Chris Williams

[TBURGESS]

 

 

But I just can't accept that he would knowingly and willingly accept an extension from 2 years (the initial 1+1) to 3 years after his breakout rookie season without even asking for a raise in year 3. That makes no sense, and is a clear indicator that something about this 'sign to confirm receipt of my 2013 extension letter' bit was fishy and misleading.

 

where is this coming from? This was still his first contract right? 2+1 as opposed to 1+1 no? 

 

One of us is misunderstanding those docs I linked to (I'm assuming you at least glanced at them)

 

My understanding is the following, somebody please correct me if I'm wrong (because I read that turd from start to finish and would hate to be talking out my ass):

 

1) Williams signed a 1+1 from the start

2) Hamilton was obligated to confirm in writing that they were exercising his option (the +1 in a 1+1)

3) In the process of doing so, Hamilton referred him to another part of the document asking him to sign for receipt of 'my 2013 option letter', followed by a poorly worded offer to extend his contract by a year.

4) The court agreed that while the language of the contract could be construed as an agreement by Williams to add a third year to his existing 2 year contract, the document was confusing in part and in whole.

5) The court agreed that it made little sense for a skillful player like Williams to knowingly and willingly give up a full year of opportunity to pursue the NFL, citing risk of injury due to his 'small stature', the fact that the average career length of a CFL footballer is only 3 years, and the massive difference in salary.

 

So that's where it comes from. The article is linked, it's all there. I just wanted to get the whole story for my own interest, but the frikken thing is in legalese.

 

My opinion will change if in fact Williams signed a 3 year deal from the very start. But I don't think that's what happened.

 

I read the article and came away with a different understanding.  

 

1. All CFL contracts have a '+1' team option, so Williams 2 year contract would be 2 years + an option year.  

2. The club has to send out a document saying they are exercising their '+1' option by a certain date, which they did.  

3. The arbitrator thought that document was clear and Williams signed it.    

4. The court thought that the document wasn't clear enough so it applied the general contract principle is 'If there is any ambiguity, the reader's version stands', not the writers and overturned the arbitrator.

5. The CFL said they would appeal so Williams is back in limbo.

 

Fall out will be a better document to exercise the '+1' option in CFL contracts and it will be used by all clubs going forward.

[17to85]

 

1) Williams signed a 1+1 from the start

 

he did not, which is where the issues all started. If he's signed a 1+1 then he woulda been a free agent this year and none of this would have started.

[MOBomberFan]

Perhaps TBURG just pointed out where I've misunderstood. I thought it was 1+1 from the start, and Hammy tried foisting 'another +1' on him following his rookie season... but if he signed a 2 year deal plus an option (2013) from the start, then tough titties Chris Williams.

 

Bottom line, I hope Chris Williams has a comfy couch.

[OldSchoolBlue]

From the decision:

 

"Williams signed a contract in the form prescribed by the collective agreement agreeing to play for the Respondent for the 2011 and 2012 seasons. The contract granted the Respondent an option to require him to play for a third year."

 

The issue isn't that the Ticats tried to foist an extra year on him, it's that the contract was negotiated by an unregistered contract advisor, which was Williams choice. Also the letter sent to Williams notifying him that his option was picked up wasn't clear (i.e. it used big words). 

 

Also just for interests sake, it noted that:

 

"There was evidence that 50% of players use unregistered contract advisors to negotiate on their behalf."

 

I suspect that is about to change.

[pigseye]

Williams reportedly contends he wasn't made fully aware of the conditions pertaining to his rookie contract and that Hamilton didn't offer him the one-year plus an option deal but rather just the two-year plus an option.

"There is no clear and unequivocal language along the lines, 'The Hamilton Tiger-Cats exercises its option to require you to play for another year for this club,"' Justice Gladys Pardu said in her ruling Thursday. "The language used in the less is not capable of being construed as a clear communication of an intention to exercise the option and the arbitrator's conclusion that it was clear was unreasonable.

"The subjective intentions of the Tiger-Cats are no substitute for clarity in expressing the intention to exercise the option. On this ground, the arbitrator's decision must be quashed."

 

 

This is all you need to know.

 

There is a bread crumb trail of deceit on the part of the TiCats, first not offering him the 1+1 that must be offered to all rookies, then the sketchy letter about the option year, for any court, this is a slam dunk.

[TrueBlue]

From the decision:

 

"Williams signed a contract in the form prescribed by the collective agreement agreeing to play for the Respondent for the 2011 and 2012 seasons. The contract granted the Respondent an option to require him to play for a third year."

 

The issue isn't that the Ticats tried to foist an extra year on him, it's that the contract was negotiated by an unregistered contract advisor, which was Williams choice. Also the letter sent to Williams notifying him that his option was picked up wasn't clear (i.e. it used big words). 

 

Also just for interests sake, it noted that:

 

"There was evidence that 50% of players use unregistered contract advisors to negotiate on their behalf."

 

I suspect that is about to change.

 

It certainly will with the next CBA.

[Mr Dee]

 

Williams reportedly contends he wasn't made fully aware of the conditions pertaining to his rookie contract and that Hamilton didn't offer him the one-year plus an option deal but rather just the two-year plus an option.

"There is no clear and unequivocal language along the lines, 'The Hamilton Tiger-Cats exercises its option to require you to play for another year for this club,"' Justice Gladys Pardu said in her ruling Thursday. "The language used in the less is not capable of being construed as a clear communication of an intention to exercise the option and the arbitrator's conclusion that it was clear was unreasonable.

"The subjective intentions of the Tiger-Cats are no substitute for clarity in expressing the intention to exercise the option. On this ground, the arbitrator's decision must be quashed."

 

 

This is all you need to know.

 

There is a bread crumb trail of deceit on the part of the TiCats, first not offering him the 1+1 that must be offered to all rookies, then the sketchy letter about the option year, for any court, this is a slam dunk.

 

 

"Williams reportedly contends"

"the TiCats, first not offering him the 1+1 that must be offered to all rookies,"

 

These statements alone do not prove a thing, one way or the other.

One says one thing, not surprisingly , the other party states the other.

[pigseye]

 

 

Williams reportedly contends he wasn't made fully aware of the conditions pertaining to his rookie contract and that Hamilton didn't offer him the one-year plus an option deal but rather just the two-year plus an option.

"There is no clear and unequivocal language along the lines, 'The Hamilton Tiger-Cats exercises its option to require you to play for another year for this club,"' Justice Gladys Pardu said in her ruling Thursday. "The language used in the less is not capable of being construed as a clear communication of an intention to exercise the option and the arbitrator's conclusion that it was clear was unreasonable.

"The subjective intentions of the Tiger-Cats are no substitute for clarity in expressing the intention to exercise the option. On this ground, the arbitrator's decision must be quashed."

 

 

This is all you need to know.

 

There is a bread crumb trail of deceit on the part of the TiCats, first not offering him the 1+1 that must be offered to all rookies, then the sketchy letter about the option year, for any court, this is a slam dunk.

 

 

"Williams reportedly contends"

"the TiCats, first not offering him the 1+1 that must be offered to all rookies,"

 

These statements alone do not prove a thing, one way or the other.

One says one thing, not surprisingly , the other party states the other.

 

 

The standard of reasonableness is held in civil courts, it's their job to determine what is and isn't reasonable, not to prove anything beyond a shadow of doubt like criminal proceedings. It's always he said she said in civil matters and it's the courts job to draw the most reasonable conclusion, which they based on the evidence provided.

[17to85]

 

Williams reportedly contends he wasn't made fully aware of the conditions pertaining to his rookie contract and that Hamilton didn't offer him the one-year plus an option deal but rather just the two-year plus an option.

"There is no clear and unequivocal language along the lines, 'The Hamilton Tiger-Cats exercises its option to require you to play for another year for this club,"' Justice Gladys Pardu said in her ruling Thursday. "The language used in the less is not capable of being construed as a clear communication of an intention to exercise the option and the arbitrator's conclusion that it was clear was unreasonable.

"The subjective intentions of the Tiger-Cats are no substitute for clarity in expressing the intention to exercise the option. On this ground, the arbitrator's decision must be quashed."

 

 

This is all you need to know.

 

There is a bread crumb trail of deceit on the part of the TiCats, first not offering him the 1+1 that must be offered to all rookies, then the sketchy letter about the option year, for any court, this is a slam dunk.

 

Neither the arbitrator nor the court found that they hadn't offered him the 1+1, the difference of opinion between arbitration and the court is whether or not the ticats properly communicated their picking up the option year. This is an argument over the wording of that option being picked up and little more at this point I would say.

[road griller]

In any case, how can skipping a year make him better?  Sure he did not get injured but that could happen while training or practice or in the kitchen...

 

In the end I bet he wished he played.  Going into an NFL camp rusty seems like a tough hill to climb.  Bet he is back in the CFL next season.  

[Atomic]

In any case, how can skipping a year make him better?  Sure he did not get injured but that could happen while training or practice or in the kitchen...

 

In the end I bet he wished he played.  Going into an NFL camp rusty seems like a tough hill to climb.  Bet he is back in the CFL next season.  

 

Ask Chris Matthews.  I bet some of the shine has come off for him after this season, deserved or not.

[Mr Dee]

Yes, I don't see how sitting out a year helps his end game.

Perhaps a bonus payment of some sort, without extension, should have been worked out.

[road griller]

 

In any case, how can skipping a year make him better?  Sure he did not get injured but that could happen while training or practice or in the kitchen...

 

In the end I bet he wished he played.  Going into an NFL camp rusty seems like a tough hill to climb.  Bet he is back in the CFL next season.  

 

Ask Chris Matthews.  I bet some of the shine has come off for him after this season, deserved or not.

 

It is a catch 22 for some.  If you are indeed NFL material you should shine no matter what imo.

 

So do you sit out and get rusty instead of playing and taking a risk showing you may not be good enough?

 

The way Williams was being used I could see him having another monster year in Hammy.  Especially against the Bomber D!   Like Mr.Dee said maybe something could be worked out for both sides.  Maybe he thought he would be in NFL camps by now instead of in the courts though?

 

In the end both sides could lose.

[Jacquie]

3. The arbitrator thought that document was clear and Williams signed it.

4. The court thought that the document wasn't clear enough so it applied the general contract principle is 'If there is any ambiguity, the reader's version stands', not the writers and overturned the arbitrator.

From an article I read it said the arbitrator ruled the letter was not clear but that it wasn't enough to void the contract.

[Valderan_CA]

The Ruling

Read sections 29 - 37, those sections detail the EXACT reason for setting aside the decision of the arbitrator.

 

Specifically in section 31 it says the arbitrator compared the letter sent to Williams against the notice that should be sent to a new player (Appendix L) which the court says "has no application to the exercise of an option by a club."

The arbitrator compared Williams letter to this non applicable Appendix and found it adequate. The court found that "the arbitrator did not grapple with the text of the letter to assess whether it clearly exercised the option."

 

Then the court goes through the letter and finally finds

 

"There is no clear and unequivocal language along the lines, "The Hamilton Tiger-Cats exercises its option to require you to play for another year for this club."  then the court uses some legalese to throw the arbitrator under the bus and finishes "the subjective intentions of the Tiger Cats are no substitute for clarity in expressing the intention to exercise the option"

---

It seems clear to me that the court is saying the arbitrator didn't look at whether the letter conveyed the requirement to tell the player the team was exercising their option to require the player to play.  Instead the arbitrator compared the letter to some notice that teams must send to NEW PLAYERS (I.E. not Williams) and found that when compared to THAT STANDARD the letter was sufficient.
 

SO - the court finding that the arbitrator conclusion of clarity was unreasonable was not saying they disagreed with the arbitrators interpretation of the contract, just that the arbitrator compared the letter against the WRONG STANDARD to conclude it was clear.

 

I.E. Court doesn't disagree that the letter might meet the requirements of Appendix L (which is why arbitrator said the letter was sufficient).  Court just determined that Appendix L isn't relevant to exercising the option year.  The court then independantly reviewed the letter against what they felt was the correct requirements (clearly telling the player that the club was exercising their option to require performance of the contract) and found it lacking under that (different) standard.

-----------

EDIT

 

I should specify - The reason I think the above distinction is important is because it means that now any further rulings are not about a difference in opinion between the arbitrator and the court on the clarity of the letter.  The court ruling is saying the arbitrator didn't look at whether the letter sent by Williams clearly conveyed the exercise of the option and when they look at it they found it doesn't.

If the lower court just disagreed with the arbitrator we could reasonable see an appeal to a higher court just being the higher court looking at the two opinions and deciding which it thought was MORE CORRECT.  Instead we are looking at the higher court having to explicitly disagree with the opinion of the lower court on one of two subjects:
  - Whether Appendix L was a reasonable standard to compare the letter against, which is unlikely

  -  Whether the letter clearly conveyed that the club was exercising its right to require Williams to perform for the option year of his contract.

Edited August 30, 2013 by Valderan_CA

[holoman]

I know it's no longer relevant and I may have missed something along the way, are we expected that the conversation went this way

 

Ticats: Hi, we want  Mr Williams to be a part of our organization for 2 years plus an option

Agent: ok

 

 

I mean at some point were there not any negotiations?

[Mark H.]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The standard of reasonableness is held in civil courts, it's their job to determine what is and isn't reasonable, not to prove anything beyond a shadow of doubt like criminal proceedings. It's always he said she said in civil matters and it's the courts job to draw the most reasonable conclusion, which they based on the evidence provided.

 

 

Exactly this. The civil courts operate on the balance of probabilities. If the chance that the Ti-cats were at fault is greater than the chance that they weren't...then the courts will rule in favour of Chris Williams.

[Valderan_CA]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The standard of reasonableness is held in civil courts, it's their job to determine what is and isn't reasonable, not to prove anything beyond a shadow of doubt like criminal proceedings. It's always he said she said in civil matters and it's the courts job to draw the most reasonable conclusion, which they based on the evidence provided.

 

 

Exactly this. The civil courts operate on the balance of probabilities. If the chance that the Ti-cats were at fault is greater than the chance that they weren't...then the courts will rule in favour of Chris Williams.

 

 

 

mmmm... not really relevant to this case actually.

 

We aren't talking about an incident where an individual is seeking damages of some sort from a company due to negligence or fraud (where the balance of probabilities equation comes into effect for civil proceedings)

 

Chris Williams is trying to have his contract with the Ti-Cats discharged

A contract may be discharged by:

• Agreement 
• Performance 
• Impossibility
• Operation of law
• Breach
• Failure to perform
• Where a party suffers a loss as a result of breach of contract, they are usually entitled to recover that loss. If the party suffers no loss, they cannot receive compensation.

In this case Williams is essentially arguing failure to perform/breach by the Ti-Cats by their not offering him a valid notice of enacting the option clause on his contract.

He originally was arguing essentially operation of law (the existing CBA acts as a law governing how these contracts can be formed)

---

Balance of probabilities is more important when you have two parties arguing about material facts and not interpretations (So if Williams said the Ti-Cats never offered him the 1+1 and the Ti-Cats said that they did you would use the balance of probabilities there)

 

 

The important feature of law here is whether any of the breaches by either party are fundamental to the contract (Is negotiating with a non-registered agent so fundamental to the CBA that the breach of law involved is sufficient to have the contract discharged)

In the judicial review the court found that the Ti-Cats didn`t perform their duties in informing Williams of their intent to renew his option (the court found their letter to be unclear) and as a result the Ti-Cats interpretation of Williams still being under contract was incorrect (since him remaining under contract was dependant on their informing him of their intent, not informing him is a fundamental breach)

[Mark H.]

Contract law falls under Civil Law.

[Jacquie]

I know it's no longer relevant and I may have missed something along the way, are we expected that the conversation went this way

 

Ticats: Hi, we want  Mr Williams to be a part of our organization for 2 years plus an option

Agent: ok

 

 

I mean at some point were there not any negotiations?

 

If that were how it went then the Ticats would be in the wrong because the CBA says they have to offer a 1+1 contract as an option, not just a 2+1. 

[pigseye]

 

 

Williams reportedly contends he wasn't made fully aware of the conditions pertaining to his rookie contract and that Hamilton didn't offer him the one-year plus an option deal but rather just the two-year plus an option.

"There is no clear and unequivocal language along the lines, 'The Hamilton Tiger-Cats exercises its option to require you to play for another year for this club,"' Justice Gladys Pardu said in her ruling Thursday. "The language used in the less is not capable of being construed as a clear communication of an intention to exercise the option and the arbitrator's conclusion that it was clear was unreasonable.

"The subjective intentions of the Tiger-Cats are no substitute for clarity in expressing the intention to exercise the option. On this ground, the arbitrator's decision must be quashed."

 

 

This is all you need to know.

 

There is a bread crumb trail of deceit on the part of the TiCats, first not offering him the 1+1 that must be offered to all rookies, then the sketchy letter about the option year, for any court, this is a slam dunk.

 

Neither the arbitrator nor the court found that they hadn't offered him the 1+1, the difference of opinion between arbitration and the court is whether or not the ticats properly communicated their picking up the option year. This is an argument over the wording of that option being picked up and little more at this point I would say.

 

 

They're smart enough to smell a rat. The background of the case laid it out so that anyone could connect the dots.

[DR. CFL]

This goes back to Wally pulling the same crap on Cameron Wake. The key here is there an addendum in the CBA that teams either ignore or don't get players to sign. It specifically explains the extra option year to a contract. It virtually tells a player that a one year is a one and an option , 2 year is 2 years an an additional year. It too can be cause for voiding a contract.

The other issue is in the NFL agents and players have to sign a contract. There was talk of including this in the last CBA of the CFL but I am not sure how or why it was not included. It may come up again.

[holoman]

 

I know it's no longer relevant and I may have missed something along the way, are we expected that the conversation went this way

 

Ticats: Hi, we want  Mr Williams to be a part of our organization for 2 years plus an option

Agent: ok

 

 

I mean at some point were there not any negotiations?

 

If that were how it went then the Ticats would be in the wrong because the CBA says they have to offer a 1+1 contract as an option, not just a 2+1. 

I get that, and agree, I'm just trying to figure out that if Williams goal was to get to the NFL ASAP, wouldn't  a 1 year + option be explored?

[TBURGESS]

 

 

I know it's no longer relevant and I may have missed something along the way, are we expected that the conversation went this way

 

Ticats: Hi, we want  Mr Williams to be a part of our organization for 2 years plus an option

Agent: ok

 

 

I mean at some point were there not any negotiations?

 

If that were how it went then the Ticats would be in the wrong because the CBA says they have to offer a 1+1 contract as an option, not just a 2+1. 

I get that, and agree, I'm just trying to figure out that if Williams goal was to get to the NFL ASAP, wouldn't  a 1 year + option be explored?

 

The 1 + 1 contract was probably for less money per year.  Williams and his agent wouldn't KNOW that he was going to burn up the league so taking the extra dollars for the extra year made sense at the time.

[Mark H.]

Oh yeah, we screwed up, but could we find some loopholes here?