Clipping:Ward on the Brotherhood contract and the $2,000 rule
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
 |
| Add a Clipping |
| Date | Wednesday, March 14, 1888 |
|---|---|
| Text | [from a letter from Ward][regarding a meeting at the League spring meeting] There was no attempt on the part of the League committee (which was the same that originally met the Brotherhood committee when the contract was agreed upon) to deny the understanding had had concerning paragraph 18. they claimed, however, that the action of the American Association prevented this being carried into effect; that is, it is not allowable by the National Agreement to promise [illegible] calling for more than two thousand dollars. Convinced that an effort had been made in good faith to have the limit rule suspended, the Brotherhood committee made no further attempt to press that point because of the apparent impossibility of gaining the consent of the Association. The committee then sought some other means by which the same end might be reached, and the result was the following understanding with the League: The player shall not be reserved at a figure less than that mentioned in paragraph 18 of the contract; and as this portion of the new contract does not take effect until signed, this paragraph will operate for the first time upon the reservations of next fall. But by the “limit rule” the sum named in the paragraph can not exceed $2,000, so that if the player is to receive more than that sum he must provide for the balance in a side contract. In order that the player might not be reserved for 1889 at a salary less than that received for 1888, the Brotherhood committee asked the League that in all cases where such side contracts were made they should agree to continue the bonuses therein provided for, as a condition precedent to the exercise of the right of reservation. This would have reached the same result as originally intended by paragraph 18, but this the League committeemen refused to do. They had no doubt, they said, that in certain cases certain clubs might be willing to do this, but they were unwilling to agree that all clubs should do this in every case. Inasmuch as the original intent of the contract was that eery player might insist upon the insertion of the entire salary in the contract, and this was accepted by the League, their refusal here was a clear repudiation of the former obligations. The fact that the obligation was not enforceable in the particular manner originally contemplated did not in any wise relieve the League from the moral duty to abide by it, so long as the same result could be reached in another way. The insistence by all players upon the statement of the entire salary in the contract would no doubt have had a tendency to lower salaries. Realizing that the figures named in the contracts for 1888 would be thereby perpetuated, no club would have been willing to commit itself to a heavy list, and for this reason the Brotherhood committee made less effort to secure this as an absolute right of the player than it otherwise might have done. From a pecuniary point of view, the players will profit by the League's refusal, though the manner of doing it is unbusinesslike and farcical. To agree in one contract to receive a certain sum for salary and in another contemporaneous contract to receive another sum for an old pair of shoes, or as a “bonus,” or “advance,” when every one knows the two sums together are meant as salary, is repugnant to common sense and the instincts of open dealing. But, thanks to Mr. Phelps, this must be the procedure for another year. Though several of the local papers, before the meting, spoke of “the fight between the League and Brotherhood,” “the Brotherhood's ultimatum,” &c., there was no trouble of any kind. Since that eventful evening last fall, when the moguls with closed eyes and at one gulp swallowed the pill of recognition, there has been no semblance of a fight. The players have asked only what was fair and this the League has readily granted. The few points of difference were settled in a spirit of mutual concession, as is meet and proper between two parties whose interests are practically the same. Each learned something of the grievances of the other and both will be better for the knowledge gained. |
| Source | Sporting Life |
| Tags | |
| Warning | |
| Comment | Edit with form to add a comment |
| Query | Edit with form to add a query |
| Submitted by | Richard Hershberger |
| Origin | Initial Hershberger Clippings |
Comments
<comments voting="Plus" />