Upcoming Conferences and Events
-
Mar 21-22
-
Mar 22
-
May 23
-
May 30-31
-
Jun 5-7
SBD/Issue 122/Sports Industrialists
Carl Poston’s Attorney Confident On Appeal Of Suspension
Published March 16, 2006
By Liz Mullen, Staff Writer,
SportsBusiness Journal
PAUL ALOE, the attorney for CARL POSTON, said a decision by the
NFLPA’s Committee on Agent Regulation & Discipline to suspend the agent for two
years is without merit and he expects to win an appeal of the decision, which
will prevent Poston from serving the suspension. The group voted to recommend
suspending Poston for two years for his part in negotiating a $68M contract for
LAVAR ARRINGTON with the Redskins in late ’03. That contract was the subject
of a grievance because Arrington claimed the team had orally agreed to a $6.5M
bonus that was not part of the written contract. The Redskins disputed those claims.
Under NFLPA regulations, Poston would not serve the suspension until it is reviewed
by NFLPA arbitrator ROGER KAPLAN, who has the ability to uphold, strike
down or reduce the penalty.
ALOE’S STATEMENT: In a statement, Aloe said, “The suspension is wrong, irresponsible, and in violation of the NFLPA rules. We intend to vigorously contest this using all appropriate legal remedies. These charges are utterly without merit.” Aloe added, “The rules provide for an arbitration that has not yet occurred. We are confident that when the process is completed, Carl will be completely vindicated. We do not understand why the NFLPA is choosing to leak this to the press before the arbitration has occurred. We think that trying to hurt Carl’s reputation in this manner is wholly inappropriate.” Aloe also said the decision violates NFLPA regulations because the statute of limitations of one year has expired since the negotiation of the contract occurred.
NFLPA REAX: In response to Aloe’s comments, NFLPA General Counsel RICHARD BERTHELSEN said, “First of all, the statute of limitations is tolled during the pendency of any related legal proceedings. The related proceeding in this case was LaVar Arrington’s grievance against the Redskins. The complaint was filed well within a year of that. Secondly, Mr. Aloe and Mr. Poston gave a full account of their version of the facts to the committee before the committee acted. Finally, regarding leaks to the press, our rules require that disciplinary actions by our committee be released so our players will know about it.”
Return to top
|
| Arrington’s Agent Appealing NFLPA Ruling |
ALOE’S STATEMENT: In a statement, Aloe said, “The suspension is wrong, irresponsible, and in violation of the NFLPA rules. We intend to vigorously contest this using all appropriate legal remedies. These charges are utterly without merit.” Aloe added, “The rules provide for an arbitration that has not yet occurred. We are confident that when the process is completed, Carl will be completely vindicated. We do not understand why the NFLPA is choosing to leak this to the press before the arbitration has occurred. We think that trying to hurt Carl’s reputation in this manner is wholly inappropriate.” Aloe also said the decision violates NFLPA regulations because the statute of limitations of one year has expired since the negotiation of the contract occurred.
NFLPA REAX: In response to Aloe’s comments, NFLPA General Counsel RICHARD BERTHELSEN said, “First of all, the statute of limitations is tolled during the pendency of any related legal proceedings. The related proceeding in this case was LaVar Arrington’s grievance against the Redskins. The complaint was filed well within a year of that. Secondly, Mr. Aloe and Mr. Poston gave a full account of their version of the facts to the committee before the committee acted. Finally, regarding leaks to the press, our rules require that disciplinary actions by our committee be released so our players will know about it.”
