Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Al Davis at it again == Wants JaMarcus's $$ back (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter gianmarco
- Start date
Raiderfan32904
Footballguy
I'm really disappointed that Al Davis is trying to mount another legal battle. He held up the cities of Oakland, Irwindale, and LA for petty quarrels with the NFL. This offseason has been a dream so far. Purging Russell for an extra $3 million was the cherry on top. Why go and exhume Russells name now? Let him go back to Vegas and waste all his money. It won't last anyway. What is there to gain for Al Davis? The money wont get him any more sympathy from all that hate him. Russell was a bad bet and he lost, it happens. Davis needs to move on.
More and more, Al Davis is beginning to remind me of Donald Sterling. Not for the managerial incompetence (although yeah, there's that, too), but more for the bitter and vicious way he refuses to pay people what he is contractually obligated to pay them once he decides he doesn't like them anymore. Every time Sterling fires a coach who had guaranteed money in his contract, Sterling has refused to pay, been taken to court, and denied possessing even a basic understanding of what "guaranteed contract" means. Then you've got Al Davis refusing to pay Mike Shanahan and Lane Kiffin monies they were owed, and now it sounds like he's seeking a portion of Jamarcus's guaranteed money despite the fact that Jamarcus fully complied with all terms of his contract. It's not like there was language in the contract that said that Russell's guaranteed money was contingent on him not sucking.
Why should he give up $10 million if he's entitled to it?
How do you know what's in the contract?
Team ROFLCOPTERS
Footballguy
We're talking about guaranteed money here. Besides, The NFLPA would never allow any language that states poor play could result in repayment of works rendered. There isn't any career that could legaly ask for money back under those circumstances.Christo said:
Raiderfan32904
Footballguy
Let's bring up a distinction, he treats ex-coaches with disdain for owed monies. But just ask most players in the league about how he treats players. By and large, ex-players speak up for Al. He does his players right. In the case of JaMarcus Russell, his shortcomings were so tragic, his disdain for work so blatant, I think it hit a nerve and he is looking for a loophole to recover the money that JaMarcus fleeced. Fair's fair, and Russell is "entitled" to his money. It must burn Al though, that he allowed JaMarcus to be excused from the final team meeting of the 2009 season so that he could celebrate in Vegas. He even hired a bodyguard, er babysitter to go with him. Davis needs to look in the mirror, and take some fault in the way that JaMarcus was encouraged to live above scrutiny for his poor work habits. Davis himself enabled this dysfunctional situation and it was a perfect storm as JaMarcus and his weak personality couldn't cope with losses of his uncles who were a big part of his life. Then you had a young raw coach that was always at odds with Davis. But why did he hire him? Davis ultimately needs to eat the $10 million or keep reminding people of his shortcomings as an owner.SSOG said:
coolnerd
Footballguy
After my smart#$$ comment before I am almost afraid to sound like I defending him, but often what gets reported as guaranteed is not really "guaranteed," There are plenty of roster, workout and performance bonuses that get lumped into the guaranteeed amount but are bogus. Even some of the bonuses that are paid presume some sort of future performance. I am assuming that there is some sort of funny business in the contract that makes Davis thinks has he legal grounds to get money back. That said, guys like Davis are the worst people to deal with in the world. he has been successful, still has money and power, but absolutely trusts few and still refuses listen to those people he actually thinks aren't stupid. In short, nothing you can really do about him except shake you had and thank God he is not your owner.
Last edited by a moderator:
How do you know?
Kool-Aid Larry
Footballguy
I have seen countless situations like chris johnson's where some player claims he's outperforming his contract so he holds out for more money and a bunch of people are whining "PAY THE MAN!"
well, it looks like Off-the-markus significantly underperformed his deal, so in the interest of fairness I'm sure he'll be paying the man back.
well, it looks like Off-the-markus significantly underperformed his deal, so in the interest of fairness I'm sure he'll be paying the man back.
Wait, couldn't Davis have cut Russell before actually paying him any more money for 2010+?
I don't, but the fact that Al Davis now has a long history of refusing to give newly fired employees the money that was due to them under their contract (See: Shanahan, Mike and Kiffin, Lane) leads me to believe that this is likely just more of the same. Yeah, I'm prejudging the situation, but if Al doesn't like it, he should stop throwing a fit every time he fires someone and refusing to pay them the money that he owes.Christo said:
Russell signed a $68 million contract. Oakland paid him $39 million. Oakland is never going to have to pay $29 million of the contract that they signed.That's why players hold out. If a team is dissatisfied by their performance, they can REDUCE the player's salary at any time. Oakland just reduced Russell's salary by tens of millions of dollars. If a player is dissatisfied with his compensation, though, there's no way they can INCREASE their salary short of holding out and working out a new deal.
Raiderfan32904
Footballguy
You kidding? Mel Kiper makes his living nowadays on his panning of the Raiders crap picks. He almost never agrees with AD. Kiper is still PO'd about nobody liking his boy Clausen in the first round despite being up high on his "big board". If Kiper was allowed to be sued for being an idiot, that poor man would be camping under an overpass by now.
Yes, but a lot of folks in here are on a roll, so please don't trip them up with actual facts.
It really doesn't matter. The organization severed ties with the player, not the other way around. I don't see how they could take monies already paid back when it was team that decided to end the relationship. This isn't Ricky Williams or Barry Sanders where they retired, but wanted to keep the bonus money too. Now I did not read the linked article, but when Al got rid of his coaches, he did so in a way where he claimed "conduct detrimental to the team". Al could go with this statement, but the problem is, he literally paid the man 7 million (+ or -) just a few weeks before he cut him, so my guess would be that he would have to prove Russell did something wrong between that time and when he was cut. If you remember, Russell was on best behavior during that timeframe, so I don't see that Al has a leg to stand on.
Shutout
Footballguy
I'm guessing the basis of this is a "just cause" reason and if that is the case, teams have been able to recoup $ back under these situations. Charles Rogers is a recent one I believe.
This type of situaiton is fun to think about. On one hand, I kinda like it when teams give rediculous amounts of money to unproven players who have never played on this level of competition and then get burned. I think it kind of serves them right.
But IN THIS CASE, Russell was such a waste who was so overt in his apathy towards the profession, that I took it as a slap against the entirety of the professionals that bust their butts in this sport and not just Al Davis. So, in this circumstance, I am ALL for them recouping money and sending a message that you just can't ride a hype machine and cash it in (literally) by winning a huge rookie contract. If you aren't going to play, you need to get out and not be rewarded for it.
Either way it goes, I see a side of fairness. No one MADE the Raiders give him the Money and Russell certainly didn't earn what he got paid. So, I'm ok with the outcome. I just hope the message is clear to both sides. Earn what you make if youre the player and don't overpay if you're the team.
This type of situaiton is fun to think about. On one hand, I kinda like it when teams give rediculous amounts of money to unproven players who have never played on this level of competition and then get burned. I think it kind of serves them right.
But IN THIS CASE, Russell was such a waste who was so overt in his apathy towards the profession, that I took it as a slap against the entirety of the professionals that bust their butts in this sport and not just Al Davis. So, in this circumstance, I am ALL for them recouping money and sending a message that you just can't ride a hype machine and cash it in (literally) by winning a huge rookie contract. If you aren't going to play, you need to get out and not be rewarded for it.
Either way it goes, I see a side of fairness. No one MADE the Raiders give him the Money and Russell certainly didn't earn what he got paid. So, I'm ok with the outcome. I just hope the message is clear to both sides. Earn what you make if youre the player and don't overpay if you're the team.
Yes, it does.
twistd
Footballguy
There is truth to this. Andre Johnson just did a deal two years ago and wants to renegotiate his deal. We are seeing more and more of that. But we don't see any players repaying money when they underperform. And I think it would be one thing if Russell was was working his butt off, and it just wasn't working, or if he was being sidelined by injuries. But from all reports it is just a complete lack of effort on his part. He just doesn't care, and doesn't want to do the work. So I don't blame Davis for going after some of the money.
Hang 10
Footballguy
This is just ridiculous. There's noway Davis wins this thing. What kind of precedent would this set? That you can get a refund if you draft a bum?So you've read the contract?This is just ridiculous. There's noway Davis wins this thing. What kind of precedent would this set? That you can get a refund if you draft a bum?
Rooster
Footballguy
From the OP:
Now, if Russel blew through that 39 million already and asked Al Davis for an advance on money slated to be given to him during the 2010-12 seasons, I can see why Al would want it back. How are we sure that this is money that was guaranteed in the contract. If Al is playing games and saying the signing bonus was a "salary advance" for future seasons, then yeah I think he's off his rocker. But if this is the case of Russell blowing a ton of money and needing a true salary advance, I think Al's right in wanting that back.
No one here has a clue despite all of the rhetoric.
fatness
Footballguy
Hang 10
Footballguy
I'm going by the article that mentions several times that he's going after GUARANTEED money. So unless you've read the contract and found something to refute the article, pipe down.So you've read the contract?
This is just ridiculous. There's noway Davis wins this thing. What kind of precedent would this set? That you can get a refund if you draft a bum?
lynx4ben
Footballguy
You and your one liner comments are a waste of space.
As opposed to people talking about something they have no clue about?
Hang 10
Footballguy
What exactly do you have a clue about?
Many things. But like everyone else here, I haven't actually read Russell's contract. It may be guaranteed money. But no one here knows for sure. So unlike everyone else here, I'm not making definitive pronouncements on the outcome of the grievance.
Hang 10
Footballguy
No you're just trying to be argumentative. The article says it's guaranteed money and we don't have any reason to believe it's not.
massraider
Footballguy
I don't care what's in the contract. Pay him his stinking money, be happy there was no cap this year so you could cut him, and move on.
Team ROFLCOPTERS
Footballguy
Look, if you want to have a debate, do so. But these emotes and one liners are not helping you. We've given out well thought out posts and I for one feel silly continuing the conversation if you fail to deliver any thought behind your end of the dialogue.
Since when did guessing become "well thought out"?
*Educated guessing.And since always. Rankings and projections are nothing but guesses about how the season will play out. Do you mean to say that there has never been such a thing as a "well thought out set of rankings" in the history of fantasy football?Christo said:
What?If Andre Johnson thinks he is worth more than his contract dictates, he holds out for more money. If Houston thinks Andre Johnson is worth less than his contract dictates, it cuts him. How is this an inequitable relationship? I don't get people who are saying "well, when a player underperforms, do they give money back?". YES, THEY DO GIVE MONEY BACK. When a player underperforms, he gets cut and he loses out on 50+% of the money in his contract. If they sign with another team, it's going to be for their current market value, which is a lower dollar amount than their original contract (or else they weren't underperforming in the first place).
Raiderfan32904
Footballguy
http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Chasin...illion-man.html
I think that the above link is a very illuminating aritcle of Al Davis's ploy to get his money back. It's really very deceptive and kind of underhanded. Basically, he shuffled the money around so that the bonus money would change colors of money and (in his interpretation and his lawyers) the money comes out non-guaranteed. It's a paper thin case, but Al is looking to mediate at least having to not pay Russell's $3Million he is due this year. The NFLPA will likely fight him tooth and nail.
At the very least, Davis will get some satisfaction of holding up Russell's money through the court system. It is a bitter, petty, vengeful last ploy by Davis. He must really be mad that Russell has made him look like a prize sucker.
I think that the above link is a very illuminating aritcle of Al Davis's ploy to get his money back. It's really very deceptive and kind of underhanded. Basically, he shuffled the money around so that the bonus money would change colors of money and (in his interpretation and his lawyers) the money comes out non-guaranteed. It's a paper thin case, but Al is looking to mediate at least having to not pay Russell's $3Million he is due this year. The NFLPA will likely fight him tooth and nail.
At the very least, Davis will get some satisfaction of holding up Russell's money through the court system. It is a bitter, petty, vengeful last ploy by Davis. He must really be mad that Russell has made him look like a prize sucker.
Kool-Aid Larry
Footballguy
so, what you're saying is you think he's worth the 39 million they paid him and he has no reason to pay anything back.I disagree.he UNDERperformed his contract --- let him PAY THE MAN BACK!
Kool-Aid Larry
Footballguy
do you want to explain to us how you can give back money that you've never been paid?I'd really like to hear this explanation --- hopefully you won't duck out on this reply.
Uneducated guessing. Unlike projections, there is a definitive answer to this question right now. Either the money is guaranteed or it's not. But no one here knows the answer. We all might as well be flipping a coin. So it's ridiculous for people here to claim they are giving well thought out analysis in determining who will win.
Well, now you're comparing apples and dump trucks.Chris Johnson is threatening to hold out because his compensation in 2010 is less than what he believes his performance in 2010 will merit. It's not like he's holding out because he wants Tennessee to create a time machine and go back and pay him more money LAST YEAR because he rushed for 2000 yards. When a player holds out, it's because he believes his future value is greater than his future compensation. To use an extreme example... if Chris Johnson tore both ACLs in both knees on his last carry last season and wouldn't be at 100% for another 14 months, he probably wouldn't be considering holding out right now, because his future performance wouldn't merit increased compensation. And if he did threaten to hold out, the team would tell him he didn't have a leg to stand on (and yes, that pun was very much intended).Likewise, when a team cuts a player, it's because they believe his future value is LESS THAN his future compensation. Suggesting that the Raiders should build a time machine so they could pay Russell less last year is as absurd as suggesting that the Titans should build a time machine so they could pay Johnson MORE last year. Russell made what he made in 2009. Johnson made what he made in 2009. Nothing either player or team will ever do is ever going to change those numbers. All players and teams care about at this point is what those two players are going to make in 2010. If a team wants to pay a player less, they cut him. If a player wants a team to pay him more, he holds out.
Right. Reading multiple articles written by people with knowledge of the situation which all call the money "guaranteed" is the same thing as flipping a coin. Any type of "guessing" is "uneducated" unless we've actually read the contract, because of course there's no such thing as "sources with knowledge of the situation", and because Al Davis doesn't have any personal history of absolutely anything whatsoever.
Last edited by a moderator:
Didn't basically everyone know that the Raiders were looking for another QB option this year? I mean EVERYONE. Wasn't that right around the time Davis actually paid Russell this bonus? We all heard that the Raiders were one of the interested parties hoping to secure McNabb's services, right? Yet Davis paid Russell and didn't cut him until they signed Campbell. I'm not sorry to say this at all, but Davis can sit and spin on it for all I care and Russell can keep his money. Just another on a long list of reasons why fans of the Raiders should pray for 'ole Al to be declared off his rocker......sooner rather than later.
Kool-Aid Larry
Footballguy
guess we'll never know.I think I'd also like to know what a player could hold out from with 2 torn acl's --- he'd refuse to go on pup?
And all of those articles have one source--Russell's agent. According to NFL.com, another "source dubbed the potential ruling in the case as "50/50," depending on the interpretation of some language in Russell's contract."50/50. In other words, flipping a coin.
Similar threads
