NFL owners still want the right of first refusal on the contracts of players entering their fifth and sixth seasons, FOXSports.com reported Thursday. According to the report, the willingness of owners to grant players free agency after four years of service is contingent upon the union allowing each team to use the right of first refusal up to three times this offseason. Exercising a right of first refusal on a player effectively makes him a restricted free agent and gives a team the opportunity to match an offer he receives from another team http://www.theindychannel.com/sports...28/detail.html
It's essentially the same thing as tendering a player but without the compensation. If a team were to send an offer to one of our players, we would have the right to match that offer and make theirs null and void.
That bolded part right here is why I don't really care about this being in or not. If another team gets their offer matched by I'm sure they could come up with some extra coin if need be. Considering the amount of FAs we need to sign and the level of player that some of the FAs are.
Sounds like an opportunity to match a contract, basically like an RFA but without draft picks involved.
i don't see what the problem is here then.the players are going to get the same money or maybe alittle more since a team might over bid to keep a team from matching.
There will be several players that would have been unrestricted free agents who would all of a sudden become like restricted free agents.
Copied from IATA's post above: "Exercising a right of first refusal on a player effectively makes him a restricted free agent and gives a team the opportunity to match an offer he receives from another team"
Pats-Hater i noticed your avatar, just for the record are you a biology expert? Just wanted to know in case I needed to prove any bio points.
You talk smack, yet you neglected to read the article that answered your question several hours before you posted it. Holy shit.
That article doesn't explain shit. It makes an unsupported assertion and moves right along. Then it is retyped here with no attribution. If proper attribution was made I'd have called out "By: SportsDirect" instead. It is crappy reporting no matter where it is from.
