Sorry, I was tired and didn't argue clearly enough. I'm aware of the role of the arbitrator, and the first point I was attempting to make is that perhaps it would be a much bigger issue if the player was of "superstar" caliber. but there is no way he just picks a team a declares Harrison a Buc. Maybe not picks, as in chooses randomly, but something like this does seem to be what is happening. The arbitrator accused the Jets of failing to "correctly match the offer" and thus awards the player to the outside team, who conveniently he holds season tickets for. Say Michael Vick becomes a restricted free agent next year (I think its an rfa, but you get the idea). Offers are flying around from just about every team in the league. The Falcons *believe* they have correctly matched the best outside offer, and will be able to keep their franchise player. However, an arbitor is brought in and, at arbitration, it is decided that they did not, and the player is immediately awarded to the Cowboys. Spokeperson for the NFL lambasting the verdict. No appeal. Is this the system? (Begin new thread topic: is it a good system?) My second point was that the article sucked, because it refused to address the obvious questions the issue raises. The Jets can't appeal. Why? I have information from you saying they might wish to appeal because the decision was wrong, but that didn't come from the article linked to, and besides, the article clearly states that the Jets can't appeal. Also, and you mentioned concern about this yourself, is the fact that an NFL Management Council senior VP, not a member of the Jets organization, thinks something has gone wrong. Again, this raises questions the article doesn't answer. You made assumptions, (which were very good ones) but the point is still that you had to assume. The linked article doesn't address the issues it brings up. I like sports, but find much of sports journalism utter crap. I don't know why the Jets can't appeal, or whether they have grounds. I don't know how the arbitrator could have exceeded his authority. I don't know if there is a procedure in place for situations where the arbitrators exceed their authority. Surely their decision can't stand if they voilated their authority in making it. Or perhaps not, the point is, I wouldn't know.
Ahem. After reading this article, it's becoming clearer to me. (I can be so thickheaded sometimes!) The Jets offer didn't include "voidable" seasons at the end of the contract. However, from the article: But the Jets, who retained the right to match any offer sheet to Morton by making him a qualifying offer in February, appealed to the Management Council, essentially the league's labor arm, contesting the voidable years. The Management Council subsequently ruled that the voidable years did not represent a "principal term" of the offer and did not have to be matched. In response to this, Morton filed a grievance through the NLFPA, arguing that the "voidable years" bit was a key part about the contract. About those "voidable years": The basic idea is that a player signs a contract for x years, and if he meets certain criteria, that contract is now y years smaller, ie sign a seven year contract, make the pro bowl, and be a free agent again in three. It appears that the arbitrator agreed with Morton and the NFLPA: That was essentially the stance the NFLPA adopted in the Friday hearing and with which Bloch agreed. And the article basically ends from there. This appears to be a disagreement between the Management Council and the NFLPA, with an arbitrator deciding in the NFLPA's favor. With this information, I (a bit surprisingly) find myself agreeing with the aribitrator. Moreso, this makes 86's post either a bit psychic or he had already read the article I'm linking to.
