Kokinis has retained Jeffrey L. Kessler of Dewey & LeBoeuf LLC in NYC. Kessler is a prominent attorney who has litigated numerous sports cases, including McNeil v NFL (the case that created the NFL’s current free agency system). According to Kessler, Kokinis is not looking to make this legal fight public. He is keeping the details of the suit quiet for now. Therefore, details of exactly what Kokinis is alleging are scarce. However, Kessler did mention that if the Browns respond to the arbitration filing by releasing false information relating to his performance as Browns’ GM, his client will respond with his version of the story.

Even though details are sketchy, I have my own theory on the matter. As stated previously, Kokinis will likely argue that he was fraudulently induced into joining the team based on the team’s misrepresentation that he would have final authority on personnel matters and report directly to the owner. He will also argue that, as General Manager, he was required to have final authority over personnel matters per N.F.L. rules. Further, he will argue that his contract was guaranteed for four years and should be honored. Finally, he will also claim that he did nothing wrong to warrant his termination for cause. He has already stated that “[t]he only ’cause’ here is the unwillingness of the team to stand behind the promises that they made to Mr. Kokinis that he would have broad authority over football operations in the face of mounting disagreements over personnel and related issues.”

The Browns will counter by claiming that Kokinis’ dismissal is “for cause.” To dismiss Kokinis “for cause” means that the team had to have a reason to terminate him. Generally, he would have had to do something expressly forbidden in the contract, failed to perform his duties, or committed insubordination in order to be fired. The Browns will argue that Kokinis failed to meet the specific standards of his contract. It is likely that the Browns will try to argue that Kokinis did not defer on personnel and other important matters relating to football operations and that the contract required him to do so. Therefore, the Browns will argue that they were within their rights to dismiss him for cause.

The outcome of the case will center on whether the Browns can come up with some believable argument that Kokinis breached the employment agreement either through insubordination, failing to perform his duties or other conduct forbidden by the agreement. Since I do not have all the facts, it is hard to determine the outcome of the case at this time. However, if what the parties claim is correct and there is no other relevant information, it is hard to see how the Browns will prevail. Kokinis was the General Manager and the Browns had to give him final authority on personnel matters per NFL rules. It has been reported that Kokinis was not involved in the Braylon Edwards trade and was not allowed to make any personnel decisions. Therefore, it is hard to see how the Browns held up their end of the employment contract. Barring any other conduct by Kokinis that would breach the contract, I would put my money on Kokinis winning this case.

Former Browns GM Files for Arbitration Against Browns from Sports Agent Blog - Sports Business, Sports Law, Sports Negotiations, NCAA Rules

NFL Draft Day Reading from Sports Agent Blog - Sports Business, Sports Law, Sports Negotiations, NCAA Rules

U.S. District Judge Paul Magnuson’s decision on Friday to uphold a District Court order temporarily restraining the League’s suspension of five players (Kevin Williams and Pat Williams of the Minnesota Vikings and Charles Grant, Deuce McAllister and Will Smith of the New Orleans Saints) for allegedly violating its drug policy surprised many observers who expected that a federal court especially was likely to interpret the matter under the bright-line language of the CBA and hold in favor of the League. Numerous apparent discrepancies in the League’s handling of the matter, however–including possibly withholding material information from players relating to the supplement at hand, StarCaps, a weight-loss substance containing the banned diuretic bumetanide; supposedly failing to respond to players’ inquires about the supplement through its supplement/drug hotline; and finally waiting months (the samples in question were from this summer) to announce the results of the tests and then implementing the corresponding suspensions late in the season, thereby implicating salaries and the playoff push–have apparently made the case a bit murkier than it first appeared. Judge Magnuson stated that he will need “more time to fully and carefully consider all of the briefs, arguments, and cases put before him,” and some pundits expect that the case will not fully be completed until early next year–possibly even after the Super Bowl.

Mike Florio at ProFootballTalk.com nicely lays out the hurdle the players will have to clear in the coming days/weeks/months in order for the Court to completely dismiss their suspensions and fines:

Typically in matters of this nature, the plaintiffs must prove that they will suffer “irreparable harm” if the defendant isn’t blocked from doing whatever it is that the defendant plans to do. The defendant in such cases usually responds by arguing that, since the plaintiffs can later recover a monetary award to compensate them for their lost wages and other damages, their available remedies are adequate and ”equitable relief” (e.g., telling a party that it can’t do something that it wants to do) isn’t appropriate.

In other words, the NFL will argue in this case that, because the players can later recover cash money from the league if it turns out that the suspensions violated their legal rights, there’s no need to stop the league from suspending them.

In this type of case, however, where NFL players have only so many seasons during which they can play NFL football and where that lost 25 percent of one season will never return, the argument in favor of a finding of irreparable harm might be stronger than most cases involving actions to be taken against employees.

The real battleground in this case could be the requirement that, in order to obtain an injunction pending the outcome of the litigation, the players must prove that they have a strong likelihood of eventually winning the case. The NFL surely is arguing strenuously that the legal theories advanced by the players are not valid, because the only potential legal claim that can be made in this case is that the NFL violated the Collective Bargaining Agreement and/or the steroids policy.

Regardless of the outcome, the lawsuits in question (both the above-named players and the union are suing the NFL) present serious questions about the implementation of the League’s drug policy. Moreover, the fact that the cards have been stacked against the players from the get-go, and that the League felt reasonably sure that it could waltz into Federal Court and have its way (it still may), is indicative of just how much control the NFLPA lost to the League in regards to disciplinary measures during their negotiations (the steroids policy, while not part of the CBA, was also the product of collective bargaining). As columnist Patrick Reusse of the Minneapolis Star-Tribune pointed out this week:

“Any union worth its salt would have hung tough in negotiations to create a disciplinary panel — one representative from management, one from the players and a neutral party — to decide these matters.

Gene Upshaw never fought that fight in his time as union chief. He ceded the authority to the commissioner, and now the players find themselves with Roger Goodell running amok and robbing their paychecks at every turn.”

Finally, given the NFLPA’s own lawsuit against the NFL in the matter, tensions are now even higher between the two sides in regards to their impending CBA negotiations. Goodell has seemingly had a good time flaunting his disciplinary authority so far, and his objective to polish up the League’s image is probably a virtuous one. That said, draconian hubris has a way of unfolding over time. Friday’s decision could be just the start.

Score One For The Little Guy from Sports Agent Blog - Sports Business, Sports Law, Sports Negotiations, NCAA Rules

2008 Veteran Signings

• Bernard Berrian, WR, (Minnesota Vikings): Signed a 6-year, $43.4 million contract
• Derek Anderson, QB, (Cleveland Browns): Signed a 3-year, $24 million contract
• Ryan Grant, RB, (Green Bay Packers): Signed a 4-year, $20 million contract
• Michael Turner, RB, (Atlanta Falcons): Signed a 6-year, $34.5 million contract
• Flozell Adams, T, (Dallas Cowboys): Signed a 6-year, $43.8 million contract
• Asante Samuel, CB, (Philadelphia Eagles): Signed a 6-year, $57.14 million contract

2008 Rookie Signings

• Jake Long, OT, (Miami Dolphins, 1^st Overall Pick): Signed a 5-year, $57.75 million contract
• Chris Long, DE, (St. Louis Rams, 2^nd Overall Pick): Signed a 6-year, $60 million contract
• Matt Ryan, QB, (Atlanta Falcons, 3^rd Overall Pick): Signed a 6-year, $72 million contract
• Darren McFadden, RB, (Oakland Raiders, 4^th Overall Pick): Signed a 6-year, $60 million contract
• Glenn Dorsey, DT, (Kansas City Chiefs, 5^th Overall Pick): Signed a 5-year, $33 million contract
• Vernon Gholston, LB, (New York Jets, 6^th Overall Pick): Signed a 5-year, $32.5 million contract

After looking these contracts over, it is insanely hard to believe that Jake Long, an unproven NFL tackle is making more than Flozell Adams, a 4-time Pro Bowl veteran tackle. How is Darren McFadden making more than Ryan Grant and Michael Turner both of whom played excellent roles on their respective teams last year?

Seeing as the attendance of rookies at training camp is so vital to the success of the player, it pained some to see 2007 1^st overall draft pick JaMarcus Russell hold out of camp until September 12^th when Russell was signed to a 6-year, $61 million deal with $29 million guaranteed. One cannot help but wonder if the reason why rookies get paid so much up front is to prevent another “JaMarcus Russell hold out.” The NFL owners are not crying poor, so Goodell’s battle is not one of finances but one of fairness. Do not think for one minute that rookies believe that the amount of money being paid to them is sane. In an interview with Falcons quarterback Matt Ryan, he stated: “I’ll take it. I see both sides of the argument but I’m going to take the (current) argument now.”

A great point made by the late Gene Upshaw was that the rookie contracts only help those free agent veterans who are up for new contracts. What Mr. Upshaw means is that, for example, lets jump into the shoes of an 18-year-old girl who is negotiating with her parents about buying a car. The teen, so paradoxically calm, says: “But, Mom! Angie got a BMW and she’s only 16!” This is a perfect parallel to the situation in the NFL. Agents of veteran free agents can go to negotiations armed with the contracts of these rookies. Whew, no wonder why teams these days want to stay clear of early first round picks. As a future NFL agent, I cannot help but disagree with not being able to pay rookies these huge contracts.

Roger Goodell is not wasting any time on this matter so look to see some headlines fairly soon.

NFL Rookie Contracts: Fair Or Not? from Sports Agent Blog - Sports Business, Sports Law, Sports Negotiations, NCAA Rules

He was heard earlier this month talking to reporters in Cincinnati about extending the regular season and having less preseason games. This time Goodell told the press the reason for his new thinking. Goodell “believes preseason football is a poor reflection on the NFL product.”

So, the answer has to be to shorten the preseason and lengthen the regular season. Goodell and others think that the regular season should be either 17 or 18 games long.

If the league extends the regular season, what else will have to change? Well first off, all the players’meaningfu agents would be asking for more money. If athletes are playing 2 extra meaningful games a year, then they certainly should get paid for it.  Playing two more games per season would do more damage to these tremendous athletes’ bodies. The wear and tear that running backs and others take each game can only continue for so long before their bodies break down. Look at Eric Dickerson now after only ten years in the NFL. Many other athletes suffer concussions and serious injuries that damage them down the road or cause them to retire prematurely. Extending the regular season could mean that we will see shorter careers for many players. Teams might also rest star players more because of the longer season.

On the opposite side, more games for each team means more sponsorships and more air time for teams. Each team would be earning more by having two more premium games to add to their overall revenue. I wrote a post about a month ago that described how the NFL is the most profitable league. Two more games would only help add to that large amount each NFL teams makes annually.

Overall, I believe it financially makes sense to add two more games to the season. The players and owners and everyone else involved in the league will be making more money. However, it is the players that will suffer the most from this change. Longer seasons will make it a lot tougher on them physically and mentally. It will be even rarer to see a team like the Dolphins or last years Patriots go undefeated. It also gives teams and players on the bubble and fighting for NFL spots less time to showcase what they can do in training camp. With a shorter preseason we might not have HBO make shows like Hard Knocks, Training Camp With the Dallas Cowboys. With Goodell making comments to the media about changing the number of games, it is only a matter of time before the NFLPA sits down with Goodell and others to discuss this issue seriously.

Do you think extending the NFL season is a good idea? How much more will the players make? How much more revenue will each NFL team bring in? Will this cause more injuries for players? Let us know what you think.

More NFL Games from Sports Agent Blog - Sports Business, Sports Law, Sports Negotiations, NCAA Rules

Sports Agents

• Formation Group is trying to take a page out of IMG, Octagon, and WMG’s book [New football trend: players to lend their wages back to clubs].
• Hawaii agents take notice! [Hawaii Athlete Agent Law Takes Effect July 1]

Baseball

• Interesting read on what has happened to some of the cast of Moneyball [Where Are They Now? Moneyball].

Basketball

• Was death of Len Bias an indictment of an entire system rife with hypocrisy, or merely a poor decision by a young man who should have known better?  Read this! [The Day Innocence Died - E-Ticket]
• Sonny Vaccaro vs. the NCAA.  My money is on Sonny (enjoy the rhyme?) [The New Republic Profiles Sonny Vaccaro].

Football

• When you win the Super Bowl, even the right-guards get paid a healthy salary [Snee signs $43.5M deal as Giants keep young offensive line together].
• Will a threatened action by Congress make the NFL and NFLPA start caring more about their retired players? [Congress invokes antitrust].
• Roger Goodell is not fond of Jake Long’s contract [Goodell on rookie pay: 'There's something wrong'].

Hockey

• NHL Salary Cap will be $56.7 million for the 2008-09 season. Teams must spend at least $40.7 million on their players, though [NHL salary cap set for 2008-09 season].

Golf

• Win a tournament, think your on top of the world, and move from a small agency to a behemoth [Anthony Kim lands with IMG].
• NY based model and talent agency, Wilhelmina, will market 7 of the finest LPGA golfers as the W7.  Check out one of the girls who make up the 7 below.

Shabbat Shalom: Friday Wrap-Up from Sports Agent Blog - Sports Business, Sports Law, Sports Negotiations, NCAA Rules