BASEBALL,
Cffice of the Commissioner,
oo Nerth Michigan Avenue, Chicago
February 24, 1942

In re PLAYER ANTHCNY RAVICH
-In 1939, this player was signed by New York American League Club scout to
an agreement---

"to sign contract with the Norfolk Club at the close of
my college career, in consideration of the following pay-

ments:
lst payment June l, 1939 $250, 00
end . Sept. “FS, 7 1939 250.00
a 8 Aug, 15, 1940 750,00"

The agreement bears no date, but the context indicates it was made pvrier
to dune 1, 1939, .

This agreement was withheld from filing and promulgation, in violation of
the rules requirement that it be filed within 20 days of date made..

When the player was ready to report at the close ef his college career,
Nerfolk decided it could not use him, and he was signed to contract with Amster-
dam, another New York subsidiary, without the filing of any agreement by
Norfolk transferring his contract to Amsterdam-~ which was, of course, another
rules violation,

Amsterdam decided his services were not worth the $750 bonus ccntracted to
be paid August 15, 1940, and released him, whereupon the player signed a new
Amsterdam contract with $250 immediate payment and "an additional bonus of $500
if retained after June 1, 1941." This should not have been approved (as the
rules prohibit reduction of first-year contract cbligations te a player), but
threugh an error in the National Association office it got by.

When the $500 payment "if retained after June 1, 1941" came up, the
player, as he states, "was once again apprgached to take part of the $500 and
let the remainder go to a later date; and I demanded the full bonus or my
release," Thereupon he was released,

Notice hereby is given all clubs that such methods cannot be avproved,.. A
first-year player must be paid all moneys agreed to be paid him under the
eriginal contract, or he must be unconditicnally released. If released, he
cannot be re-signed by the releasing club (er by any other club directly or
indirectly affiliated with it) exgept upon complete and exact fulfillment 9f
the terms of the original contract, No excepticns can be made in the absence
of contingencies for which the club has had no responsibility and which result
in failure of the club te secure the contemplated trial ef the vlayer's services,
in which case an extension of the trial date (equivalent to the lost period)
may be approved.

As to the rules violation by withholding promalgation of the 1939 agreement,
it is set forth by George Weiss, on behalf of the New York organization, that
this was "solely because ef the effect it (filing) would have qn the player's
college athletic career," (Another effect is that such nen-promlgeation sarees
enables the club to contrel, secretly, the services of all players held under
such "confidential" arrangements, resulting in inability to check the number of
players controlled by the club and often enabling the club to violate the
player limits.)

It is further represented by Mr. Weiss that such secrecy is essential to |
enable clubs to give "the benefits of college assistance to players," and that
these benefits to players "far outweigh the only criticism-~-namely, that such
a player is under the impression he is obligated to the club assisting him."
As noted in the foregoing paragraph, there is alse the "criticism" that player
centrel rules and limitations are evaded--- a factor which would be eliminated
if the rules were changed (as occasionally has been suggested by clubs seeking
te legitimatize such agreements) to authorize "confidential" filing, with the
Comnissioner gr National Association president withholding promulgation, That,
ef course, is inconceivable, as it would include them and the entire baseball