Ireland to Interview with Parcells

[SA_Gunslinger]

kiss him goodbye....he is a goner for sure.

 

[theogt]

The issue here is whether or not that language is vague enough to legally stand up to a challenge.

There is absolutely no question that it wouldn't stand up to a challenge. Just because Parcells says it's set up that way doesn't mean it is. The unambiguous language of the contract contradicts his word.

Some people just believe everything that's reported in the paper.

 

[5mics]

no, but it could be leverage in a trade. *if* that's even possible w/picks for front office people.

I'm hoping it can be done. Heck, we're going to lose Ireland anyway, might as well package our two #1s & Ireland for Miami's #1 & #2.....

 

[Beast_from_East]

I will take Peter King's rendition into account rather than yours.

I think he got it more from the horse's mouth, so to speak:

"That's not the way it is. We set it up so the general manager I hire will have that authority. I want to make it clear: I don't want to be the general manager. I don't want to be the head coach. I told Wayne that very clearly. I don't think it will be an issue.''

A few minutes later, Parcells called back. "You got me thinking,'' he said, "so I got my contract out. I wanted to be sure about the wording.''

Then he read me the wording of what he said were the applicable clauses in the contract. "'As Executive Vice President of Football Operations,'" Parcells read, "'employee shall be responsible for overseeing the club's football operations. Employee shall act as club designee for purpose of [executing] contracts with head coach and general manager.'"

Said Parcells: "So what I am is the owner's designee. My job is to hire a coach, hire a GM and put a structure in place for them to operate.''

The issue here is whether or not that language is vague enough to legally stand up to a challenge.

If this is actually legit, then why a 4 year deal?

If it is your job to hire a coach and a GM, then what is left for you to do after that feat is accomplished, why do you need 4 years on your contract?

So far, nobody has been able to answer this question.

 

[cowboyz]

yeah, ireland is as good as gone from that interview. he obviously doesn't care about the limelight because JJ takes it all anyway. working for parcells is a chance to learn more. it's a good opportunity for him.

but it's BS to say ireland will be the GM and I hope jerry gets compensation. teams will not follow suit, their GM will be the vice president, head scout the GM, so on and so on.

JJ should've made a condition on parcell's retirement that he not steal anyone from this organization for a period of 5 years. especially with all the rumors about parcell's looking for a head office position with the giants.

 

[Alexander]

There is absolutely no question that it wouldn't stand up to a challenge. Just because Parcells says it's set up that way doesn't mean it is. The unambiguous language of the contract contradicts his word.

Some people just believe everything that's reported in the paper.

So we should believe what then?

You?

BTW, do you have a copy of this contract you speak of like you know what it states?

 

[Alexander]

If this is actually legit, then why a 4 year deal?

If it is your job to hire a coach and a GM, then what is left for you to do after that feat is accomplished, why do you need 4 years on your contract?

So far, nobody has been able to answer this question.

It takes a minimum of two, even three years to reorganize an entire organization and change the mindset.

If it needs to be turned over it is not going to be done in a year.

Make no mistake, he's not in Miami to "consult". He is there to fix the problems, from top to bottom.

That means hiring the coach, GM, revamping the scouting staff, firing the lazy secretary, pretty much everything.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Once again, I am amazed that some posters on a message board can extrapolate and make projections better than the people actually having to make the decisions.

-snip-

Coach Parcells said it a long time ago:

You don't know.

And you especially don't right now.

This post is the height of irony coming from you... :laugh2:

 

[theogt]

So we should believe what then?

You?

BTW, do you have a copy of this contract you speak of like you know what it states?

You could believe the wording of the relevant portions of the contract, which were reported earlier. Or you could believe Parcells who went around talking about trading his draft picks and who he would pick and such before he likely realized that him having "final say" had an effect on who he could hire.

Or you could believe that Parcells is going to make two decisions, hiring the HC and the GM, and then sit with his thumb up his butt for 4 years making millions of dollars per year, without the ability to fire either the HC and the GM or have a say in other personnel decisions.

 

[Alexander]

You could believe the wording of the relevant portions of the contract, which were reported earlier. Or you could believe Parcells who went around talking about trading his draft picks and who he would pick and such before he likely realized that him having "final say" had an effect on who he could hire.

Again, what he says and what is in the contract are two different things.

Or you could believe that Parcells is going to make two decisions, hiring the HC and the GM, and then sit with his thumb up his butt for 4 years making millions of dollars per year, without the ability to fire either the HC and the GM or have a say in other personnel decisions.

That is not the point. We all know why he is there. And chances are he is fudging the truth. Nobody gets paid 4M to consult. But all that matters is what is in black and white when you start challenging things to the commissioner or to an arbitrator.

I stated this: legally, the contract states what it does and is probably iron-clad and was written that way for a specific reason. It wasn't drawn up on a napkin by an amateur. I am sure they have had teams of lawyers pouring over it for hours.

It is up the NFL, noteably Goodell, to decide what to believe.

You, on the other hand, start throwing about nonsense like "absolutely no question that it wouldn't stand up to a challenge" and talking about how Parcells' word contradicts the language.

As for believing Parcells, I don't. But I'll go off his word as to the terms of the legality of the contract because I don't like to imagine things just to make myself feel better.

 

[theogt]

Legally, Alexander, the contract is very clear. It could hardly be any clearer, without saying "Dude, you have final say."

 

[Alexander]

Legally, Alexander, the contract is very clear. It could hardly be any clearer, without saying "Dude, you have final say."

Again, produce something other than what I have already shown to convince me.

Being the "designee" of the owner doesn't mean he's making choices that a GM would make. Basically that states he is operating very much from a perspective of an owner, who we all know has the "final say". Jones has the final say, Wayne Huzienga has the final say, Arthur Blank has the final say. They can intervene at any time and overrule. They aren't performing the general day-to-day duties of being a general manager and don't have direct ties to the day-to-day operations. They are a boss. And if Parcells is Huzienga's "designee", it sounds to me he's more of a quasi-owner than a quasi-GM like is believed (I have even read he got a piece of ownership of some kind).

Here is the true, legal definition of the word that I could find:

One who is designated or delegated, usually to perform a specific role or duty.

And he stated what his contract said. It very vague, states he acts in the owner's stead in relationship to contracts with the GM and coach.

How is that saying he has the "final say" over the whole process? I must be missing the specifics you claim are there.

The only thing I have is the exact verbiage from King's account. Again, do you have something else? Please point me to a link that states the contract language in terms that you state.

By stating he is the "designee" of the owner, it is only implied. Nobody in that role would have no authority, just as no owner is bound to keep his hands out of the team business. What that doesn't state is that his GM will not have control and be the director of the process with direct reports taking direction from him.

We will have to see what Ireland's contract states before we start claiming absolutes like that Jones could undoubtedly win a challenge.

 

[punchnjudy]

Ireland shouldn't be that tough to replace. Looking at our last 4 or 5 drafts, they were definately better, but it's not like we were hitting home runs every time either. I doubt there's really any such thing as a 'draft guru' in the NFL. With so many positions to cover and so much information to process, it would be impossible for one guy to control it all. And even the teams with the best scouting teams in place will miss more than they hit.

The main thing will be replacing him with someone competent (I don't think it will be Lacewell...Jerry has a lot of expensive tickets to sell, lol), and Jerry continuing to listen to the scouts.

 

[Zimmy Lives]

Legally, Alexander, the contract is very clear. It could hardly be any clearer, without saying "Dude, you have final say."

What do "contract" means, anyway?

 

[Hoofbite]

I'm hoping it can be done. Heck, we're going to lose Ireland anyway, might as well package our two #1s & Ireland for Miami's #1 & #2.....

do you honestly think that any team would pull that trade?

 

[theogt]

Again, produce something other than what I have already shown to convince me.

Being the "designee" of the owner doesn't mean he's making choices that a GM would make. Basically that states he is operating very much from a perspective of an owner, who we all know has the "final say". Jones has the final say, Wayne Huzienga has the final say, Arthur Blank has the final say. They can intervene at any time and overrule. They aren't performing the general day-to-day duties of being a general manager and don't have direct ties to the day-to-day operations. They are a boss. And if Parcells is Huzienga's "designee", it sounds to me he's more of a quasi-owner than a quasi-GM like is believed (I have even read he got a piece of ownership of some kind).

Here is the true, legal definition of the word that I could find:

One who is designated or delegated, usually to perform a specific role or duty.

And he stated what his contract said. It very vague, states he acts in the owner's stead in relationship to contracts with the GM and coach.

How is that saying he has the "final say" over the whole process? I must be missing the specifics you claim are there.

The only thing I have is the exact verbiage from King's account. Again, do you have something else? Please point me to a link that states the contract language in terms that you state.

By stating he is the "designee" of the owner, it is only implied. Nobody in that role would have no authority, just as no owner is bound to keep his hands out of the team business. What that doesn't state is that his GM will not have control and be the director of the process with direct reports taking direction from him.

The term "designee" isn't even used in the language of the contract that has been reported. It also says nothing of "acting in the owners stead." These are just Parcells' interpretations of it. And, yes, I'm going by the quoted portions from the Peter King story. Unless it was fabricated by Peter King, I don't know why that would be an unreliable source.

By the way, if he was the "designee" of the owner, then he'd be an employee with the power of the owner. The owner obviously has all final say, so if Parcells was the "designee" of the owner, he'd have final say.

We will have to see what Ireland's contract states before we start claiming absolutes like that Jones could undoubtedly win a challenge.

It wouldn't matter what Ireland's contract says.

 

[IndianaCowboyFan]

I think more than what the contracts say on their face is the intent behind what it says and is the intent to misrepresent his actual authority. Is it semantic legerdemain?

 

[Alexander]

The term "designee" isn't even used in the language of the contract that has been reported.

It doesn't?

Then he read me the wording of what he said were the applicable clauses in the contract. "'As Executive Vice President of Football Operations,'" Parcells read, "'employee shall be responsible for overseeing the club's football operations. Employee shall act as club designee for purpose of [executing] contracts with head coach and general manager.'"

It certainly sounds like it to me.

Do you enjoy imagining things or do you just have poor reading comprehension?

It also says nothing of "acting in the owners stead." These are just Parcells' interpretations of it. And, yes, I'm going by the quoted portions from the Peter King story. Unless it was fabricated by Peter King, I don't know why that would be an unreliable source.

I am using King as the only source. You apparently are pulling all other sorts of strange theories about the contract being undoubtedly capable of challenge, which King doesn't state.

Clearly, the league could be skeptical about allowing any front-office man currently under contract to leave for a GM job in Miami the way it's structured right now. I could see NFL executive VP and legal counsel Jeff Pash asking Huizenga, with a jaundiced eye: "You're paying Bill Parcells $3 million a year or so, and you're telling me you want to hire someone to have final football authority in the organization over him? That's not going to fly.''

And that's exactly what I said. It will be up to the league.

By the way, if he was the "designee" of the owner, then he'd be an employee with the power of the owner. The owner obviously has all final say, so if Parcells was the "designee" of the owner, he'd have final say.

And that has absolutely nothing to do with the day-to-day operations of being a general manager, which is why the contract Ireland signs will indeed be critical. He can challenge things in his contract if Parcells meddles more than he should, so it has to be clear where his authority begins and ends.

Unless the GM is also an owner, NO GM in the league has "final say". So if you are looking for that, you probably will need to look for a while.

 

[IndianaCowboyFan]

And that has absolutely nothing to do with the day-to-day operations of being a general manager, which is why the contract Ireland signs will indeed be critical. He can challenge things in his contract if Parcells meddles more than he should, so it has to be clear where his authority begins and ends.

So if Ireland goes to Miami and down the road Parcells overrides a Garrett decision who loses their job because of it? If it would be Garrett would he want to risk the GM job? Especially knowing that Parcells will always have the final say.

 

[Alexander]

So if Ireland goes to Miami and down the road Parcells overrides a Garrett decision who loses their job because of it? If it would be Garrett would he want to risk the GM job? Especially knowing that Parcells will always have the final say.

I have no idea.

I know that Ireland doesn't have any issue with the arrangement and is very excited for the opportunity. If you listen to some people around here, you would think he was forced to go somewhere that he has no say, no control and is basically a Parcells lap dog.