I found Brown’s time with the Raiders very odd. It felt as if Brown tried to do everything he could to get cut while he was (not) there in training camp. Let’s not forget, he was traded to Oakland. What if Antonio Brown and his agent have phone records of the Patriots contacting them before the Raiders cut him? Are the Patriots better off just paying Brown his guaranteed money, or risk Brown spilling the beans to the commissioner and being charged with tampering? I’m not sure what tampering charges involve in the NFL, but I remember how devastating it was to the Timberwolves in the NBA.
I imagine the Patriots would have thought of that. The fact that they cut him is probably an indication they did not tamper.
Brown is complaining about not getting his guaranteed money. I don't think he cares about being cut. It's the principal of (2) teams finding a back door in not paying a player, what was perceived as the only guaranteed portion of a contract the players could ever rely on.
So what does that have to do with this conspiracy theory of the Pats tampering?
My guess is that a settlement on the guaranteed payment is out the window after AB's twitter tirade against Kraft yesterday. Probably going to end up in court & I'm guessing the odds there will probably favor AB but outside a court ordering the Pats to pay him, I don't see Kraft cutting him a check now.
Patriots seem to have a pretty decent argument, especially if the Commissioner puts him on the exempt list at some point given Brown clearly knew he was going to get sued for sexual assault and didn't tell the Patriots ahead of time. There is a reason those clauses are placed in contracts and this is a pretty solid example of it.
They still let him practice & play in the Dolphins game once that knowledge was disclosed. My guess is that'll work against the Pats.
maybe, but he was still available at that point. Doesn't change the fact that Brown knew of a circumstance which would potentially affect his availability and did not disclose it prior to signing. In fact, if you look just in this thread with all of the talk of the people commending Rosenhaus for not disclosing and pulling a fast one on the Patriots, you can see why those clauses exist.
I can't stand the Patriots, but I hope they win this. There is no way they should have to pay Brown when he clearly did not disclose relevant information that he knew about. That just sets up a terrible precedent for players to withhold information and/or just flat out lie. And this isn't a case of the Patriots not doing due diligence as it would have been almost impossible, if not impossible, for them to discover this information before the suit was filed.
I get Dons’ point, though.
They knew about the allegations, but played him. If you allow voiding of the contract after one game, where do you draw the line? 2 games? 4? A full season.
I think it is a case of due diligence? It wasn’t impossible to discover. You just ask a few questions:
“Has anybody accused you of criminal behavior within the past two years? If so, describe in detail the nature and specifics of such allegation”
“Has any person or entity initiated and/or threatened a lawsuit or civil complaint against you in the past two years? If so, describe in detail the nature and specifics of such lawsuit, complaint or allegation”
And he says no or dodges the questions. I get that gives you better evidence, but you still need him to disclose the information. That is why due diligence doesn't work. And frankly, I'd be surprised if those type of questions weren't asked or discussed. Maybe not directly on point, but at least indirectly. There is after all a reason that clause is in the contract.
As for how many games, I'd argue that should be pro-rated. He was available for 1 game, so he should get 1/15th of the signing bonus (or 2/15th's if you want to say he could have played game 3). It isn't that hard to do the math.
If he lies, then he’s breached. If he doesn’t disclose something that you didn’t ask about, it’s very grey, especially after playing him.
But, time will tell. Does the money really affect the Pats, other than Bob Kraft? I guess it does for extending contracts, etc.
There really isn't any practical difference. He has a duty to disclose. he didn't disclose. Arbitrators don't tend to enforce contracts to the letter of their language, but courts tend to do that. So I suspect the arbitrator will award him the money, but that is the real shame.
Where is the duty to disclose? In the contract or the CBA, because there is no statutory or common law duty to disclose when you have a contract that was negotiated at arm's length. Antonio Brown was employed by the Patriots there is no fiduciary relationship here. Even if you want to use the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing that is implied in almost every contract, that implied covenant only applies to the performance during the life of the contract and not at the formation stage of the contract. You would think that given Browns prior conduct the Patriots should have stacked that contract with some morality and good behavior clauses.
That is what the Representation and Warranty Clause is that is the reason the Patriots are going to try not to pay him.
"Player represents, warrants, and covenants to the club that he will 1) execute in good faith and to the best of his ability all of his obligations to and for the club; 2) he does not and will not participate and is not engaged or will not engage in any conduct or activity that is illegal, unlawful or immoral. And 3) No circumstances exist that would prevent player's continuing availability to the club for the duration of the contract."
Patriots have 2 decent legal arguments. Clearly, they will argue Brown knew about the potential lawsuit, which could have reasonably led to him being unavailable during the season so he violated #3. They will also argue that the threatening text messages violate #2.
An arbitrator is less inclined to follow the actual contract language than a court would, but it is far from a given that the Patriots will have to pay Brown. Probably end up paying, but certainly not a given.
