We SHOULD have tried harder to keep Cook. He PROVED he was a very good TE for a whole season. But we let him walk, and now have to fight to try to replace his talent.
Originally Posted by: Cheesey
Cook will be cut by Oakland because he sucks; so no need to fight to keep him, he sucks.
In '17 Cook was 9th in league in drops, had a fumble and blocked like total crap. Receiving wise the Outsiders had him ranked #20 [DVOA]; or in other words HE REALLY SUCKS.
Generally, he's been a good lockerroom guy with bouts of sulking and other very bad lockeroom behavior [Id say he's bi-polar]. But, with his new big shinney self-entitled contract; he was an integral force in why Oakland tanked last year.
The die is set for Cook, if he has to work for food he'll have some value but he'll never be good.
Actually a dick is one that acts like a jerk, like you just did by attempting to insult other about education. Please stop acting like you're better than others, because that just makes you look like a real dick. Thank you.
Originally Posted by: beast
When one reads forum responses across Packer nation, it is unequivocal that wayyy too many Packer fans are such delicate, sensitive, little snow flakes 😂 😂.
The statement “educate myself” was directed at its author, not any other persons. It asserted educating one’s self as being a worthwhile endeavor and certainly didn’t disparage anyone’s education. The author recognized the ruling is probably no less than 5 pages and attempting to accurately represent this ruling with a tweet sized sentence is like walking thru a mine field with clown shoes on.
[Getting back to adult mundane discussion ON THE FUCKING TOPIC!!!!!!]
It was simply wrong to assert GB’s case was dismissed “because there is a rule a team can't recover signing bonus from a contract on a different team.” First, this is not a “rule” at all. Second, it’s true that a party cannot recover under a contract to which they are not privy; but this misapprehends the issues between Bennett and GB. Note that the contract between Bennett and NE fails to contain any provision for a signing bonus!
Florio [Who, BTW was an attorney] wrote, Burbank determined that allowing the Packers to recover any portion of a signing bonus paid under a contract now held by another team would be inconsistent with the league’s waiver system. The article took some quotes from the ruling; but this Florio representation was NOT in quote; it’s Florio’s tweet-like take and it is flawed.
[Adding to argument in my other post above] CBA Grievances are grounded in standard contract law. With respect to the Bonus, GB was a privy at the time a thus has standing to sue for a breach, which is what a failure to disclose is. They also put Bennett AND THE REST OF THE LEAGUE on notice with the failure to disclose designation. And this is not at all inconsistent with the NFL’s waiver system. See the Pats/Fanene case.
In April 2012 Pats signed FA John Fanene. He got injured in August, Pats found arthritis and CUT him for failure to disclose the arthritis. In March of 2013 a CBA grievance panel ruled the case could proceed on the merits [Interestingly, discovery revealed that at the scumbag cheating Pats conspired to muddle the injury and Fanene received a settlement under a NDA]. Fanene was cut and the case went forward on the merits; Bennett was cut also, but per Florio the fact GB cut him is the reason the merits will not be heard.
In short, Fanene’s getting cut didn’t affect the Pats rights to recoup the bonus, which is perfectly inconsistent with Florio’s take on Bennett’s case. Moreover, it’s a legal abomination that GB’s rights to recoup the bonus could be affected by something done by a party with absolutely no privity on the issues between GB and Bennett.
There are either other reasons for the case’s dismissal or GB has a solid argument on appeal.
Appealing an arbiter’s ruling under a CBA is difficult; it requires extreme circumstances and GB has those circumstances if Florio’s take is accurate.