Truth- the Patriots were going to steal and then pressure us into trading away Wes Welker, using a poison pill in their contract offer, we had to match... The poison pill stated Welkers contract was fully guaranteed, if he played 6 games or more in Florida... Something we couldn't match... The Pats had the NFL and us in between a rock and a hard place... And they got Welker, although never using the poising pill, but the threat of it forced the trade...

If teams think they can get a good player from another team, they could care less who the GM is... They do their homework and make a decision... If you are relying on the honesty/integrity of the GM from the opposing team, you are in deep trouble.... In the NFL, the ends justifies the means, no doubt about it.... Look at all the bad deals we have made, Culpepper, Ray Lucas, etc... I am sure the other GM's were not in full disclosure of everything they knew about those players before we got ripped off... It wasn't their fault we made bad trades, it was on us... Buyer beware... Their ends justifies whatever means necessary.. TO assume anything other then that, is naive IMO...

-----------------------------------------------------------------
All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.
Nietzsche



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/19/2014 07:30AM by Crowder52.

I guess, but I wonder how often this kind of stuff happens? trades are generally conditional on passing a physical, not taking the word of the trading team that the guy is healthy. true his being nuts would not have shown up in a physical necessarily as they are not looking for that, but they could have asked the phins questions about if they are aware of anything mental about him (which by law they may not even be allowed to answer) and I think the fact that someone was committed to an institution involuntarily may be public record, like an arrest, which I am sure teams are capable of checking out on their own as part of due diligence.

anyway, Ireland is gone so I would assume a team dealing with the new GM would not blame that guy for anything Ireland had done

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

Crowder52 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Truth- the Patriots were going to steal and then
> pressure us into trading away Wes Welker, using a
> poison pill in their contract offer, we had to
> match... The poison pill stated Welkers contract
> was fully guaranteed, if he played 6 games or more
> in Florida... Something we couldn't match... The
> Pats had the NFL and us in between a rock and a
> hard place... And they got Welker, although never
> using the poising pill, but the threat of it
> forced the trade...
>


Yes. They had all the leverage and they used it. I have no issues with that. That's business. Nothing unethical about it in the least.

It also has absolutely nothing to do with what went down in the Bess case.

Nothing.



> If teams think they can get a good player from
> another team, they could care less who the GM
> is... They do their homework and make a
> decision... If you are relying on the
> honesty/integrity of the GM from the opposing
> team, you are in deep trouble.... In the NFL, the
> ends justifies the means, no doubt about it....
> Look at all the bad deals we have made, Culpepper,
> Ray Lucas, etc... I am sure the other GM's were
> not in full disclosure of everything they knew
> about those players before we got ripped off... It
> wasn't their fault we made bad trades, it was on
> us... Buyer beware... Their ends justifies
> whatever means necessary.. TO assume anything
> other then that, is naive IMO...


You are missing the point.

I'm not suggesting that it should be reversed or that there should be some penalty for not disclosing what we didn't disclose. To that end it is "buyer beware."

But if I buy a care from someone and they don't disclose that it was badly damaged in an accident, or if I buy dog from a breeder and they don't disclose that it's been diagnosed with cancer then I'm not likely to do business with them again. Ever.

It is true that the buyer needs to do their due diligence. But is also true that having a reputation as a snake oil salesman is a bad thing in any business.

berkeley223 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I guess, but I wonder how often this kind of stuff
> happens? trades are generally conditional on
> passing a physical, not taking the word of the
> trading team that the guy is healthy. true his
> being nuts would not have shown up in a physical
> necessarily as they are not looking for that, but
> they could have asked the phins questions about if
> they are aware of anything mental about him (which
> by law they may not even be allowed to answer) and
> I think the fact that someone was committed to an
> institution involuntarily may be public record,
> like an arrest, which I am sure teams are capable
> of checking out on their own as part of due
> diligence.
>
> anyway, Ireland is gone so I would assume a team
> dealing with the new GM would not blame that guy
> for anything Ireland had done


Yes but trades can also include medical information for the teams to review. That's a very common practice in baseball I'd bet it happens in football as a well as part of the physical process.

big difference if this was info that was asked for and not given. if it was something a team could ask for and they did not, I don't really feel too bad for the browns. they probably felt worth not doing heavy diligence since they gave up practiclly nothing for the guy

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

berkeley223 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> big difference if this was info that was asked for
> and not given. if it was something a team could
> ask for and they did not, I don't really feel too
> bad for the browns. they probably felt worth not
> doing heavy diligence since they gave up
> practiclly nothing for the guy


I don't disagree that the Browns could have found this out on their own and since they didn't they deserve some responsibility or blame.

But lets not forget how this went down. He was traded during the draft. its not like they had a few days to do a proper background check.

The problem here is if you are going to do business that way, then what's going to happen when you are bidding against another team for a player or draft spot?

What if the Jets and us were after Josh Gordon and the offers were equal? If you were the Browns, wouldn't you be more likely to exact a premium from us on future deals, or just not deal with us at all, if there were other similar options?

Its just bad business. Especially over a 5th rd pick.

do other gms volunteer this info, though? that we don't know and makes all the difference

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

berkeley223 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> do other gms volunteer this info, though? that we
> don't know and makes all the difference


Well, according to the report some do. Doesn't look like they took a poll so who knows for sure.

The Patriots story was just an example of the ends justifies the means... And front offices will pull a fast one on another in a heartbeat...

As far as Bess, I am not even sure that Ireland had the legal right to tell the Browns Bess was admitted to a hospital for mental illness... I know from personal experience you have to be extremely careful what you disclose and say about an employees when they are looking for another job and you get called by that new business... I know there are laws about slander and defamation in the regards of what you say to a potential new employer of an employee.. I certainly believe the Dolphins legal department would have advised Ireland not to say anything that could be considered defamation or slander against Bess... It is not the same as selling a car...

-----------------------------------------------------------------
All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.
Nietzsche



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/19/2014 09:09AM by Crowder52.

well crowder truthfully disclosing he was committed wouldn't be defamation or slander. maybe it could violate hipaa though

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

Crowder52 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Patriots story was just an example of the ends
> justifies the means... And front offices will pull
> a fast one on another in a heartbeat...


But the Patriots didn't pull a fast one.

They were merely going to use a loophole that the Vikings had used a year or two earlier to pry Steve Hutchinson away from Seattle.

If anything, the Pats acted honorably by giving us MORE than they had to if they had signed Welker to a contract that was perfectly within the rules.



>
> As far as Bess, I am not even sure that Ireland
> had the legal right to tell the Browns Bess was
> admitted to a hospital for mental illness... I
> know from personal experience you have to be
> extremely careful what you disclose and say about
> an employees when they are looking for another job
> and you get called by that new business... I know
> there are laws about slander and defamation in the
> regards of what you say to a potential new
> employer of an employee.. I certainly believe the
> Dolphins legal department would have advised
> Ireland not to say anything that could be
> considered defamation or slander against Bess...
> It is not the same as selling a car...

Its a fair point. I don't know what the legal requirements are with disclosing that stuff. In baseball, they share those records. I suppose its similar in football, but I can't say for certain.

berkeley223 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> well crowder truthfully disclosing he was
> committed wouldn't be defamation or slander.
> maybe it could violate hipaa though


the advice I get from my lawyers, is don't even go there, don't say anything that could be considered defamation... Especially on a medical level...
Also if the issue happened when Bess was away from the facility, in his time off.... Didn't happen around them, I am not sure they have the right to speak on it...
The Browns call up and say we are interested in trading for Bess, and Ireland says, not sure you want to do that he has mental issues and was forcefully admitted to a mental hospital.... I doubt the Dolphins legal department would have advised him to volunteer that info....

If you prevent an employee from getting a new job based on what you say especially as sensitive as mental illness, you are setting yourself up for a lawsuit IMO... I don't blame Ireland at all for not volunteering that type of sensitive information...

-----------------------------------------------------------------
All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.
Nietzsche

sound advice. I never let my clients give references without a written waiver from the employee

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

It's not my field but I don't think HIPAA applies to employers as opposed to health care providers like doctors, hospitals, health plans, etc.

Just because an employer knows of a health condition or it arises in the course of the employment, does not, I think bring with it HIPPA obligations to not reveal it to a subsequent or prospective employer.

Other regular legal concepts such as defamation, obviously applies. The employer would be liable for passing on any false information.

Crowder52 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> berkeley223 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > well crowder truthfully disclosing he was
> > committed wouldn't be defamation or slander.
> > maybe it could violate hipaa though
>
>
> the advice I get from my lawyers, is don't even go
> there, don't say anything that could be considered
> defamation... Especially on a medical level...
> Also if the issue happened when Bess was away from
> the facility, in his time off.... Didn't happen
> around them, I am not sure they have the right to
> speak on it...
> The Browns call up and say we are interested in
> trading for Bess, and Ireland says, not sure you
> want to do that he has mental issues and was
> forcefully admitted to a mental hospital.... I
> doubt the Dolphins legal department would have
> advised him to volunteer that info....
>
> If you prevent an employee from getting a new job
> based on what you say especially as sensitive as
> mental illness, you are setting yourself up for a
> lawsuit IMO... I don't blame Ireland at all for
> not volunteering that type of sensitive
> information...


That's true of businesses in general. But the NFL isn't a typical business.

Its 32 entities competing against each other under the umbrella of one non for profit organization.

If the players are considered employees of the NFL wouldnt sharing info like that be the same as sharing it within departments?

Armando seems to have an axe to grind lately, has it even been proven that the Browns weren't aware of the incident? It's not like they gave up the farm to get him, maybe they were willing to take that chance for a good slot reciever that had been a model citizen up to that point.

THE Truth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Crowder52 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > berkeley223 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > well crowder truthfully disclosing he was
> > > committed wouldn't be defamation or slander.
> > > maybe it could violate hipaa though
> >
> >
> > the advice I get from my lawyers, is don't even
> go
> > there, don't say anything that could be
> considered
> > defamation... Especially on a medical level...
>
> > Also if the issue happened when Bess was away
> from
> > the facility, in his time off.... Didn't happen
> > around them, I am not sure they have the right
> to
> > speak on it...
> > The Browns call up and say we are interested in
> > trading for Bess, and Ireland says, not sure
> you
> > want to do that he has mental issues and was
> > forcefully admitted to a mental hospital.... I
> > doubt the Dolphins legal department would have
> > advised him to volunteer that info....
> >
> > If you prevent an employee from getting a new
> job
> > based on what you say especially as sensitive
> as
> > mental illness, you are setting yourself up for
> a
> > lawsuit IMO... I don't blame Ireland at all for
> > not volunteering that type of sensitive
> > information...
>
>
> That's true of businesses in general. But the
> NFL isn't a typical business.
>
> Its 32 entities competing against each other under
> the umbrella of one non for profit organization.
>
> If the players are considered employees of the NFL
> wouldnt sharing info like that be the same as
> sharing it within departments?


no, supreme ct rejected that view in the american needle case

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

dolphaholic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Armando seems to have an axe to grind lately, has
> it even been proven that the Browns weren't aware
> of the incident? It's not like they gave up the
> farm to get him, maybe they were willing to take
> that chance for a good slot reciever that had been
> a model citizen up to that point.


I don't know what the dynamics of Salguero's relationship is with the team but he's claiming this story and his others are based on conversations with people withing the organization and the league.

People can choose to believe he's making his sources up if they want, but absent proof he is, he's just reporting things people don't like. He's not just throwing out speculation on his part.

Just my opinion, I have nothing to back it up, but I get the feeling Armando's "sources" since the season has ended have been agents, and we all know if thats true, agents usually have an agenda

Truth- I am just saying there is no upside into saying things that are negative to an employee getting a new job... You have no dog in the fight or obligation to the new employer... Your obligation is towards not putting your organization into a lawsuit... Nothing else has any impact on your going forward... I have never said a bad thing about an ex employee, when called for a reference... I only speak about their strengths and not their weaknesses...
As far as the NFL being a different business, I hear ya, but to me it is even scarier because you are dealing with a union, who would be itching to sue the piss out of you and has endless resources to do so... If we had told the Browns, about the mental issues, and found no one to take him, we cut him. Then made ourselves liable for that contract, on preventing him from getting new employment, his contract fulfilled. Instead having to sign some small one year prove it contract... Then possible wrongful termination for his mental illness, i.e. cut him because he was sick... Both of which, the NFLPA would be salivating to sue the NFL for to establish precedence on the issues....
Telling them to do their homework, and nothing but nice things about Bess, made us liable for nothing, other then this weird report by a local beat reporter... I hate to say it because I am not a big fan of Mr. Ireland but it was 100 percent the right call to make based on the circumstances.. We don't owe the Browns anything, and they should certainly understand that position as they look at the big picture today... Ireland did nothing wrong and I imagine all 32 GMs would have played the same hand...

-----------------------------------------------------------------
All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.
Nietzsche

Crowder52 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Truth- I am just saying there is no upside into
> saying things that are negative to an employee
> getting a new job... You have no dog in the fight
> or obligation to the new employer... Your
> obligation is towards not putting your
> organization into a lawsuit... Nothing else has
> any impact on your going forward... I have never
> said a bad thing about an ex employee, when called
> for a reference... I only speak about their
> strengths and not their weaknesses...

you better be careful crowder, if you give incomplete info about an employee to another company who then hires the person, you could find yourself in a negligent/fraudulent misrepresentation lawsuit brought by the company if the employee ends up screwing the company over (e.g., you fired him for stealing and then he steals from the new company and you leave that info out of a reference).

best practice is to have and stick to a policy of giving only name, position, dates of employment and salary info. some free legal advice you can take or not...

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

Berk- I don't get into specifics, when they ask something that is subjective I give them vague general answers... But I agree that is good legal advice that I will definitely, take to heart, and put into practice...
As I said, in that position, you have no dog in the fight other then not being sued... And that sounds like an even safer way to go.. I have only given verbal references of that kind when somehow they get through to me on the phone before I know who it is... Other then that I don't take the call and just send over the basic information requested via email as you suggested.... Any advice on what to say when they get through, put you on the spot and ask? If i answer at all I am putting myself at risk? Do I tell the guy, sorry I can't speak on this employee?

-----------------------------------------------------------------
All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.
Nietzsche

tell them that per company policy you can only confirm dates of employment, job title, and salary

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

Berk- Also if you fire them because you suspected they were stealing and never were able to prove it or they were never prosecuted, wouldn't I be at more risk by bringing it up? Something that was never proven? Wouldn't I be liable for that? Remember I live in a right to work state, so I can essentially fire someone with out any cause... I am told by my lawyers in this state, to not bring up a reason for termination... Giving them a reason to just opens yourself up for lawsuits, where as an employer I have a right to terminate employees as I see fit for the business...

-----------------------------------------------------------------
All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.
Nietzsche

berkeley223 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> tell them that per company policy you can only
> confirm dates of employment, job title, and salary


I like that, it shall become company policy for sure...

-----------------------------------------------------------------
All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.
Nietzsche

no charge!

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.

Generally employers can't disclose employee health issues, even to other employees. Not sure how this works with pro sports and contracts and disclosure requirements

Crowder52 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Berk- Also if you fire them because you suspected
> they were stealing and never were able to prove it
> or they were never prosecuted, wouldn't I be at
> more risk by bringing it up? Something that was
> never proven? Wouldn't I be liable for that?

That's a big yes. Now you are getting into the law of defamation. Accusing someone of having committed a crime is slander per se, libel per se, if written. Other forms of slander or libel such as "he was a bad employee" can come down to a matter of opinion as to what "bad" is but once you accuse someone of a crime or having a loathsome disease, that is defamation per se, if untrue of course. Truth is always a bar to the action.

I don't know what the context of this question to berk was though.

> Crowder52 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Berk- Also if you fire them because you
> suspected
> > they were stealing and never were able to prove
> it
> > or they were never prosecuted, wouldn't I be at
> > more risk by bringing it up? Something that was
> > never proven? Wouldn't I be liable for that?
>
>

it's tricky. the employee could sue you for defamation but if you had a reasonable basis for saying what you did you'd probably win the suit--but be out the cost of defending which is a lot. if the new company asked you about the reason he was fired and you didn't tell the truth and they then sued you for negligent misrepresentation if the employee then stole from them, they'd still need to prove your misstatement caused their harm and if they could not you'd win, but again be out the cost of the defending the suit. either way it'll cost you.

which is why it's always better to just give no references at all as a matter of corporate policy

________________________________________________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.