[vincesanity82]

A source recently forwarded to us a copy of the letter sent by lawyer David "One Year" Cornwell to Commissioner Roger Goodell on behalf of former Cardinals assistant coach Richie Anderson. (We lovingly call Cornwell "One Year" because it seems that many of the players he represents in matters relating to the substance-abuse policy end up with a one-year suspension.)

In the letter, Cornwell requests that the Commissioner arbitrate the question of whether the Cardinals owe to Anderson the balance of his pay in the wake of the team's decision to fire him after his March arrest for solicitation of prostitution.

Anderson's contract specifies that any disputes will be settled by arbitration before the NFL Commissioner -- who is hardly a neutral party when it comes to deciding issues involving one of the 32 franchises with a vote regarding his pay and continued employment. It's part of the league's aggressive approach to legal affairs, ensuring the most favorable forums for any contentious issues that might arise between the league and its many employees. Coaches want jobs as coaches, and few have the leverage (or the foresight) to ask for the removal of terms that could work against their interests if/when the poo hits the propeller.

With that said, we think that Goodell is fair, and will be fair in this and any dispute. But there are many close questions that come up in cases of this nature, and Goodell can resolve a close question in favor of the team, in a manner that seems objectively fair and reasonable.

In this case, Cornwell's argument is that teams lack the authority to discipline coaches and other NFL employees for conduct arising beyond the scope of the employment agreement. Cornwell cites the NFL Constitution and Bylaws and the Personal Conduct in support of the position that only the Commissioner can take action when an employee allegedly violates the law away from work.

Cornwell also emphasizes that the Cardinals did not advise Anderson that he was being fired "for cause," which suggests to us that there's a provision in Anderson's contract allowing for the coach to be fired for specific performance-based reasons with no further pay obligation.

Much of this dispute will hinge on the definition of "cause" under the contract. Even if the team didn't use the abra-cadabra language in cutting the cord, any language permitting a for-cause termination based on conduct such as being arrested for trying to purchase sexual favors would likely nudge Goodell toward finding that Anderson won't get paid based on the failure of the Cardinals to utter the word "duck" in response to the obvious quacking.

Cornwell's letter also discloses that the team initially offered Anderson a severance agreement worth six weeks' pay and moving expenses, in exchange for a waiver of all legal rights. In revoking the offer after Anderson failed to accept it, Michael Bidwill apparently did not advise Anderson that the termination was for cause. (Cornwell's letter is a bit unclear in this regard, because he apparently omitted the key word "not" when initially describing the key portion of Bidwill's letter. The typo isn't surprising, since Cornwell likewise misspelled the name of coach Ken Whisenhunt. Four times. And we fully appreciate the iroyn of this remarck becasue we otfen has a few typos hear.)

Hanging in the balance is $220,000 in 2007 salary and $230,000 in 2008 wages.

And that raises another point. Only $220,000 for an assistant NFL coach? We haven't conducted a wage survey of NFL assistant coaches, but that seems a little on the low side to use.

ProFootballTalk.com -- The Best Pro Football Scoop on the Internet