Ireland to Interview with Parcells

[IndianaCowboyFan]

Another interesting side of it is if you take my above scenerio what would the league do if it forced Jones to give Garrett up based upon a knowingly fraudulent contract? Could Parcells be forced to quit and be banned for life?

 

[theogt]

It doesn't?



It certainly sounds like it to me.

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

That's for the purpose of executing contracts. As in, he can sign a contract and bind the club by his name.

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.

Huh?

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.

I think you're confused. You seem to be conflating multiple issues, and injecting new meaningless issues you're just fabricating out of thing air. The bottom line is that Parcells contract gives him the responsibility to "oversee" football operations. That responsibility includes (but isn't limited to) hiring and firing personnel including the GM and the HC. There's no gray area here. He has "final say" power. If he doesn't like what the GM does, he can fire him. That's why he's hanging around for 4 years, instead of just doing something similar to the former GM hired temporarily by Atlanta recently just to find a new GM and staff.

 

[Doomsday101]

This will be Jones only concern and has stated this.

Ireland would have primary control over personnel matters if hired by Miami. NFL rules ensure a candidate can't assume a general manager position in title only, and commissioner Roger Goodell can confirm whether a candidate indeed would assume total personnel authority.

If BP is taking on the role of GM then this title of GM for Ireland is meaningless and if that is the case and the league office can see what is going on then Dallas should be compensated. People can argue until their blue in the face but if Miami is trying to pull a fast one on Dallas we can and should be compensated. Team are not allowed to grab members of an organization under falsehood.

 

[Alexander]

That's for the purpose of executing contracts. As in, he can sign a contract and bind the club by his name.

That is not surprising since you were the individual who claimed "designee" was nothing but a figment of Parcells' interpretation.

I think you're confused. You seem to be conflating multiple issues here.

Nice sidestep.

No GM has the "final say" anywhere, except possibly in Dallas.

Every GM answers to someone, whether it be an owner, executive vice president or some cases just a coach.

In Chicago, GM Jerry Angelo answers to President Ted Phillips. In Philadelphia, GM Tom Heckert answers to Exec VP Andy Reid. In

In some cases, the two jobs are merged with one role, like Atlanta with President/GM Rich McKay. But everyone can be overruled unless they also own the team, like Jones does.

But yet you expect Ireland's role to be questioned like it should be unique and all encompassing.

It all depends on what is said in the contracts as to what Ireland's influence is going to be and how it can be challenged, if at all.

 

[theogt]

That is not surprising since you were the individual who claimed "designee" was nothing but a figment of Parcells' interpretation.

Yes, I forgot the part of about being the designee of the club for the purpose of executing contracts. It's humorous, though, that Parcells would confuse that language with the language in regards to his power over decisions regarding personnel as they have absolutely nothing to do with each other. A club could assign its janitor as a designee for the purpose of executing contracts, but of course that janitor wouldn't haven't power to make decisions regarding personnel. They're two completely unrelated powers.

Nice sidestep.

No GM has the "final say" anywhere, except possibly in Dallas.

Yes, they do. They have the contractual power. Or more precisely, the contractual "right." The owner can obviously fire them, but that would be a breach of their contract.

Here, you're just confusing the difference between the terms "right" and "power." The difference is inconsequential to the discussion, however.

Every GM answers to someone, whether it be an owner, executive vice president or some cases just a coach.

And a "GM" that answers to someone other than the owner in terms of personnel decisions does not have final say.

In Chicago, GM Jerry Angelo answers to President Ted Phillips. In Philadelphia, GM Tom Heckert answers to Exec VP Andy Reid.

And it's been reported that Tom Heckert is free to go to Miami (if he was given final say in Miami -- but obviously that's not the case) because he doesn't have "final say" power in Philadelphia. I'm not familiar with the Chicago situation, but if it's the same as Heckert's then, he would be free to go to Miami as well.

It all depends on what is said in the contracts as to what Ireland's influence is going to be and how it can be challenged, if at all.

No, again, what is in Ireland's contract is completely irrelevant.

 

[Alexander]

And a "GM" that answers to someone other than the owner in terms of personnel decisions does not have final say.

And not all GMs have to have final say. It all depends on the scope of their job functions that are designated to them by contract, not just the title. Jerry Jones is clear that the rule states that it cannot just be in title only. The scope of authority is what will decide. Not whether there is a person in between him and the owner.

It doesn't make the Dolphins case stronger that it exists, but again the language in both contracts will have a determining influence on any decision made in arbitration.

If Parcells' contract doesn't specifically spell it out and Ireland's does, there isn't a thing Dallas can do about it legally except stomp their feet.

And it's been reported that Tom Heckert is free to go to Miami (if he was given final say in Miami -- but obviously that's not the case) because he doesn't have "final say" power in Philadelphia.

In all likelihood, there is something in Andy Reid's contract that says he does have final say and something in Heckert's contract that say he doesn't have final say. Strange to think of, I know.

You are confusing the set up with what actually matters. The contracts and the language they specifically contain is what does.

No, again, what is in Ireland's contract is completely irrelevant.

No, it isn't. It has everything to do with it. If Parcells contract is significantly vague the attention should turn to what Ireland's states the scope of his authority is.

You again are imagining you know what Parcells' contract states. From what little we do know, it has not stated a thing about him having final say in terms of what a typical GM would have.

He feels confident enough it doesn't. But somehow, you know it does. I am amazed at your powers of insight. I am truly envious.

In your view, Ireland can't get hired away from the Cowboys unless he gets the final say with another team that Jerry Jones keeps for himself with the Cowboys. That makes no sense whatsoever. Not all GMs have that kind of authority nor should they have to.

What duties Ireland is charged with doing will be the singular determining factor in deciding whether or not it is truly a promotion to GM and not just a worthless title.

The only place you will find that information is in the contract that he signs.

 

[theogt]

Again, Parcells has responsibility to "oversee" football operations. The exact wording was reported. He has the power to hire and fire the GM. If he doesn't like what the GM does, he can replace him. If that's not final say, nothing is. There's nothing vague at all about Parcells' contract. It's humorous that you could have something so clear, yet have an individual like Parcells say something contradictory and people will buy it. There's nothing vague here. There's nothing subject to interpretation.

Whether Ireland's contract also gives him "final say" is irrelevant. Parcells has the contractual right to make the decisions and it trumps even the GM.

I have no doubt that they will work together to make all important decisions, but if push came to shove and it was between Parcells and the GM, Parcells would have final say. It's in his contract and clear as can be.

 

[Oh_Canada]

I think Jerrah should just blow the wad on Ireland, give him a prettier title and tell Tuna to go fishing for someone else!!

 

[Alexander]

Again, Parcells has responsibility to "oversee" football operations.

And Jeff is being promoted to GM. In the chain of command, it is logically under VP of football operations.

The exact wording was reported. He has the power to hire and fire the GM. If he doesn't like what the GM does, he can replace him. If that's not final say, nothing is.

:laugh2:

So Ireland can only go if he can assume a position that can hire and fire and have total power? Outside of Jerry Jones, care to tell me what GM does?

And that is just like what I said before. Parcells is a quasi-owner, you are thinking he's a quasi-GM. If Parcells contract says he is the Big Cheese, Head Honcho, Grand Poobah or Supreme Turd in Charge, it has no relevance to what Ireland's situation is.

All that matters is what Parcells is expected to do and in relationship what duties fall to Ireland in terms of if it allows this to be viewed as a promotion.

Period.

There's nothing vague at all about Parcells' contract. It's humorous that you could have something so clear, yet have an individual like Parcells say something contradictory and people will buy it.

There's no buying it. I even stated before, I don't trust him and I don't know. But if he didn't have enough confidence in something that only he has seen, I don't believe he would take this to task.

Either he wants Ireland and doesn't care about compensation or he thinks he can legally get away with it.

Whether Ireland's contract also gives him "final say" is irrelevant.

It is?

:laugh2:

Can you get any less logical?

Legally, it has everything to do with it.

Parcells has the contractual right to make the decisions and it trumps even the GM.

So does every owner. And that still has absolutely nothing to say about whether it is a promotion. Otherwise, Jeff cannot go anywhere unless he has final say like an owner. The poor man is stuck according to you.

 

[theogt]

:laugh2:

So Ireland can only go if he can assume a position that can hire and fire and have total power? Outside of Jerry Jones, care to tell me what GM does?

This is non-sensical. Of course there are positions that have "final say" power. Otherwise there wouldn't be a rule.

And that is just like what I said before. Parcells is a quasi-owner, you are thinking he's a quasi-GM. If Parcells contract says he is the Big Cheese, Head Honcho, Grand Poobah or Head Turd in Charge, it has no relevance to what Ireland's situation is.

All that matters is what Parcells is expected to do and in relationship what duties fall to Ireland in terms of if it allows this to be viewed as a promotion.

Period.

This is the entire point of the rule. When you have a employee that is a "quasi-owner," then that is final say. Unless someone is being given that position in terms of personnel they can be prevented from taking the position if they're under contract.

There's no buying it. I even stated before, I don't trust him and I don't know. But if he didn't have enough confidence in something that only he has seen, I don't believe he would take this to task.

Either he wants Ireland and doesn't care about compensation or he thinks he can legally get away with it.

It's very clear that he doesn't understand the legal implications of what his contract means. He's not a lawyer, so that's not surprising. He said one thing, and then read a portion of his contract that had legal implications that are contradictory.

It is?

:laugh2:

Can you get any less logical?

Legally, it has everything to do with it.

Legally, it has nothing to do with. And it's perfectly logical. If Parcells' contract gives him the final say, including the ability to hire and fire Ireland, it doesn't matter what Ireland's contract says. You tried to get around this logically by saying that you would get to Ireland's contract because Parcells' contract is ambiguous.

So does every owner. And that still has absolutely nothing to say about whether it is a promotion. Otherwise, Jeff cannot go anywhere unless he has final say. The poor man is stuck according to you.

Here's something very key that you're missing: the difference between an owner and an employee. You can say "Parcells is like an owner." Well, guess what -- he's not. He's an employee, and a contract giving him the power of an owner means that he's an employee with final say.

 

[Alexander]

This is non-sensical. Of course there are positions that have "final say" power. Otherwise there wouldn't be a rule.

And the rule states what exactly? It is not as simple as "final say" over all operations because not all general managers have that. I assume it depends on the contrast between what he does now and what he will be charged to do.

If Ireland's contract states he has final authority to make decisions regarding personnel, it doesn't matter that Parcells is essentially his boss and can fire him.

This is the entire point of the rule. When you have a employee that is a "quasi-owner," then that is final say. Unless someone is being given that position in terms of personnel they can be prevented from taking the position if they're under contract.

You are quibbling with semantics and that isn't the point of the rule anyways.

They could name Ireland whatever they wanted and if the job duties depicted a step up in role from what he does now and traditionally fit the scope of power for an NFL GM, there isn't much we can do, particularly if it is in a black and white legal document stating so.

If Parcells contract states that he leaves hiring authority to the general manager it is contingent on Ireland's contract stating so for it to stick.

Final say as a designee is a person appointed by the owner to make those types of decisions. It has nothing to do with what a typical GM does.

Ridiculous. You are implying that simply because Parcells is in his role, Ireland can't be hired as a General Manager without compensation. You are drawing serious conclusions based on what, I have no idea.

It's very clear that he doesn't understand the legal implications of what his contract means.

:laugh2:

Yes, Bill Parcells is an idiot. But theogt knows what the devil he is talking about. Are you really that arrogant?

Do you honestly think he fell off a turnip truck yesterday? The man has made a living at having twists and turns with contracts in every stop he has been at. He's not a novice.

Legally, it has nothing to do with. And it's perfectly logical. If Parcells' contract gives him the final say, including the ability to hire and fire Ireland, it doesn't matter what Ireland's contract says.

I cannot get over how muddled your mind is working here.

Its not a promotion because he has a boss?

Here's something very key that you're missing: the difference between an owner and an employee. You can say "Parcells is like an owner." Well, guess what -- he's not. He's an employee, and a contract giving him the power of an owner means that he's an employee with final say.

I am not missing anything. I never said he was an owner, that's why he's a designee. An owner, at his leisure, can appoint ten VPs if he so wants. And each can have a specific role into how he wants his company run. In terms of what an NFL GM is typically asked to do is what is critical. Because that is what determines if this is a promotion that allows Ireland out of his contract.

The specifics matter. Final say over who the GM is, who the head coach is? Fine. Final say over all personnel decisions? That's another.

If Ireland's contract states that, the Dolphins are in the clear and the only thing to worry about now is whether or not they want Ireland to start now or in April.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

 

[theogt]

And the rule states what exactly? It is not as simple as "final say" over all operations because not all general managers have that. I assume it depends on the contrast between what he does now and what he will be charged to do.

It's not? Do you have any proof of this? What's the wording of the rule?

If Ireland's contract states he has final authority to make decisions regarding personnel, it doesn't matter that Parcells is essentially his boss and can fire him.

Absolutely it matters. It means that Parcells has final say.

You are quibbling with semantics and that isn't the point of the rule anyways.

If you don't want to quibble about semantics, don't get involved in a discussion about the legal ramifications of a contract. I'd suggest shelling out a hundred or so grand for law school before you even attempt to do so.

They could name Ireland whatever they wanted and if the job duties depicted a step up in role from what he does now and traditionally fit the scope of power for an NFL GM, there isn't much we can do, particularly if it is in a black and white legal document stating so.

This is completely false. He has to have "final say" power.

If Parcells contract states that he leaves hiring authority to the general manager it is contingent on Ireland's contract stating so for it to stick.

It doesn't. He quoted the relevant portions of his contract. If that was included in the contract it would have most certainly been included in the report.

Ridiculous. You are implying that simply because Parcells is in his role, Ireland can't be hired as a General Manager without compensation. You are drawing serious conclusions based on what, I have no idea.

I don't know what you're replying to here.

:laugh2:

Yes, Bill Parcells is an idiot. But theogt knows what the devil he is talking about. Are you really that arrogant?

Do you honestly think he fell off a turnip truck yesterday? The man has made a living at having twists and turns with contracts in every stop he has been at. He's not a novice.

I don't think he's had legal training, no. So it's not surprising that he could be confused in the issue.

I cannot get over how muddled your mind is working here.

Its not a promotion because he has a boss?

What does it being a promotion have anything to do with the discussion? Is this some new rule you just made up?

I am not missing anything. I never said he was an owner, that's why he's a designee. An owner, at his leisure, can appoint ten VPs if he so wants. And each can have a specific role into how he wants his company run. In terms of what an NFL GM is typically asked to do is what is critical. Because that is what determines if this is a promotion that allows Ireland out of his contract.

The specifics matter. Final say over who the GM is, who the head coach is? Fine. Final say over all personnel decisions? That's another.

If Ireland's contract states that, the Dolphins are in the clear and the only thing to worry about now is whether or not they want Ireland to start now or in April.

So the question then becomes -- what does the rule require? Does it require that the employee have final say over all personnel decisions? If that is the case, then we can both agree that it would not apply to Ireland.

Or does it require that the employee have final say over player personnel? In that case, I believe it is still clear that Parcells would have final say over Ireland. If they disagreed on a personnel decision Parcells would have the ability to fire Ireland and replace him with whoever was willing to implement his decisions. Would Parcells do that? Of course not. They would work together well like they did in Dallas. Would he have the legal power to do that? Yes.

 

[VietCowboy]

just curious...

how can BP fire the GM now, but later after he hires the GM (if it is Ireland) he can't? does that mean that the contract of the previous GM didn't give him final say, and what's to prevent BP from firing Ireland/GM in the future if he claims that the GM will have final say/authority?

to make it clear.....why can BP fire the previous GM but not the future GM (he says the GM has final say)
thanks...

nvm...i just read the post above...kinda understand it....depends if the GM has only final say over just players or all personnel. gotcha. lol

p.s. would the NFL be able to look at Mueller's contract and see how it is worded that allowed BP to fire him?

 

[theogt]

just curious...

how can BP fire the GM now, but later after he hires the GM (if it is Ireland) he can't? does that mean that the contract of the previous GM didn't give him final say, and what's to prevent BP from firing Ireland/GM in the future if he claims that the GM will have final say/authority? thanks...

He has the ability to fire the "new" GM as well.

 

[burmafrd]

Unless either one of you is a lawyer and has the contract in front of you, this whole pissing contest is worthless.

BP is not stupid. He certainly made sure that the contract is worded so that he has wiggle room. Its up to Goodell and the league lawyers to decide. Not you two. Give it a rest.

 

[VietCowboy]

i just hope that if ireland goes, he can't leave until after the draft, or else we would need compensation for paid and lost services, in the form of draft picks. If Ireland leaves before the draft, he leaves with a pretty good idea of what the Cowboys will want/pick when it is their turn. Especially if we win the super bowl, they may gain an advantage since they'll be drafting generally right after us.

 

[Alexander]

It's not? Do you have any proof of this? What's the wording of the rule?

I don't you. Do you?

I am going off what language I have read from Taylor, Archer and other articles I have read.

Do you have other sources?

If so, please share.

Absolutely it matters. It means that Parcells has final say.

And being a GM doesn't have anything do with who has direct and final hiring authority over the head coach or members of executive management.

Ultimately, that "final say" rests with ownership. Can you tell me one NFL club where the owner just allows the GM to do whatever they want, including control over the staff?

Look at San Diego. Schottenheimer would have been gone several years ago if GM A.J. Smith had "final say". Spanos is the person who finally decided enough was enough and fired him. In Denver, Ted Sundquist could get fed up with Mike Shanahan and he couldn't do a thing about it. That would fall to Pat Bowlan.

If they have control over team personnel, that satisfies the spirit of what I tend to think your average NFL general manager does.

You see it everywhere. Well, maybe you don't, but that's besides the point.

If you don't want to quibble about semantics, don't get involved in a discussion about the legal ramifications of a contract. I'd suggest shelling out a hundred or so grand for law school before you even attempt to do so.

My suggestion is for you to not get involved in the legal ramifications of a contract which you know nothing about.

This is completely false. He has to have "final say" power.

Show me the rule where he has to have anything but "final say power" over personnel and I will gladly concede this point.

I don't think he's had legal training, no. So it's not surprising that he could be confused in the issue.

He doesn't have agents and a lawyer of his own, eh? Do tell.

What does it being a promotion have anything to do with the discussion? Is this some new rule you just made up?

Because that is my understanding of how this is treated. Ireland has to have a clear and distinct step up in responsibilities (read: a promotion) in order for him to be allowed to break his contract and join the Dolphins.

Again, since you appear to know the rule, but won't state it, what else would I have to go on? Besides, making things up appears to be your forte, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised you "caught" me.

So the question then becomes -- what does the rule require? Does it require that the employee have final say over all personnel decisions? If that is the case, then we can both agree that it would not apply to Ireland.

Wait, so you don't know the rule either but enjoy pretending you do? Excellent.

Or does it require that the employee have final say over player personnel? In that case, I believe it is still clear that Parcells would have final say over Ireland.

So that would mean exactly nothing. Why you are so concerned that Parcells can fire Ireland is puzzling since it has nothing to do with the case at hand.

If they disagreed on a personnel decision Parcells would have the ability to fire Ireland and replace him with whoever was willing to implement his decisions. Would Parcells do that? Of course not. They would work together well like they did in Dallas. Would he have the legal power to do that? Yes.

Who cares if he has the ability to fire Ireland?

Are you really using this as part of your argument?

Simply astonishing.

 

[Alexander]

Unless either one of you is a lawyer and has the contract in front of you, this whole pissing contest is worthless.

I am not the one throwing out absolutes like our friend theogt here.

BP is not stupid. He certainly made sure that the contract is worded so that he has wiggle room. Its up to Goodell and the league lawyers to decide.

:laugh2:

Which is what I have been saying all along.

 

[theogt]

Ugh. I give up. I don't even have the energy to read your reply.