CBS is ready to renew deal with U.S. Open Talk of warming trend in relations gets cool reception NFL, partners push Back to Football Super sales for NFL and Fox Is football the next Farmville? Paciolan, StubHub launch ticket partnership PGA Tour adds women’s, youth apparel licensees UFC gets ex-NBA exec to lead Far East push Diverse cast vies for NASCAR ride on BET show No Headline
Upcoming Conferences and Events
SBJ/March 20 - 26, 2006/This Weeks News
Arrington, attorney back agent despite NFLPA vote
Published March 20, 2006
Carl Poston did nothing wrong in his negotiation of LaVar Arrington’s $68 million contract in 2003, and Arrington does not want Poston to be punished for his work on the contract, said Paul Aloe, Poston’s attorney.
The NFL Players Association’s Committee on Agent Regulation and Discipline voted to suspend Poston from representing NFL players for two years based on his actions in negotiating that contract. The suspension will not go into effect until after a hearing before arbitrator Roger Kaplan, who could decide to uphold, strike down or reduce the discipline.
The case stems from the negotiation of a $68 million contract in late 2003 in which Arrington and Poston say the Redskins orally agreed to a $6.5 million bonus, which did not end up in the final written contract. Aloe said the day the contract was completed, the Redskins were trying to meet a deadline and that “the Redskins had LaVar signing the contract without Carl seeing it.”
Poston gave his certification to the deal because he was told by a Redskins official that the $6.5 million bonus was in the contract, Aloe said. “Carl gave his certification because … that was the deadline for the deal,” Aloe said. “If he didn’t give his certification, they didn’t have a deal.”
Steve Brown, Arrington’s attorney, agreed with Aloe’s assertion that Arrington did not want Poston punished.
A Redskins spokesman would not comment.
Aloe said that Poston and Arrington wanted to appear in person before the committee but were denied that opportunity. Aloe also claimed that the NFLPA’s action violates the union’s one-year statute of limitations.
But NFLPA General Counsel Richard Berthelsen said the one-year statute of limitations applies after all related legal proceedings to an incident are completed. “The related proceeding in this case was LaVar Arrington’s grievance against the Redskins,” Berthelsen said. “The complaint was filed well within a year of that.
“Secondly, Mr. Aloe, Mr. Arrington and Mr. Poston gave a full account of their version of the facts to the committee before the committee acted,” Berthelsen said. “The committee still believed a two-year suspension was appropriate.”