We denied the request for Allen to talk to Smith

[iggyb]

I agree he might not want the job...But that is his call to make and not John Fox's

No it is NOT his call. That's why he signed the contract.

Why should they even have contracts if we just need to let anybody jump up and move when they want?

This isn't a bad deal for Smith. He has job security (because even if they fire him before the contract is up, he gets paid). In return, the Broncos get to choose whether to let him interview for a lateral move. And since this is a lateral move in NFL rules, it doesn't matter what perceptions anybody here has as to this being an advancement or not.

Again....he signed a CONTRACT. A binding agreement. Get over it.

[DarkHorse26]

I think you have to look at the big picture as well. I can guarantee that Fox sat down with Smith to get a feel for what he really wanted to do. Even though contractually Fox could, he wouldn't stonewall one of his coaches from moving on if that is what they really wanted to do.

I heard rumors that Smith didn't want the DC job over there, so it would make more sense for us to just deny the interview than have Smith turn it down.

[ERoyal248]

so I don't know for sure. But I can say chances are he would take the coordinator job. And it is a step up in terms of position and probably money as well and its a step closer to becoming a HC if that is his job. And while the situation may or may not arguably be better in terms of job security the position is. And the chances to get the position are few. He is being interviewd or offered the job based on the fact that he worked with Allen. Considering what the broncos have produced at linebacker the past few years compared to other teams he is not exactly a hot commodity as lets say the Steelers linebackers coach. His opportunity knocked and we closed the door for him. And I dont think that's right.

If you're talking about Butler, no, he got offered the Cardinals DC spot, but the Steelers wouldn't let him get it, they did the same thing we did, but that's right, but since we didn't let Smith leave, it's bad.

As for Smith, teams do this all the time, find it hilarious we do it, and it's not right, smh.

[RaiderFanSD]

Fair point...

... if Al were still around

[HavoK471]

The Broncos did absolutely nothing wrong

I don't see the problem with this

Business is business and these guys know what they're getting into

[johnlimburg]

Coaching for the Raiders is not a move up.. it is a one year gig.

Yes taking a defensive coordinator job for the Raiders is not a move up over having a linebacker coaching job for the Broncos.

Must be a joke ?

And actually the Broncos cooridnator job is the job that is the one year gig. Proven

[MileHighInNY]

I'm not negating any contract.

From my analysis, NFL contracts aren't worth the paper they're printed on. And regardless of a contract being in place, I don't think the Broncos should stand in the way of Smith obtaining (what I personally view as) a promotion if that's what he really wants.

Well, regardless of your "analysis," these contracts remain legally binding. If a team fires a coach who is still under contract, the team is legally obligated to continue performing under that contract (i.e., they must continue paying the coach's contracted salary, even though the coach is no longer working for the team). Conversely, the coach is obligated to continue working for the team for the term of the contract, and the team has control over his availability to other teams during the same term. The NFL rules explicitly allow the team to deny permission for other teams to interview the coach, unless the coach is being offered a promotion to head coach.

Coaches know what the league rules say and they know that when they sign a contract they are giving the organization control over whether or not they will be allowed to interview for positions with other teams while the contract is in force. They bargain for this; it's not like they're surprised when this happens.

Teams are perfectly within their rights, under NFL rules and the coaching contracts, to deny this permission. They do need to be careful and do this sparingly because if they never let their assistant coaches interview with other teams, no future candidates will want to sign contracts with them. But the Broncos don't do this often at all, and I think it's tough to fault them for acting fully within their rights in this instance.

[shawinkerpoppin]

Where does Smith ever say he did not want to be here?

Why are you making things up?

Coaching for the Raiders is not a move up.. it is a one year gig.

so I don't know for sure. But I can say chances are he would take the coordinator job. And it is a step up in terms of position and probably money as well and its a step closer to becoming a HC if that is his job. And while the situation may or may not arguably be better in terms of job security the position is. And the chances to get the position are few. He is being interviewd or offered the job based on the fact that he worked with Allen. Considering what the broncos have produced at linebacker the past few years compared to other teams he is not exactly a hot commodity as lets say the Steelers linebackers coach. His opportunity knocked and we closed the door for him. And I dont think that's right.

[THEdraftnik]

You guys do know that Smith has been a defensive coordinator before, has 23 years of NFL coaching experience, and is likely only on the staff because of Fox right?

He isn't some 25 year old up and comer. We aren't stopping him from advancing his career, the guy is a career assistant. And their is nothing wrong with that considering he is a **** good one.

Quit complaining about us not letting him interview with the Faiders and think for a second. What's the likelihood that he has success in Oakland before getting fired? What are the chances that he just wants to work with Fox? What are the chances that he is better off here than in Oakland?

[mojo0730]

Where does Smith ever say he did not want to be here?

Why are you making things up?

Coaching for the Raiders is not a move up.. it is a one year gig.

Fair point...

[PAINTERDAVE]

but why keep somone that doesnt want to be here? Preventing the man from getting his chance to move up the coaching ranks is gonna leave some type of resentment. Lets be honest. When is the next time he gets this opportunity?

Where does Smith ever say he did not want to be here?

Why are you making things up?

Coaching for the Raiders is not a move up.. it is a one year gig.

[mojo0730]

Again, you're ignoring the all-important contract here. Most employees of any organization work "at-will", meaning that the employment relationship can be terminated by either party at any time, for any reason. So the paralegal in your example isn't under contract and would be absolutely free to explore opportunities with other firms.

I would venture to guess that most employees would, if given the choice, sign a contract with their employers guaranteeing their job for x number of years, during which time the employer would not be able to fire or lay off the employee (or at least would be obligated to continue paying the employee's salary) during the contract term, and in exchange the employee would need the employer's approval to seek a position at a competitor during the contract term. NFL coaches have this job security, and make this deal. They can't have it both ways.

I'm not negating any contract.

From my analysis, NFL contracts aren't worth the paper they're printed on. And regardless of a contract being in place, I don't think the Broncos should stand in the way of Smith obtaining (what I personally view as) a promotion if that's what he really wants.

[mojo0730]

Per your scenario. Like I stated the employee has hit their ceiling with that particular firm and they can't or won't offer them a position as an attorney.

What if they CAN'T offer a position as an attorney because they're already fully staffed at that position?

And maybe you and I have different understandings of what "hit their ceiling" means. In my interpretation, that implies that an employee has accomplished everything they can with a position and there's no available opportunity for advancement. You seemingly interpret it as meaning the employee simply no longer wants to work there, or the employer no longer wants the employee there.

In my scenario, there may be several aspects of paralegal work I haven't had the opportunity to explore yet, and there may be promotions or different positions available within the firm. But I still want to be a laywer and I finished the bar, so my options would be wait until one of the other attorneys leaves or find a firm elsewhere.

In any event, I don't want to get this wildly off track. I won't obviously dispute the NFL's interpretation of a lateral move, and thanks for providing that information. Having said that, IN MY OPINION I think going from a linebackers coach to a Defensive Coordinator IS an advancement because as a DC you're in charge of coordinating and overseeing the entire defense. Plus you're much more likely to get a head coaching position from a coordinator position than as a positions coach. And IN MY OPINION, if this is something Smith would want I don't think the Broncos should stand in his way, because it would be worse to keep a disgruntled employee who feels spurned by you here, than just letting him walk.

[MileHighInNY]

For instance, if I were a paralegal working at an attorney's office, but was also going to law school and finally passed my bar (and therefore could become a lawyer) and was leaving to go work for another attorney's office, how exactly does that qualify under your criteria?

Again, you're ignoring the all-important contract here. Most employees of any organization work "at-will", meaning that the employment relationship can be terminated by either party at any time, for any reason. So the paralegal in your example isn't under contract and would be absolutely free to explore opportunities with other firms.

I would venture to guess that most employees would, if given the choice, sign a contract with their employers guaranteeing their job for x number of years, during which time the employer would not be able to fire or lay off the employee (or at least would be obligated to continue paying the employee's salary) during the contract term, and in exchange the employee would need the employer's approval to seek a position at a competitor during the contract term. NFL coaches have this job security, and make this deal. They can't have it both ways.

[DarkHorse26]

Care to elaborate with proof?



With all due respect, you have no idea what I do or where I am, so please don't presume to know the reasons for my leaving or the reasons why my current employer is supporting me.

For instance, if I were a paralegal working at an attorney's office, but was also going to law school and finally passed my bar (and therefore could become a lawyer) and was leaving to go work for another attorney's office, how exactly does that qualify under your criteria?

*Not saying that's my specific situation...but it's a similar one.



If they did, then fine. I'm only speaking in terms of the Broncos prohibiting Smith from going from a linebackers coach to an actual coordinator.

Under Contract After Season. If an assistant coach’s playing season,
including postseason if applicable (excluding Pro Bowl), is over and he is
under contract to his club for the succeeding season or seasons, one of the
provisions below—“Head-Coaching Opportunity” or “Lateral Move”—
whichever is applicable, must be observed:

1. Two Tiers of Coaching Staffs. For purposes of this Anti-Tampering Policy,
each coaching staff is divided into two tiers: (1) head coach, and (2) all assistant
coaches.

Although each individual club is permitted to use whatever structure and titles it
desires for its coaching staff, the two tiers described here will be adhered to for
administration of this Policy.

3. Lateral Move. If a club is interested in discussing an assistant coaching
position with an assistant coach who is contractually obligated to another
club at any time prior to the opening of the employer club’s training
camp, it will be considered a lateral move, and the employer club is under
no obligation to grant the coach the opportunity to discuss the position
with the interested club. At the discretion of the employer club, however,
such permission may be voluntarily granted.

You can read NFL Anti-Tampering Policy for yourself here -
http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/2...g%20Policy.pdf

Per your scenario. Like I stated the employee has hit their ceiling with that particular firm and they can't or won't offer them a position as an attorney. By the way, what kind of employment contract was signed in this case? None right? However if the person in this scenario were smart, he/she would have worked in an agreement that the employer hire them on as an attorney once law school was completed and the bar successfully passed.