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?

 

 

Yes, and if that was Williams thought, I bet he was more than surprised by the extra year.

But it still doesn't explain who, on his side, didn't know or didn't advise Williams correctly.

I believe he had a different agent then, but any agent worth his salt, would have known about the option year.

The mistake was made initially, IMO, and since then, his side has been looking at how to get out of it.

At least that's how I see it.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

And this would make sense too.

But it still doesn't explain who, on his side, didn't know or didn't advise Williams correctly.

I believe he had a different agent then, but any agent worth his salt, would have known about the option year.

The mistake was made initially, IMO, and since then, his side has been looking at how to get out of it.

At least that's how I see it.

There's no proof his previous agent advised him incorrectly. His former agent has represented a number of CFL players and still does. Also it appears his initial claim of not being offered a 1+1 contract was dropped since there hasn't been a mention of that since this first went public iirc.

 

But it still doesn't explain who, on his side, didn't know or didn't advise Williams correctly.

I believe he had a different agent then, but any agent worth his salt, would have known about the option year.

The mistake was made initially, IMO, and since then, his side has been looking at how to get out of it.

At least that's how I see it.

There's no proof his previous agent advised him incorrectly. His former agent has represented a number of CFL players and still does. Also it appears his initial claim of not being offered a 1+1 contract was dropped since there hasn't been a mention of that since this first went public iirc.

 

But, but....you left out my big IF in the 1st sentence. That is the bread crumb of explanation that leads right to the loaf of understanding.

If you don not provide the correct paper work explaining the option year to the player to sign why do you expect the contract to remain legally valid. The Ti Cats tried to pull a fast one or they were ignorant of the rules. Same result he is a FA.

Should be a standard form across the league..... 

It is it is an addendum to the CBA that teams are expected to have players sign with their contracts.

It is it is an addendum to the CBA that teams are expected to have players sign with their contracts.

So did Hammy have him sign one?

I would suggest unlikely given the fact that he has now been granted FA status,

I could be wrong but I don't think it was the addendum that was to be signed when the contract was originally signed that was the issue. I thought it was a letter sent this past off-season saying they were picking up his option year that was the one that was worded badly.

The option year letter basically only has to say we are picking up the option on your contract. It has to be given to or sent out to a player by a specific date.

If you don not provide the correct paper work explaining the option year to the player to sign why do you expect the contract to remain legally valid. The Ti Cats tried to pull a fast one or they were ignorant of the rules. Same result he is a FA.

 

 

Not trying to pull a fast one, they just have a boilerplate letter they send to their option year players stating they are picking up the option.

 

Apparently that boilerplate is crappy/inadequate in expressing that intent (court's opinion)