Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17

Thread: Eric Reid files Grievance against NFL, Bengals related

  1. #11
    PFT claims an anonymous source told them Reid is willing to remain in San Francisco on a one-year contract if it pays the same $5.67m as Reid made last season. Left unclear is if the 49ers have, as rumored, an actual offer on the table.

    Again, I can't see the Bengals offering a long term deal Reid would accept and the Bengals 1-year offer would have to be significantly better than Reid would be willing to accept to remain in SF.

    Of note, Minkah Fitzpatrick was visiting the 49ers the same day Reid was visiting the Bengals.

  2. #12
    Sounds like he left town without an offer

  3. Each kicking tires it appears.

  4. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Bengals1181 View Post
    Sounds like he left town without an offer
    Just like the old days of Bengal FA attempts. Maybe just kicking tires here for both, or maybe leverage play by Reid if he has an offer from SF.

    He’d be a really good get and it’s be nice to have him signed before the draft - but I doubt it’ll happen. I suppose that post-draft as other teams are filling out their rosters with draft picks, he would have fewer options. I much prefer him to Kenny Vaccaro, another former # who is also on the street.

  5. #15

    Eric Reid files Grievance against NFL, Bengals related

    the last point refers to the Bengals.


    The NFLPA has filed a non-injury grievance and a system arbitrator case on behalf of free agent safety Eric Reid. Prior to the start of the current NFL off-season, our Union directed the agents of free agent players who had participated in peaceful on-field demonstrations to collect, memorialize and report any relevant information about potential violations of the Collective Bargaining Agreement by teams. These cases were filed based upon the following:- There is no League rule that prohibits players from demonstrating during the national anthem.
    - The NFL has made it clear both publicly and to the NFLPA that they would respect the rights of players to demonstrate.
    - The Collective Bargaining Agreement definitively states that League (NFL) rules supersede anyconflicting club rules.
    - According to our information, a club appears to have based its decision not to sign a playerbased on the player’s statement that he would challenge the implementation of a club’s policy prohibiting demonstration, which is contrary to the League policy.
    - At least one club owner has asked preemployment interview questions about a player’s intent to demonstrate. We believe these questions are improper, given League policy.
    Our Union continues to monitor these developments.

    https://www.nflpa.com/news/nflpa-fil...f-of-eric-reid

  6. #16
    First impression. Unforced error.

    Barefoot Bengals walk a mile out of their way to step in it. Impact of poor decision oozes up between the toes.

    Scent of Mike Brown lingers, won't wash off easily.

  7. Grievance? Bengals are the poster child, but entire action is against the NFL--"collusion". This isn't a DOJ/Special Counsel "investigation", it would call for a ruling (hopefully by an independent arbitrator body) to make a conclusion of "collusion" between unnamed 31 teams/1 sort of named team, and those act(s) keeping Eric on the shelf.

    Easy questions to the league and the owners of each team: "Did you?". Easy answers "No". Even a schmaltzy arbitrator has to have something more to go on than that.

    But, just to play along, what is the "hammer" for "collusion"? Does MB have to sign him now? Do all 31 other teams have to offer him a contract? Fines? Penalties? And against whom? There has to be more than just one inquisitive NFL owner in Cincinnati to constitute "collusion".

    Get the Russians on the phone.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •