Eagles File Suit Against TO (1 Viewer)

[BuddyKnuckles]

LINK

The move is a mere formality, aimed at enforcing an arbitritation award that the Eagles secured earlier in the year regarding Owens’ obligation to repay bonus money based on his conduct in 2005, which culminated in a four-game suspension for conduct detrimental to the team. The suit was required because Owens has reportedly ignored efforts by the team to recover the money.

The team thereafter sent him home with pay, but withheld the checks and applied them to the total bonus repayment obligation of $1.7 million. It left a difference of $769,117, which Owens must pay out of his own pocket.

And someone who should be paying particular attention to this is Bengals receiver Chad Johnson. If he follows through on his threat to hold out and/or retire, he eventually could be required to write an even bigger check to the Bengals.

you sign a contract, you should be held to it, regardless of how "bad" it appears in hindsight

 

[sholditch]

Amen. If players want their contracts reevaluated after every time they catch a ball, sign only one-year deals. Yet none of them want that because what they really want is guarunteed pay even if they suck, but if they play well, they want more money no matter how much they are given in the first place.

 

[Carnifex]

Amen. If players want their contracts reevaluated after every time they catch a ball, sign only one-year deals. Yet none of them want that because what they really want is guarunteed pay even if they suck, but if they play well, they want more money no matter how much they are given in the first place.

Do you have any issues with teams releasing players who are under contract, or asking them to take a pay cut to avoid being released?

 

[RockHard]

Amen. If players want their contracts reevaluated after every time they catch a ball, sign only one-year deals. Yet none of them want that because what they really want is guarunteed pay even if they suck, but if they play well, they want more money no matter how much they are given in the first place.

Do you have any issues with teams releasing players who are under contract, or asking them to take a pay cut to avoid being released?

 

[marshall88]

Amen. If players want their contracts reevaluated after every time they catch a ball, sign only one-year deals. Yet none of them want that because what they really want is guarunteed pay even if they suck, but if they play well, they want more money no matter how much they are given in the first place.

Do you have any issues with teams releasing players who are under contract, or asking them to take a pay cut to avoid being released?

Sorry to hijack this thread re TO, but I have to vent: Why should he have issue with that? That same argument is brought up in every thread discussing NFL contracts, and it makes no sense. The moral premises is that each party in a contract should be bound by the terms of the written contract between them. When a player holds out for more money, he is breaching the terms of the written contract. When an NFL team releases a player, it is NOT breaching the contract. The contract specifically allows the NFL team to release the player on certain terms. That's the deal the player signed. If he doesn't like it, don't sign it. He can always go play pro football in Canada if he wants. Because NFL teams have the ability to cut players (i.e. no guaranteed money), players responded by demanding increasingly higher signing bonuses. I believe it's unethical for a player to demand a large signing bonus to offset the non-guaranteed nature of a contract, and then to simply refuse to perform under the the terms of the contract because they want more money.

 

[Chase Stuart]

LINK

The move is a mere formality, aimed at enforcing an arbitritation award that the Eagles secured earlier in the year regarding Owens’ obligation to repay bonus money based on his conduct in 2005, which culminated in a four-game suspension for conduct detrimental to the team. The suit was required because Owens has reportedly ignored efforts by the team to recover the money.

The team thereafter sent him home with pay, but withheld the checks and applied them to the total bonus repayment obligation of $1.7 million. It left a difference of $769,117, which Owens must pay out of his own pocket.

And someone who should be paying particular attention to this is Bengals receiver Chad Johnson. If he follows through on his threat to hold out and/or retire, he eventually could be required to write an even bigger check to the Bengals.

you sign a contract, you should be held to it, regardless of how "bad" it appears in hindsight

What does your statement have to do with the article?

 

[Chase Stuart]

Amen. If players want their contracts reevaluated after every time they catch a ball, sign only one-year deals. Yet none of them want that because what they really want is guarunteed pay even if they suck, but if they play well, they want more money no matter how much they are given in the first place.

Do you have any issues with teams releasing players who are under contract, or asking them to take a pay cut to avoid being released?

Sorry to hijack this thread re TO, but I have to vent: Why should he have issue with that? That same argument is brought up in every thread discussing NFL contracts, and it makes no sense. The moral premises is that each party in a contract should be bound by the terms of the written contract between them. When a player holds out for more money, he is breaching the terms of the written contract. When an NFL team releases a player, it is NOT breaching the contract. The contract specifically allows the NFL team to release the player on certain terms. That's the deal the player signed. If he doesn't like it, don't sign it. He can always go play pro football in Canada if he wants. Because NFL teams have the ability to cut players (i.e. no guaranteed money), players responded by demanding increasingly higher signing bonuses. I believe it's unethical for a player to demand a large signing bonus to offset the non-guaranteed nature of a contract, and then to simply refuse to perform under the the terms of the contract because they want more money.

How do you know this? Does the contract say "if player X holds out, this is considered a breach of the contract, and player X is required to pay team Y $Z?"I don't think that's the case.

 

[Beaumont]

Amen. If players want their contracts reevaluated after every time they catch a ball, sign only one-year deals. Yet none of them want that because what they really want is guarunteed pay even if they suck, but if they play well, they want more money no matter how much they are given in the first place.

Do you have any issues with teams releasing players who are under contract, or asking them to take a pay cut to avoid being released?

Sorry to hijack this thread re TO, but I have to vent: Why should he have issue with that? That same argument is brought up in every thread discussing NFL contracts, and it makes no sense. The moral premises is that each party in a contract should be bound by the terms of the written contract between them. When a player holds out for more money, he is breaching the terms of the written contract. When an NFL team releases a player, it is NOT breaching the contract. The contract specifically allows the NFL team to release the player on certain terms. That's the deal the player signed. If he doesn't like it, don't sign it. He can always go play pro football in Canada if he wants. Because NFL teams have the ability to cut players (i.e. no guaranteed money), players responded by demanding increasingly higher signing bonuses. I believe it's unethical for a player to demand a large signing bonus to offset the non-guaranteed nature of a contract, and then to simply refuse to perform under the the terms of the contract because they want more money.

How do you know this? Does the contract say "if player X holds out, this is considered a breach of the contract, and player X is required to pay team Y $Z?"I don't think that's the case.

Dont we know this to be the case because the player agreed to play for X amount of dollars? If you refuse to play by holding out, then you are by definition breaching right?There are plenty of contracts in this world with unilateral termination provisions favoring one side that still bind the parties until terminated.

 

[BuddyKnuckles]

LINK

The move is a mere formality, aimed at enforcing an arbitritation award that the Eagles secured earlier in the year regarding Owens’ obligation to repay bonus money based on his conduct in 2005, which culminated in a four-game suspension for conduct detrimental to the team. The suit was required because Owens has reportedly ignored efforts by the team to recover the money.

The team thereafter sent him home with pay, but withheld the checks and applied them to the total bonus repayment obligation of $1.7 million. It left a difference of $769,117, which Owens must pay out of his own pocket.

And someone who should be paying particular attention to this is Bengals receiver Chad Johnson. If he follows through on his threat to hold out and/or retire, he eventually could be required to write an even bigger check to the Bengals.

you sign a contract, you should be held to it, regardless of how "bad" it appears in hindsight

What does your statement have to do with the article?

<A> The suit is the result of the issues TO created, breach of contract, and 4 game suspension < TO B> TO didnt like his contract, so he threw a tantrum <TO C> If he didnt like the contract so much, he should've just played with the RavensConclusion, player gets a contract, honor it or accept the consequences

 

[BigJim®]

I think it is a little misleading to most people to describe this as "filing a suit against T.O." even though technically it is accurate.

There is no new dispute, the Eagles are simply filing a motion to enforce an Arbitration award which is getting one step closer to using alternative means to collect a judgment, should T.O. not pay up. Sure, this indicates that T.O. failed to simply write out a check and is making the Eagles jump through some more administrative hoops to collect from him, but the underlying dispute is over and there is nothing new going on, other than the Eagles making sure they have a way to collect their judgment.

 

[Brownsfan07]

screw TO. he needs to pay up the loot or get the #### kicked out of him

TO has BO!

 

[JAA]

LINK

The move is a mere formality, aimed at enforcing an arbitritation award that the Eagles secured earlier in the year regarding Owens’ obligation to repay bonus money based on his conduct in 2005, which culminated in a four-game suspension for conduct detrimental to the team. The suit was required because Owens has reportedly ignored efforts by the team to recover the money.

The team thereafter sent him home with pay, but withheld the checks and applied them to the total bonus repayment obligation of $1.7 million. It left a difference of $769,117, which Owens must pay out of his own pocket.

And someone who should be paying particular attention to this is Bengals receiver Chad Johnson. If he follows through on his threat to hold out and/or retire, he eventually could be required to write an even bigger check to the Bengals.

you sign a contract, you should be held to it, regardless of how "bad" it appears in hindsight

Which is exactly the reason owners NEVER cut players who are still under contract ...

 

[roadkill1292]

I think it is a little misleading to most people to describe this as "filing a suit against T.O." even though technically it is accurate.There is no new dispute, the Eagles are simply filing a motion to enforce an Arbitration award which is getting one step closer to using alternative means to collect a judgment, should T.O. not pay up. Sure, this indicates that T.O. failed to simply write out a check and is making the Eagles jump through some more administrative hoops to collect from him, but the underlying dispute is over and there is nothing new going on, other than the Eagles making sure they have a way to collect their judgment.

Really, this one is settled and done except for the collections part. This thread probably isn't the best one in which to resume the running argument over the league's contract structure.

 

[Chase Stuart]

LINK

The move is a mere formality, aimed at enforcing an arbitritation award that the Eagles secured earlier in the year regarding Owens’ obligation to repay bonus money based on his conduct in 2005, which culminated in a four-game suspension for conduct detrimental to the team. The suit was required because Owens has reportedly ignored efforts by the team to recover the money.

The team thereafter sent him home with pay, but withheld the checks and applied them to the total bonus repayment obligation of $1.7 million. It left a difference of $769,117, which Owens must pay out of his own pocket.

And someone who should be paying particular attention to this is Bengals receiver Chad Johnson. If he follows through on his threat to hold out and/or retire, he eventually could be required to write an even bigger check to the Bengals.

you sign a contract, you should be held to it, regardless of how "bad" it appears in hindsight

What does your statement have to do with the article?

<A> The suit is the result of the issues TO created, breach of contract, and 4 game suspension < TO B> TO didnt like his contract, so he threw a tantrum <TO C> If he didnt like the contract so much, he should've just played with the RavensConclusion, player gets a contract, honor it or accept the consequences

The suit has nothing to do with breach of contract. It's about his 4 game suspension.

 

[Jason Wood]

Chalk this up to a really slow post draft NFL news cycle...this appeared early this morning on the main ESPN NFL page and I thought, "how is this news, really?"

 

[Bri]

Chalk this up to a really slow post draft NFL news cycle...this appeared early this morning on the main ESPN NFL page and I thought, "how is this news, really?"

I agreeWhat if the NFL has to take his money from the Cowboys and pay the Eagles with it? That would have been more "sensational"

 

[westbrook36]

Let's just hope TO can still afford to pay his family. I would hate to see him get suicidal thoughts again.

 

[Fiddles]

Chalk this up to a really slow post draft NFL news cycle...this appeared early this morning on the main ESPN NFL page and I thought, "how is this news, really?"

there are a million interesting stories post draft. espns sensationalist focus is highly annoying.

 

[Maroney=Sped]

Amen. If players want their contracts reevaluated after every time they catch a ball, sign only one-year deals. Yet none of them want that because what they really want is guarunteed pay even if they suck, but if they play well, they want more money no matter how much they are given in the first place.

Do you have any issues with teams releasing players who are under contract, or asking them to take a pay cut to avoid being released?

None. The only part of the contract that both sides intend at the outset to be enforced as written is the guaranteed money or bonus portion. That other stuff is just fluff that keeps the salary cap bean counters happy, especially on the back end of the contract. And of course it's the guaranteed money that is at issue here. This certainly is no place for "Live Better, Work Union" bumper stickers.