Page 1 of 1

AAF refuses to release players for possible CFL employment

Posted: Fri Apr 12, 2019 6:21 pm
by MarkNelson
AAF refuses to release players for possible CFL employment
https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2 ... mployment/

This is terrible news from a terrible league. They must let these players go, no strings attached. This is the best way they can repay the players they "used" and then "threw away."

Re: AAF refuses to release players for possible CFL employment

Posted: Fri Apr 12, 2019 7:37 pm
by XFL_FAN
mnelson wrote: Fri Apr 12, 2019 6:21 pm AAF refuses to release players for possible CFL employment
https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2 ... mployment/

This is terrible news from a terrible league. They must let these players go, no strings attached. This is the best way they can repay the players they "used" and then "threw away."
So I guess we'll have to wait for the XFL to be able to sign AAF players then...I can't believe they aren't letting them go.

Re: AAF refuses to release players for possible CFL employment

Posted: Fri Apr 12, 2019 9:10 pm
by BengalErnst
AAF will get sued before XFL begins play. Not worried about that

Re: AAF refuses to release players for possible CFL employment

Posted: Fri Apr 12, 2019 9:29 pm
by Joker
They are stopping players from moving on to new paying jobs? That's not cool. :x

Re: AAF refuses to release players for possible CFL employment

Posted: Fri Apr 12, 2019 10:25 pm
by Tank55
Can we repurpose this section for CFL, etc?
If things go the way he hopes, Clifford Starke will own the Alouettes before the Canadian Football League season kicks off in June.

The chairman of Hampstead Private Capital put out a statement on Thursday confirming his interest in purchasing the team, which has been owned by American businessman Robert Wetenhall since 1997. There has been speculation the league has assumed control of the team and is looking for a new owner, something the CFL has not confirmed.
https://montrealgazette.com/sports/foot ... -alouettes

Re: AAF refuses to release players for possible CFL employment

Posted: Sat Apr 13, 2019 2:30 pm
by MikeMitchell
mnelson wrote: Fri Apr 12, 2019 6:21 pm AAF refuses to release players for possible CFL employment
https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2 ... mployment/

This is terrible news from a terrible league. They must let these players go, no strings attached. This is the best way they can repay the players they "used" and then "threw away."
It appears that because the league is “suspended” and not officially or legally dead. That the AAF is exercising some form of non compete.

This is why when Darren Rovell posted on Twitter about the XFL potentially acquiring assets. The tweet mentioned players as being part of those assets. I doubt that the XFL or CFL is stupid enough to pay a fee to sign Trent Richardson for example.

The question becomes does this non compete extend to team employees and staff members like team presidents, gm’s or more importantly coaches.

In their player contracts. The AAF players are allowed to leave for only the NFL. A lot of legal wrangling going on for the foreseeable future.

What a mess the AAF is and was.

Re: AAF refuses to release players for possible CFL employment

Posted: Sun Apr 14, 2019 2:35 pm
by XFLGUY
Yeah, it’s something to go down in flames like they did but to also drag as many people as they can down with them is ridiculous. I know it’s stupid but I wish there was a way to edit my username to remove the aaf part. 👎

Re: AAF refuses to release players for possible CFL employment

Posted: Sun Apr 14, 2019 8:20 pm
by admin
XFLAAFGUY wrote: Sun Apr 14, 2019 2:35 pm I wish there was a way to edit my username to remove the aaf part. 👎
I can do that for you. Send me a message.

Re: AAF refuses to release players for possible CFL employment

Posted: Mon Apr 15, 2019 12:30 pm
by jawbone62
Standard AAF player contract was for three years and was non-guaranteed. It highly favored the league over the player. But when they suspended play and did not pay their players when due, the league was in default of the contract. Contract was broken and should have been abrogated. That is my understanding but labor laws can be complicated.