of rights issues, in the minority).
    Yes, words have meaning. Tned is misusing a term. That's my whole point. And, yes, when discussing "Good faith" in contractual terms, you ARE being exclusive, just as you are being exclusive when discussing "presumption of innocence" in a criminal trial or when using other field related phraseology within that specific field (upside down as a mortgage term, etc...).
    Last edited by Tempus Fugit; 06-21-2010 at 09:33 PM.
    "The work doesn't care who does it."

  15. #69
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    1,153

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tempus Fugit View Post
    Read the post of the person I was responding to and you should understand why I mentioned it.



    (And, yes, I do know who that person was)



    Someone erroneously claiming that the definition doesn't apply does NOT mean that the definition doesn't apply.



    Quote Originally Posted by Tempus Fugit
    Since the issue in question is not a sale of goods, the applicability of your UCC comment was nil.
    No its not when using this as an example that your exclusive definition of "good faith negotiations" does not exist, whilst separate arguments I feel have been fully capable of explaining why using that definition is erroneous and misleading.



    Quote Originally Posted by tempus fugit
    I did read your response in full. That's how I was able to respond to the sections specifically. My point regarding your response follow up to the sentence you're citing, which was:

    That's simply an incorrect read on the situation at hand.
    This is not a matter of symantics but a matter of opinion. Your of which I feel is incorrect fully and completely. Also this was the line I was referring to and again, it was missed.

    Quote Originally Posted by BBL
    I don't agree that negotiating in good faith is not forcing one side to react in a specific way, especially when the governing rules prohibit the player mroe then the negotiating party.
    Funny that it preceded the line you referenced.

    Yes, words have meaning. Tned is misusing a term. That's my whole point. And, yes, when discussing "Good faith" in contractual terms, you ARE being exclusive, just as you are being exclusive when discussing "presumption of innocence" in a criminal trial or when using other field related phraseology within that specific field (upside down as a mortgage term, etc...).
    Again, this is not a labor union and an employer. This is an individual entity negotiating with an organization. Labor law no more applies here then it does to lease negotiations in real estate law or contractors contracts with clients. I believe your argument is inherently flawed and I also feel you side stepped many of my points in my previous point. Needless to say this is ground we've already covered before and I do not feel, unless your going to start paying me by the hour, that further debate will lead to either party changing their mind, nor will it result in anything tangible but frustration. Agree to disagree but I feel my point has been well made and of course I think its right.

    EDIT: Also this

    Quote Originally Posted by Legal Dictionary
    Good faith is an abstract and comprehensive term that encompasses a sincere belief or motive without any malice or the desire to defraud others. It derives from the translation of the Latin term bona fide, and courts use the two terms interchangeably.
    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...th+negotiation
    Last edited by BigBroncLove; 06-21-2010 at 09:52 PM.
    Temp sig till I find another one

  16. The Following 2 Users High Fived BigBroncLove For This Post:


  17. #70

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigBroncLove View Post
    No its not when using this as an example that your exclusive definition of "good faith negotiations" does not exist, whilst separate arguments I feel have been fully capable of explaining why using that definition is erroneous and misleading.
    So, when using it as an example of something that's inapplicable, you feel it's applicable. That's an interesting take.

    Quote Originally Posted by BigBroncLove View Post
    This is not a matter of symantics but a matter of opinion. Your of which I feel is incorrect fully and completely. Also this was the line I was referring to and again, it was missed.
    The opinion is based upon incorrect semantics. It is, therefore, inherently flawed, to say the least.

    Quote Originally Posted by BigBroncLove View Post
    Funny that it preceded the line you referenced.
    Not funny at all, really. I noted precisely what I was referring to, as a matter of fact.

    Quote Originally Posted by BigBroncLove View Post
    Again, this is not a labor union and an employer. This is an individual entity negotiating with an organization. Labor law no more applies here then it does to lease negotiations in real estate law or contractors contracts with clients. I believe your argument is inherently flawed and I also feel you side stepped many of my points in my previous point. Needless to say this is ground we've already covered before and I do not feel, unless your going to start paying me by the hour, that further debate will lead to either party changing their mind, nor will it result in anything tangible but frustration. Agree to disagree but I feel my point has been well made and of course I think its right.
    ...Barry University law professor Marc Edelman said while bargaining is governed by labor laws not antitrust laws – if workers are represented by a union...
    http://blogs.trb.com/sports/custom/b...ng_agains.html

    The NFL's statement said the Supreme Court's decision "has no bearing on collective bargaining, which is governed by labor law."
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...712061552.html

    The court held that the Williamses' claims were predicated on Minnesota law, not the NFL’s CBA nor its testing policies. Therefore, no interpretation of the CBA was necessary, and state law would apply.

    The court found that despite the policy of preference for federal labor policies trumping state laws, this was not intended “to displace any state law they found inconvenient…” saying, “...such a rule of law would delegate to unions and unionized employers the power to exempt themselves from whatever state labor standards they disfavored.”
    http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/...iams-case.html

    The NFL noted that this decision has "no bearing on collective bargaining, which is governed by labor law." The NFLPA stated nearly the same, asserting that it hopes the decision will mark "a renewed effort by the NFL to bargain in good faith and avoid a lockout." Note that the NFLPA does not mention the antitrust decision
    http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2010/0...rust-decision/

    Conversely, the NFLPA can now at least have the appearance of negotiating leverage with the possiblity of decertification, meaning that they would cease to be a union in order to pursue antitrust claims in court. As a union, the players are bound by labor laws, which have been very favorable to management.
    http://www.ninersnation.com/2010/5/2...-v-nfl-and-the
    "The work doesn't care who does it."

  18. #71
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    high elevation
    Adopted Bronco:
    Baron Browning, Jaleel McLaughlin
    Posts
    43,170

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tempus Fugit View Post
    That's irrelevant to my point. Under present circumstances, he's a RFA. Given that, he's being paid at the highest level. That's a solid contract under those circumstances.

    Again, this stuff has happened throughout the league. The Patriots have Mankins who won't even sign. The Chargers have 2 players who wouldn't sign. Team after team used the RFA situation to lock players in for lesser salaries. Singling out the Broncos on this is ridiculous, because they've obviously not been the only team working the RFA tenders. Dumervil's no more worthy of a new deal than a Vincent Jackson, Logan Mankins, etc....
    Quote Originally Posted by dogfish View Post
    and detroit loses double digit games every year-- so it must be okay because other teams are doing it, right?

    i think at this point we ALL understand the realities of the current labor situation. . . most of us also know that some guys are getting paid around the league-- brandon marshall, demeco ryans, patrick willis, etc. . . labor uncertainty is a stumbling block to new contracts, but it's far from completely prohibitive. . .

    it makes me happy that san diego and new england are in conflict with some of their top players-- it DOESN'T however, make me want to emulate them in any way. . .

    we have the right to make doom play under the RFA tener, no question-- that doesn't make it a "good" contract, though. . . and no amount of saying that it is will change that. . . players with comparable production are averaging in the range of ten million per year-- paying him three and then hiding behind labor unrest to pretend that's a good contract because it happens to be the highest RFA tender is pissing down his leg and telling him it's raining, and it's obvious that he's not dumb enough to buy it. . .
    Quote Originally Posted by Tempus Fugit View Post
    To repeat what I said since, judging by your response, you must have missed it.... Singling out the Broncos



    is stupid.

    A good contract under the circumstances is exactly what he's got. I didn't say the circumstances were good. I didn't say he should be happy with the contract. I didn't say he doesn't have a fair argument for asking for more. However, Denver isn't behaving in a manner that's any different from many other NFL teams.
    do you enjoy fighting straw men?

    i never once "singled out" the broncos-- in fact, i never even said they were cheap to begin with. . . i thought i made it clear in my first post that i'm well aware of the current labor situation. . .

    and no, a good contract under the circumstances is most certainly NOT what he has right now. . . his status under restricted free agency is no different from his former teammate brandon marshall, who just got 47 million for five years with 12 million guaranteed. . . RFA or not, he's a 26-year-old all pro who is currently one of the most underpaid athletes in all of professional sports, and while the bump up to three million is a nice little increase, it's only a fraction of his market value-- and the real issue is security. . . he basically has none playing a year under the tender. . .

    you're entirely correct that this year presents unusual circumstances and that all teams are faced with them. . . however, i think it's laughable to suggest that it's a GOOD contract, simply because he's not the only one twisting in the wind. . . i can't even begin to understand how you justify that statement. . .

    saying that it's a good contract under the circumstances suggests to me that there must be a less pleasant alternative for him-- so what exactly is this contract "good" in comparison to?


    also, i'd like to go back and call bullshit on one of your previous statements:

    Dumervil's no more worthy of a new deal than a Vincent Jackson, Logan Mankins, etc
    ....

    FAIL

    vincent jackson is almost as much of an assclown as marshall, aside from the fact that he's never been accused of hitting a woman. . . he has two DUIs and is a serious suspension risk-- he most certainly is NOT as worthy of a new deal as elvis, who is just as good if not better on the field, and a model citizen and teammate off it. . .

    as for mankins-- bah, he's a guard. . . good one, but the value of a really good interior lineman pales in comparison to the value of a really good edge rusher-- one look at the comparative salaries for the best players at the respective positions makes that amply clear. . . besides which, mankins has refused to report, and has publicly bad-mouthed the organization and demanded a trade. . . his behavior stands in clear contrast to dumervil, who has handled the situation in the most professional manner imaginable, including showing up and practicing under an injury waiver. . .
    “When we do find that guy, we’ve got to have the continuity on the offensive side to where we can train him and develop him and get him there. This is our fourth offense in probably three or four years. Quarterbacks need to be developed. You don’t find one ready-made. We got to have a solid system in place for when we do go after whatever guy it may be, a young guy or a trade or whatnot.”
    - John Elway

  19. The Following 5 Users High Fived dogfish For This Post:


  20. #72
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Anderson, TX
    Adopted Bronco:
    Demaryius Thomas
    Posts
    36,443

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by T.K.O. (team kyle orton) View Post
    no....wrong again....what i did say was that it might be in the best interest of both sides to wait a few weeks (since doom is now under contract) and get the rookies signed ,then deal with doom.
    because if the broncos are ready to give doom a big payday,it would make sense not to let the rookies agents see him getting a huge deal while they are in negotiations.you see it might just get them all excited and drooling .giving them another bargaining chip.
    so by waiting the broncos have shown they are'nt giving out HUGE paydays at the moment.making it more likely the agents at the table wont have dreams of 100 million dollar deals dancing in their heads.
    which would then allow the team more flexability with doom's contract !
    now do you see what i was saying ?
    Again I understood, you said put Dumervil on back burner. You've said it twice do you not understand your own words?

    What you've said about it being in the best interests of both parties please. Do you really buy into that? It's not his best interest, nor does it give the agents of these rookies a bargaining chip. You can't just pull thing out of thin expect to be believable. Dumervil is 4th year pro and most the rookies we have are on the offensive side of the ball. Only one of them Kilrew is OLB but he was a7h round pick. Do you really think his agent could use Dumervil getting a substantial raise as bargaining chip? Maybe in Shangri La but not in the real world.
    Last edited by TXBRONC; 06-21-2010 at 10:52 PM.

  21. #73
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,349

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tomjonesrocks View Post
    Anyone just hear Dumervil on the Jim Rome show this morning?

    I really wish I could link this interview--
    http://www.1043thefan.com/channels/a...spx?ID=1243625

    really sounded bad in terms of his contract situation to me...
    Only if that's what you were looking for. Dumervil gave a pretty standard interview with professional, coy responses, and both he and McD say they want him here for the long term.

    Am losing a LOT of respect for this franchise fast. Until the team pays someone the "cheap" rap can't be argued.
    Our current front office has been on the job just over a year during one of the most uncertain times in NFL history. Perspective anyone?

  22. #74
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Baltimore, MD
    Adopted Bronco:
    Ray Finkel
    Posts
    86,709

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigBroncLove View Post

    5)What matters here is the context in which you apply terms. Words have several meaning in english. Hence why you can use "further" in several fashions. This is no different. It may have emerged as a legal term but its application in the larger English codex of language is not exclusive and to debate so is rahter short sighted (and obviously like your bill of rights issues, in the minority).
    Bingo. No one here has stated that the Broncos "breached" anything. Its common knowledge that the Broncos are "allowed" to force Doom to sign his tender. However, when i think of "good faith" i think of it in terms of "trust" which at this point is only coming from Doom in my opinion. When you start forcing someone's hand in any negotiation by throwing out threats you then send a poor message to the one your negotiating with. Just because your "allowed" to do something does not mean that you should. And in this case especially with a player who has done everything in his power to work with you and buy into what your doing.

  23. #75
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    high elevation
    Adopted Bronco:
    Baron Browning, Jaleel McLaughlin
    Posts
    43,170

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Northman View Post
    Bingo. No one here has stated that the Broncos "breached" anything. Its common knowledge that the Broncos are "allowed" to force Doom to sign his tender. However, when i think of "good faith" i think of it in terms of "trust" which at this point is only coming from Doom in my opinion. When you start forcing someone's hand in any negotiation by throwing out threats you then send a poor message to the one your negotiating with. Just because your "allowed" to do something does not mean that you should. And in this case especially with a player who has done everything in his power to work with you and buy into what your doing.
    or to paraphrase-- your wife or girlfriend can withhold sex to get what she wants, but it doesn't mean you have to like it. . .


    “When we do find that guy, we’ve got to have the continuity on the offensive side to where we can train him and develop him and get him there. This is our fourth offense in probably three or four years. Quarterbacks need to be developed. You don’t find one ready-made. We got to have a solid system in place for when we do go after whatever guy it may be, a young guy or a trade or whatnot.”
    - John Elway

  24. The Following 2 Users High Fived dogfish For This Post:


Go
Shop AFC Champions and Super Bowl gear at the official online Pro Shop of the Denver Broncos!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. NFL's All Undrafted Team
    By powderaddict in forum Broncos Talk
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-30-2009, 07:19 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
status.broncosforums.com - BroncosForums status updates
Partner with the USA Today Sports Media Group