Might not have been a money saving move to release Hernandez so quickly.
Ian Rapoport @RapSheet 19m
If you read the new CBA, Hernandez's guarantees can be voided because of a "forfeitable breach." My understanding: Pats cut him before that.
Might not have been a money saving move to release Hernandez so quickly.
Ian Rapoport @RapSheet 19m
If you read the new CBA, Hernandez's guarantees can be voided because of a "forfeitable breach." My understanding: Pats cut him before that.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
I would think the breach would be the crime, not the charges. As long as he is eventually convicted I cannot see how murder could not fall under any moral misconduct clause.Originally Posted by pbmax
But when the Patriots act to terminate the deal, they are operating under specific terms of the CBA including terms of the forfeiture. Those rules are locked into place at the time they waive him. Theoretically, another team could puck up the deal and then have the full range of options after he was charged, unavailable or found guilty. For the Pats, under the CBA, he was a man charged with a crime but not tried and not sanctioned by the League. So they only have protections that might apply to a player who was arrested.
They cannot after the fact claim protections they abandoned once they acted. This is, of course, assuming Rappaport is reading the CBA correctly, but it does make some sense.
My suspicion is that the Pats were glad to be out some money to be rid of him.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote