(12-17-2019, 12:08 PM)TJBender Wrote:

(12-17-2019, 11:35 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: Let's be real here. The NFLPA telling players to consider their options before signing with Jax is gobbly goop. There are 32 employers in the NFL and at the end of the day, money talks. Getting rid of TC will make this all go away with no residual effects.

Well, yeah, and one could interpret your own statement to mean that the continued presence of TC will cause residual effects.

I have no doubt that the presence of Tom Coughlin is going to make UFAs think twice about playing for the Jaguars, state tax be damned. There are other states with no income tax, and plenty with a low income tax, and if I'm signing a long-term agreement to put my body on the line for a specific team, I'll give up a few percent to land someplace that isn't going to make me fight them at the union level to stay healthy and get all of that. And we haven't even talked about the effects this might have on coaching candidates. Would I really want to take over a team that's going to have a constant players vs. FO battle which will make it hard to get them to buy in? And even harder to keep players when their contracts run up? If I'm a good candidate with options, no. If I'm someone who will roll over for TC, well...



What's somewhat lost here is that it wasn't just the NFLPA involved here. An independent arbitrator agreed upon by the NFLPA and the NFL found that there was merit to this claim. This isn't entirely a "unions suck" thing. This is a, "sure, maybe unions suck, but they were clearly in the right here," thing.

I'm not arguing that we did or didn't do something wrong. We clearly overstepped. I'm also still on the side that says that TC and really the whole front office needs to go. But I have a problem with the last paragraph from the NFLPA. It could be possible that we have 25% of the grievances because fowler had to file one with ever one of the 18 wrongful fines that we implied, as of right now we do not know. Either way it doesn't change the following.

 A violation was committed on our part with the penalty being that we had to resend all of the fines we imposed on fowler during his rehab process. That should have been the end of the whole thing. For the Union to come out and continue to smear the franchise  , IMO, is wrong and could potentially have serious implications on our club moving forward. Now i dont know that it was purposely made public but the reality is that the last paragraph didn't have to be issued in that statement and could ultimately punish the franchise more than the initial penalty ever will.

Khan really needs get out in front of this whole thing. For him and the franchise to just stand quite like it going to all blow over doesn't seem like the right move, again IMO.

---