NFL contract basics 101 (2 Viewers)

[cashman88]

Nothing in this thread changes the fact that a player is not required to play under any contract. Signing bonus or no they can decide not to play. In some cases the team can try to recoupe the bonus, if the contract is written in such a way, but a player holding out is not violating a contract any more than a player who retires while still under contract.

The team can terminate the contract at any time, and the player can chose not to play at any time  If the player says he will not play unless the team rips up the contract, that violates nothing. It is the players right to decide if he is going to play. The contract simply tellls what the player will make if he plays, and the player is bound by that unless the team decides to rip it up. No player can be forced to play, that's not how contracts work.

exactly

No, that is wrong.It is true that a personal services contract cannot be specifically enforced -- a NFL player cannot be forced to play; Paul McCartney cannot be forced to sing at a concert, etc. BUT, that doesn't change the fact that the players refusal to play is a breach of the contract. So, the statement that: "If the player says he will not play unless the team rips up the contract, that violates nothing" is wrong. It is a breach.

Damages are another issue. Every contract defines what is a default under the contract, and provides for damages to the non-defaulting party. The non-defaulting party may elect to pursue damages, or not.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

To me the interesting scenario in this dispute will be what happens if Owens reports to camp, but sulks and malingers, or even fakes an injury. Owens has now said publically that the Eagles will not like what happens if he reports to camp without a new contract. Could that statement be an indication of Owens intent to give less than his best efforts, to participate, but only in bad faith? I certainly think that it could, and if this situation were to come about, and then deteriorate to the point where it could not be mutually reconciled, Owens statement could haunt him in court were the Eagles willing to make a precedent setting example of him in a test case.

 

[ko-jaxx]

dont forget to wipe their man juices off your chin

Now this is a well thought out response. No wonder you can't understand basic concepts regarding contracts that have been explained here.

Well, at least you didn't inlcude anything racist or any religious slurs. Of course, you knew those would just get you banned again - decided not to go for twice in a month, huh?

i understand contracts. you dont. the proof is in your posts

I am a lawyer, who, while in law school won an Am.Jur. (American Jurisprudence) award in contracts, and who clerked for his Contracts professor researching and proof reading his textbook on contract law. I can state with a high degree of confidence that you don't understand what you are talking about.

iam william renquist, you dont know what you are talking about

 

[jurb26]

To me the interesting scenario in this dispute will be what happens if Owens reports to camp, but sulks and malingers, or even fakes an injury.

Owens has now said publically that the Eagles will not like what happens if he reports to camp without a new contract. Could that statement be an indication of Owens intent to give less than his best efforts, to participate, but only in bad faith? I certainly think that it could, and if this situation were to come about, and then deteriorate to the point where it could not be mutually reconciled, Owens statement could haunt him in court were the Eagles willing to make a precedent setting example of him in a test case.

If this is indeed what he has in mind, then I would have to say that TO dug his own grave and severely hurt his bargaining chips when dealing not only with the Eagles, but any future team as well.

 

[jurb26]

dont forget to wipe their man juices off your chin

Now this is a well thought out response. No wonder you can't understand basic concepts regarding contracts that have been explained here.

Well, at least you didn't inlcude anything racist or any religious slurs. Of course, you knew those would just get you banned again - decided not to go for twice in a month, huh?

i understand contracts. you dont. the proof is in your posts

I am a lawyer, who, while in law school won an Am.Jur. (American Jurisprudence) award in contracts, and who clerked for his Contracts professor researching and proof reading his textbook on contract law. I can state with a high degree of confidence that you don't understand what you are talking about.

iam william renquist, you dont know what you are talking about

No, you are on the ignore list....

 

[ko-jaxx]

Nothing in this thread changes the fact that a player is not required to play under any contract. Signing bonus or no they can decide not to play. In some cases the team can try to recoupe the bonus, if the contract is written in such a way, but a player holding out is not violating a contract any more than a player who retires while still under contract.

The team can terminate the contract at any time, and the player can chose not to play at any time  If the player says he will not play unless the team rips up the contract, that violates nothing. It is the players right to decide if he is going to play. The contract simply tellls what the player will make if he plays, and the player is bound by that unless the team decides to rip it up. No player can be forced to play, that's not how contracts work.

exactly

No, that is wrong.It is true that a personal services contract cannot be specifically enforced -- a NFL player cannot be forced to play; Paul McCartney cannot be forced to sing at a concert, etc. BUT, that doesn't change the fact that the players refusal to play is a breach of the contract. So, the statement that: "If the player says he will not play unless the team rips up the contract, that violates nothing" is wrong. It is a breach.

Damages are another issue. Every contract defines what is a default under the contract, and provides for damages to the non-defaulting party. The non-defaulting party may elect to pursue damages, or not.

and if they choose not to pursue, the player can do what he wants

 

[P Boy]

iam william renquist, you dont know what you are talking about

To the Honorable Judge Renquist,Sir, with all due respect, you seem to have greater expertise and experience with body fluids than you do with contract law, spelling, capitalization, grammar, and punctuation.

 

[BlueOnion]

To me the interesting scenario in this dispute will be what happens if Owens reports to camp, but sulks and malingers, or even fakes an injury.

Owens has now said publically that the Eagles will not like what happens if he reports to camp without a new contract. Could that statement be an indication of Owens intent to give less than his best efforts, to participate, but only in bad faith? I certainly think that it could, and if this situation were to come about, and then deteriorate to the point where it could not be mutually reconciled, Owens statement could haunt him in court were the Eagles willing to make a precedent setting example of him in a test case.

It comes down to leverage. TO would be willing to risk his reputation which could (not a definite would) hurt his negotiations with future teams. The Eagles have to be willing to risk playing this season without the services of a dedicated Terrel Owens. Right now I think TO has more to lose than TO. I am sure others may disagree with me, but this is what it boils down to between the Eagles and TO.

 

[ko-jaxx]

iam william renquist, you dont know what you are talking about

To the Honorable Judge Renquist,Sir, with all due respect, you seem to have greater expertise and experience with body fluids than you do with contract law, spelling, capitalization, grammar, and punctuation.

motion denied

 

[yellowdog]

dont forget to wipe their man juices off your chin

Now this is a well thought out response. No wonder you can't understand basic concepts regarding contracts that have been explained here.

Well, at least you didn't inlcude anything racist or any religious slurs. Of course, you knew those would just get you banned again - decided not to go for twice in a month, huh?

i understand contracts. you dont. the proof is in your posts

 

[ko-jaxx]

dont forget to wipe their man juices off your chin

Now this is a well thought out response. No wonder you can't understand basic concepts regarding contracts that have been explained here.

Well, at least you didn't inlcude anything racist or any religious slurs. Of course, you knew those would just get you banned again - decided not to go for twice in a month, huh?

i understand contracts. you dont. the proof is in your posts

 

[yellowdog]

dont forget to wipe their man juices off your chin

Now this is a well thought out response. No wonder you can't understand basic concepts regarding contracts that have been explained here.

Well, at least you didn't inlcude anything racist or any religious slurs. Of course, you knew those would just get you banned again - decided not to go for twice in a month, huh?

i understand contracts. you dont. the proof is in your posts

jackass

 

[BlueOnion]

dont forget to wipe their man juices off your chin

Now this is a well thought out response. No wonder you can't understand basic concepts regarding contracts that have been explained here.

Well, at least you didn't inlcude anything racist or any religious slurs. Of course, you knew those would just get you banned again - decided not to go for twice in a month, huh?

i understand contracts. you dont. the proof is in your posts

Has this board really sunk this far?

 

[yellowdog]

dont forget to wipe their man juices off your chin

Now this is a well thought out response. No wonder you can't understand basic concepts regarding contracts that have been explained here.

Well, at least you didn't inlcude anything racist or any religious slurs. Of course, you knew those would just get you banned again - decided not to go for twice in a month, huh?

i understand contracts. you dont. the proof is in your posts

Has this board really sunk this far?

#### for brains changed my original post when he quoted me.

 

[BlueOnion]

#### for brains changed my original post when he quoted me.

Thanks yellowdog, I see what he is laughing at. Now should I repeat my question?*** Out of this forum for a while.

 

[B-Deep]

#### for brains changed my original post when he quoted me.

Thanks yellowdog, I see what he is laughing at. Now should I repeat my question?*** Out of this forum for a while.

I agree. It's too bad because I wanted to discuss it more, but everyone in this forum thinks anyone who dosen't agree with them is a bluberring idiot, and they will be glad to insult you like a 2nd grader to prove it.I'll look elsewhere for adult conversation on this topic.

 

[ko-jaxx]

dont forget to wipe their man juices off your chin

Now this is a well thought out response. No wonder you can't understand basic concepts regarding contracts that have been explained here.

Well, at least you didn't inlcude anything racist or any religious slurs. Of course, you knew those would just get you banned again - decided not to go for twice in a month, huh?

its a joke, just like this topici understand contracts. you dont. the proof is in your posts

Has this board really sunk this far?

 

[ko-jaxx]

#### for brains changed my original post when he quoted me.

Thanks yellowdog, I see what he is laughing at. Now should I repeat my question?*** Out of this forum for a while.

I agree. It's too bad because I wanted to discuss it more, but everyone in this forum thinks anyone who dosen't agree with them is a bluberring idiot, and they will be glad to insult you like a 2nd grader to prove it.I'll look elsewhere for adult conversation on this topic.

that makes 2 of us

 

[-OZ-]

another good topic gone due to /

 

[inca911]

Couple points:1. A player who "outperforms" his contract can try to negotiate new compensation, but the team is not required to do anything. The less-than-optimal situation for this players is balanced by the player who "underperforms" his contract. The player who "underperforms" his contract still has the signing bonus money in his pocket and the team can't do anything about it. The NFL PA understands this total balance, but some specific players don't care about anyone but themselves (understandable). The guaranteed signing money will be great for owners some days, and an absolute waste on other days. The NFL PA has this deal set up in the best interest of ALL players, including those who suffer career-ending injury--not just those who do really well on the field.2. That said, a star player who isn't making squat will take the position that their risk of career-ending injury isn't appropriately balanced by their existing contract/signing bonus. That is the TO/JWalker position and it's a hard one to casually dismiss. The NFL PA is acting in the best interest of ALL players, but this position is in the best interest of only one player. Hence the player's agent must work the problem and actually is going against the goals of the NFL PA and the CBA. This is the reason for these disputes. There is no easy solution as this is a risk-based compensation problem. Nobody wants to take the extra risk.I feel that the owner already took the signing bonus risk once, and shouldn't have to take a larger risk at a later time.

 

[BlueOnion]

Couple points:

1. A player who "outperforms" his contract can try to negotiate new compensation, but the team is not required to do anything. The less-than-optimal situation for this players is balanced by the player who "underperforms" his contract. The player who "underperforms" his contract still has the signing bonus money in his pocket and the team can't do anything about it. The NFL PA understands this total balance, but some specific players don't care about anyone but themselves (understandable). The guaranteed signing money will be great for owners some days, and an absolute waste on other days. The NFL PA has this deal set up in the best interest of ALL players, including those who suffer career-ending injury--not just those who do really well on the field.

2. That said, a star player who isn't making squat will take the position that their risk of career-ending injury isn't appropriately balanced by their existing contract/signing bonus. That is the TO/JWalker position and it's a hard one to casually dismiss. The NFL PA is acting in the best interest of ALL players, but this position is in the best interest of only one player. Hence the player's agent must work the problem and actually is going against the goals of the NFL PA and the CBA. This is the reason for these disputes. There is no easy solution as this is a risk-based compensation problem. Nobody wants to take the extra risk.

I feel that the owner already took the signing bonus risk once, and shouldn't have to take a larger risk at a later time.

When it comes to the NFL CBA, I am not easily impressed. I am very impressed; well written and explained.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

dont forget to wipe their man juices off your chin

Now this is a well thought out response. No wonder you can't understand basic concepts regarding contracts that have been explained here.

Well, at least you didn't inlcude anything racist or any religious slurs. Of course, you knew those would just get you banned again - decided not to go for twice in a month, huh?

i understand contracts. you dont. the proof is in your posts

I am a lawyer, who, while in law school won an Am.Jur. (American Jurisprudence) award in contracts, and who clerked for his Contracts professor researching and proof reading his textbook on contract law. I can state with a high degree of confidence that you don't understand what you are talking about.

iam william renquist, you dont know what you are talking about

Some shtick advice. When claiming to be a famous and well educated man it is best to punctuate. You might also consider spelling the man's name correctly.

 

[-OZ-]

dont forget to wipe their man juices off your chin

Now this is a well thought out response. No wonder you can't understand basic concepts regarding contracts that have been explained here.

Well, at least you didn't inlcude anything racist or any religious slurs. Of course, you knew those would just get you banned again - decided not to go for twice in a month, huh?

i understand contracts. you dont. the proof is in your posts

I am a lawyer, who, while in law school won an Am.Jur. (American Jurisprudence) award in contracts, and who clerked for his Contracts professor researching and proof reading his textbook on contract law. I can state with a high degree of confidence that you don't understand what you are talking about.

iam william renquist, you dont know what you are talking about

Some shtick advice. When claiming to be a famous and well educated man it is best to punctuate. You might also consider spelling the man's name correctly.

 

[ko-jaxx]

dont forget to wipe their man juices off your chin

Now this is a well thought out response. No wonder you can't understand basic concepts regarding contracts that have been explained here.

Well, at least you didn't inlcude anything racist or any religious slurs. Of course, you knew those would just get you banned again - decided not to go for twice in a month, huh?

i understand contracts. you dont. the proof is in your posts

I am a lawyer, who, while in law school won an Am.Jur. (American Jurisprudence) award in contracts, and who clerked for his Contracts professor researching and proof reading his textbook on contract law. I can state with a high degree of confidence that you don't understand what you are talking about.

iam william renquist, you dont know what you are talking about

Some shtick advice. When claiming to be a famous and well educated man it is best to punctuate. You might also consider spelling the man's name correctly.

my name is william renquist. iam not famous, but well educated. i think you have me confused with william rehnquist .

 

[ravnzfan]

The only numbers in a contract that are meaningful in real money terms are the signing bonus and the first couple of years. When a contract has late-year salaries of 10+ million, all parties have to know that those years will NEVER be paid. The cap hit would be absurd.

...not truethere was a time when these type contracts were never realized, and not to long ago, either--I'll grant you that

let's review...the cap, in:

2001...$67.4M

2002...$71.1M

2003...$75.0M

2004...$80.5M

2005...$85.5M

that's an $18M increase since 2001...and with the talk of a Thurs-Sat TV package, for say the NFL network, this cap number will continue to grow in the 8%+/yr range

while a $10M salary today might be a bit high to squeeze under the number, a $10M salary for a TO-type player in a couple years would easily fit under the cap, if a team wanted to construct it's payroll that way

you would need a few extra young players, to help soften the blow of such a deal, but it could easily be worked out

teams do a much better job these days of balancing when the big numbers hit---there aren't as many "big name signings" as in the past, because of this 30% increase in the cap since '01...since June 1(when the cap hit could be spread over 2 yrs), who are the really big names released???

zippy

 

[P Boy]

Bumping for JAA

 

[jurb26]

Bumping for JAA

 

[P Boy]

Bumping for JAA

I know. Same crap, different month, jurb.