Yup, never. Unless, of course, we happen to actually read the responses or anything.Neither cuts nor holdouts are about changing past compensation. They are about securing future compensation commensurate with expected future performance.
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
From NFP:
"The $3M
In any grievance between a player and a team, the key fact I look for is: Has the money been paid? If it has, then good luck to the team trying to get it back.
Earlier this year, the Lions won a large grievance award against the former second pick in the draft, Charles Rogers, money that was paid out long ago. To the Lions, I would say: Good luck with that.
What is remaining on the guarantee is $3M of the $9.45M 2010 salary that is guaranteed. That amount is also without an offset, meaning Russell would make that on top of whatever he might make from another team.
As part of their dispute and grievance, my sense is that the Raiders will not make payments on that $3M, resulting in Russell filing his own grievance to recover it. Perhaps this will be the Raiders’ way of trying to forge a settlement of somewhere between zero and the $9.55M they are requesting."
So if the Raiders have yet to pay this year's $3 million, Al Davis is essentially going back in time to recover prior year contract value. This is all centered around if the player has been compensated, which he has not. It has very little to do with whether a player underperformed or overperformed his contract. It has everything to do with what has been physically been paid. Sometime after 2009, Russell agreed to a salary advance, and that slight change gave Al his tiny loophole to turn the contract back on Russell.
"The $3M
In any grievance between a player and a team, the key fact I look for is: Has the money been paid? If it has, then good luck to the team trying to get it back.
Earlier this year, the Lions won a large grievance award against the former second pick in the draft, Charles Rogers, money that was paid out long ago. To the Lions, I would say: Good luck with that.
What is remaining on the guarantee is $3M of the $9.45M 2010 salary that is guaranteed. That amount is also without an offset, meaning Russell would make that on top of whatever he might make from another team.
As part of their dispute and grievance, my sense is that the Raiders will not make payments on that $3M, resulting in Russell filing his own grievance to recover it. Perhaps this will be the Raiders’ way of trying to forge a settlement of somewhere between zero and the $9.55M they are requesting."
So if the Raiders have yet to pay this year's $3 million, Al Davis is essentially going back in time to recover prior year contract value. This is all centered around if the player has been compensated, which he has not. It has very little to do with whether a player underperformed or overperformed his contract. It has everything to do with what has been physically been paid. Sometime after 2009, Russell agreed to a salary advance, and that slight change gave Al his tiny loophole to turn the contract back on Russell.
Last edited by a moderator:
Kool-Aid Larry
Footballguy
that response doesn't explain to me how you think a guy can pay money back that he never earned, so it's not much of a response.does it involve some kind of time machine?
apparently, what you're now telling me is that if chris johnson had secured a $50m bonus in march of '09 he'd be holding out because his future expectations are higher than his future pay.
which is just as nonsensical as your earlier comment about 'paying the man back' money which was never earned.
there are a lot of people who are casual fans and have no interest in nfl contracts, and I don't blame them a bit, but I see your name in a lot of threads so I'm kind of surprised that you don't have a better understanding.
I'd suggest you google up a few things and maybe even d/l the cba and educate yourself a little on the subject.
Last edited by a moderator:
A person can't give back what he's never been paid.I'm not sure what that has to do with the Raiders or Russell, but I hope my answer was helpful anyway.
Apparently, a lot of sports writers are privy to numerous details about Russell's contract -- when he was paid how much, which parts were guaranteed, etc. -- but nobody can quote from it. It was apparently modified in 2009, but nobody can quote from the modification, either. I'm not sure if the Raiders' grievance sets forth their position (as opposed to consisting merely of a prayer for relief), but nobody is quoting that, either.
Russell's agents are saying that any money paid for 2010-2012 was fully guaranteed, and is thus not recoverable. That sure makes a lot of sense. It would be weird for the Raiders to give Russell an advance on non-guaranteed salary. Also, from piecing together what some sports writers are saying, the money was apparently in the form of a bonus originally, but was transmuted into a salary advance by virtue of the 2009 modification (something to do with salary cap implications). To go from guaranteed money to non-guaranteed money, though, there needs to be consideration (e.g., the amount of money would have to increase); otherwise the modification is unenforceable.
Until someone quotes the contract, or until the Raiders at least tell us what their theory is, we're all somewhat in the dark. But I'm having trouble coming up with a realistic scenario under which the Raiders would have already paid out non-guaranteed money for the 2010 regular season or beyond.
Russell's agents are saying that any money paid for 2010-2012 was fully guaranteed, and is thus not recoverable. That sure makes a lot of sense. It would be weird for the Raiders to give Russell an advance on non-guaranteed salary. Also, from piecing together what some sports writers are saying, the money was apparently in the form of a bonus originally, but was transmuted into a salary advance by virtue of the 2009 modification (something to do with salary cap implications). To go from guaranteed money to non-guaranteed money, though, there needs to be consideration (e.g., the amount of money would have to increase); otherwise the modification is unenforceable.
Until someone quotes the contract, or until the Raiders at least tell us what their theory is, we're all somewhat in the dark. But I'm having trouble coming up with a realistic scenario under which the Raiders would have already paid out non-guaranteed money for the 2010 regular season or beyond.
Last edited by a moderator:
Your entire argument is a red herring. You originally drew parallelisms between a player outperforming his contract and fans saying "PAY THE MAN" and your idea that when a player underperforms his contract fans should say "PAY THE MAN BACK". It's a stupid comparison. "PAY THE MAN" means increase a player's future compensation, so "PAY THE MAN BACK", in order to remain true to the parallel you were trying to draw, must mean "decrease the player's future compensation". And teams can do that any time they want simply by cutting the player.It's nice that you compounded your red herring argument with a big fat straw man, too. First off, bonus monies are generally considered part of the lifetime contract, so if Chris Johnson had a $50 million bonus last year and he was still under the same contract, he probably wouldn't consider himself underpaid this year. Second off... lots of players do just that. They front load their contracts with boatloads of guaranteed money and then try to get a new contract several years later because the remaining value of the contract is lower than they think they're worth.Kool-Aid Larry said:
Raiderfan32904
Footballguy
So it's all specultation on the angle of the sportswriters as to if Russell will lose any of the guaranteed money promised him. Most agree the case is paper thin, but without a contract it's all alot of guesswork (by all sides). If Davis can make his case and get some satisfaction, it will have huge implications in how contracts (especially rookie) are written.
msommer
Footballguy
Doesn't deserve is somewhat different from not legally entitled to. You would think the old man has checked whether it is one or the other but after all it is Al Davis....
Similar threads
