Vikes Sign Hutchinson to Offer Sheet (1 Viewer)

[Maelstrom]

There is no reason that Hutch would take out the guaranteed clause after the fact. He could just tell the Vikes to stuff it and that he isn't gonna renegotiate if they tried. Don't see why people think this is a huge deal, since it is unlikely to affect the Vikings until the contract is at a manageable state (it's frontloaded, not backloaded and seems to be based on Offensive Line contracts, not every player on the team), but affects Seattle immediately (Jones).

That's all - thats the purpose of this clause. We don't know the exact numbers but even without knowing the numbers, it forces Seattle to guarantee Hutch's contract from the day of signing if they match since Jones is paid more. Why would Hutch renegotiate then - it's already guaranteed even if he is cut, REGARDLESS of the cap hits.

 

[BigJim®]

My point is the contract itself, and how it is structured, will decide what must be recognized as a whole and what must be recognized In a pro-rated manner. For example, if a 2007 roster bonus immediately became guaranteed in 2006, it could force it to be immediately recognized (as a whole) in 2006. If the Vikes were smart, they inserted a 2007 roster bonus they know they do not need to recognize this year, but Seattle would (if Hutch is not their highest paid player). That's my only point; you don't know the immediate impact of guaranteed amounts unless you know specifically what they are.

On your point that "they'd be paying $8-9M a year at the end of the contract because that's how contracts are usually setup" that is generalization beyond reason. It is true that many contracts are backloaded, but that is because teams do not have the cap space to front load. Since McCombs was so cheap, he left the Vikes with plenty of cap room to frontload deals which are actually cap friendly in future years. That's why they have paid Winfield/Smoot/Sharper immediately recognized roster bonuses as opposed to pro-rated signing bonuses used by other teams. The Vikes can easily honor these deals in future years because the big cap impacts are behind them. That's why it makes no sense to assume they are backloading this deal. They clearly aren't.

The problem is that the CBA governs what can be pro-rated and what has to be paid upfront. A team can't just say "well, this 2008 roster bonus will be treated as pro-rated money unless it becomes guaranteed before that in which case it's due immediately and all cap charges will accelerate to that year." The CBA governs how certain money is allocated against the cap. I'm fairly certain that a future roster bonus that is converted to guaranteed money can be spread out over the remainder of the contract. I understand what you're saying as far as an immediate roster bonus, but that would mean that the particular "guaranteed money poison pill" we're discussing would be pointless. If the Vikings are going to pay him so much upfront already with a roster bonus that Seattle couldn't match, why have a provision that would actually make it easier for them to match? The roster bonus is an immediate cap charge while the guaranteed money could be spread out over the life of the contract.

I do not discount that the Vikings actually have a provision that makes it nearly impossible for Seattle to match, I just don't think that it's the one that PFT says. I think that it's more likely that they simply have a large immediate roster bonus due.

Well, we don't see eye to eye but in fairness neither of us knows what the contract says. I do disagree with both of your points. On the first point, in my mind, it is theoretically possible for a 2007 roster bonus to be recognized in advance. Typically, a player would need to be on the roster as of a certain date (usually breaking of training camp) for it to be payable, and only then is its cap impact effective. I could absolutely write a contract provision that says "If you are not the highest paid player on the offensive line this roter bonus is payable whether or not you remain on the roster as of X date." I honestly think you need to think outside the box and understand they seem to be breaking new ground here.

On your second point, you lost me there. Contrary to what you said, I am assuming Seattle could and would be able to pay whatever 2006 roster bonus the Vikes have included... all told probably the $13M total cap impact that has been discussed previously. What we don't know is whether the Seahawks have room to recognize other bonuses that might immediately impact the cap being "guaranteed in 2006 but technically not payable until later years" (if W.Jones is higher paid than Hutch). People seem to be thinking the Seahawks can easily abosorb any amount without knowing whether those amounts are immediately recognized as a whole or pro-ratable. However, if the $13M cap hit becomes a $22M cap hit through some technical cap math, that would be a huge problem.

 

[GregR_2]

If they did indeed have an agreement with the agent like that and the NFL found out, then not only would the contract be automatically voided, but the Vikings would be looking at serious consequences. You can only have one deal in place at a time, you can not make contingency deals.

Teams talk about "agreeing to renegotiate" all the time. There are several cases where players are not allowed to perform certain types of renegotiations until a certain time, but they reach agreement ahead of time. I think John St. Clair was this case. For some reason, the Bears couldn't resign him to a new deal in the offseason under his current contract. But they cut him and signed him to a long term deal the next day. Sure he was a free agent and could have shopped himself around to anyone, but Nudge, Nudge, Wink, wink, say no more, he signed a long term deal with his old team. You don't think there was an agreement in place already?None of it is binding, and like I said, if Hutch wanted to be a hardass he could stick to his deal as written and the Vikes couldn't do anything to him except eventually cut him once the cap hit wasn't too bad..

Those could be very different situations though. You're talking about agreements between a team and a player they have exclusive rights to negotiate with. That is not our situation... there is another team who has the right to match. It might come down to whether the NFL/arbitrator felt the agreement was part of the contract but was left out as deception. This is the moment the resident FBG lawyers can chime in about contract law, whether the agreement is part of a "meeting of the minds" or whatever, I don't know.

But in any event, I don't think the example you give really relates to the situation here since all the parties in your example are part of the agreement, while in reality we have another team who has a right to match whatever agreement they came to. They just have to make an argument the written contract intentionally left out part of the true contract the team and player reached.

 

[mozzy84]

There is no reason that Hutch would take out the guaranteed clause after the fact. He could just tell the Vikes to stuff it and that he isn't gonna renegotiate if they tried. Don't see why people think this is a huge deal, since it is unlikely to affect the Vikings until the contract is at a manageable state (it's frontloaded, not backloaded and seems to be based on Offensive Line contracts, not every player on the team), but affects Seattle immediately (Jones).

That's all - thats the purpose of this clause. We don't know the exact numbers but even without knowing the numbers, it forces Seattle to guarantee Hutch's contract from the day of signing if they match since Jones is paid more. Why would Hutch renegotiate then - it's already guaranteed even if he is cut, REGARDLESS of the cap hits.

exactly

 

[cstu]

If they did indeed have an agreement with the agent like that and the NFL found out, then not only would the contract be automatically voided, but the Vikings would be looking at serious consequences. You can only have one deal in place at a time, you can not make contingency deals.

Teams talk about "agreeing to renegotiate" all the time. There are several cases where players are not allowed to perform certain types of renegotiations until a certain time, but they reach agreement ahead of time. I think John St. Clair was this case. For some reason, the Bears couldn't resign him to a new deal in the offseason under his current contract. But they cut him and signed him to a long term deal the next day. Sure he was a free agent and could have shopped himself around to anyone, but Nudge, Nudge, Wink, wink, say no more, he signed a long term deal with his old team. You don't think there was an agreement in place already?None of it is binding, and like I said, if Hutch wanted to be a hardass he could stick to his deal as written and the Vikes couldn't do anything to him except eventually cut him once the cap hit wasn't too bad..

Those could be very different situations though. You're talking about agreements between a team and a player they have exclusive rights to negotiate with. That is not our situation... there is another team who has the right to match. It might come down to whether the NFL/arbitrator felt the agreement was part of the contract but was left out as deception. This is the moment the resident FBG lawyers can chime in about contract law, whether the agreement is part of a "meeting of the minds" or whatever, I don't know.

But in any event, I don't think the example you give really relates to the situation here since all the parties in your example are part of the agreement, while in reality we have another team who has a right to match whatever agreement they came to. They just have to make an argument the written contract intentionally left out part of the true contract the team and player reached.

The Seahawks would need some type of proof that the Vikings have another agreement in place. That would be hard to prove since the guarantee clause doesn't affect the Vikings currently.

 

[GregR_2]

The Seahawks would need some type of proof that the Vikings have another agreement in place. That would be hard to prove since the guarantee clause doesn't affect the Vikings currently.

Definitely, they would. And they might be able to make a good argument that restructuring him right away is proof.But I was more objecting to the argument being waged than the situation. I think the more likely thing is the guarantee is compared to other O-linemen, not the whole team, so the Vikings wouldn't then immediately restructure him.

You know, I would love to see Seattle quickly get Walter Jones to modify his deal so he makes $1 less than Hutchinson for 3 years and then let him jump back up to his normal salary. Just because I think this kind of thing is getting a little cheap. It doesn't break the rules, but it definitely does nothing to keep to the spirit of them either.

 

[GroveDiesel]

My point is the contract itself, and how it is structured, will decide what must be recognized as a whole and what must be recognized In a pro-rated manner. For example, if a 2007 roster bonus immediately became guaranteed in 2006, it could force it to be immediately recognized (as a whole) in 2006. If the Vikes were smart, they inserted a 2007 roster bonus they know they do not need to recognize this year, but Seattle would (if Hutch is not their highest paid player). That's my only point; you don't know the immediate impact of guaranteed amounts unless you know specifically what they are.

On your point that "they'd be paying $8-9M a year at the end of the contract because that's how contracts are usually setup" that is generalization beyond reason. It is true that many contracts are backloaded, but that is because teams do not have the cap space to front load. Since McCombs was so cheap, he left the Vikes with plenty of cap room to frontload deals which are actually cap friendly in future years. That's why they have paid Winfield/Smoot/Sharper immediately recognized roster bonuses as opposed to pro-rated signing bonuses used by other teams. The Vikes can easily honor these deals in future years because the big cap impacts are behind them. That's why it makes no sense to assume they are backloading this deal. They clearly aren't.

The problem is that the CBA governs what can be pro-rated and what has to be paid upfront. A team can't just say "well, this 2008 roster bonus will be treated as pro-rated money unless it becomes guaranteed before that in which case it's due immediately and all cap charges will accelerate to that year." The CBA governs how certain money is allocated against the cap. I'm fairly certain that a future roster bonus that is converted to guaranteed money can be spread out over the remainder of the contract. I understand what you're saying as far as an immediate roster bonus, but that would mean that the particular "guaranteed money poison pill" we're discussing would be pointless. If the Vikings are going to pay him so much upfront already with a roster bonus that Seattle couldn't match, why have a provision that would actually make it easier for them to match? The roster bonus is an immediate cap charge while the guaranteed money could be spread out over the life of the contract.

I do not discount that the Vikings actually have a provision that makes it nearly impossible for Seattle to match, I just don't think that it's the one that PFT says. I think that it's more likely that they simply have a large immediate roster bonus due.

Well, we don't see eye to eye but in fairness neither of us knows what the contract says. I do disagree with both of your points. On the first point, in my mind, it is theoretically possible for a 2007 roster bonus to be recognized in advance. Typically, a player would need to be on the roster as of a certain date (usually breaking of training camp) for it to be payable, and only then is its cap impact effective. I could absolutely write a contract provision that says "If you are not the highest paid player on the offensive line this roter bonus is payable whether or not you remain on the roster as of X date." I honestly think you need to think outside the box and understand they seem to be breaking new ground here.

On your second point, you lost me there. Contrary to what you said, I am assuming Seattle could and would be able to pay whatever 2006 roster bonus the Vikes have included... all told probably the $13M total cap impact that has been discussed previously. What we don't know is whether the Seahawks have room to recognize other bonuses that might immediately impact the cap being "guaranteed in 2006 but technically not payable until later years" (if W.Jones is higher paid than Hutch). People seem to be thinking the Seahawks can easily abosorb any amount without knowing whether those amounts are immediately recognized as a whole or pro-ratable. However, if the $13M cap hit becomes a $22M cap hit through some technical cap math, that would be a huge problem.

Again, a roster bonus converted into a guaranteed payment can be amortized over the length of the contract. So guaranteeing a future roster bonus, while making the owner have to cough up the money sooner, actually helps the team by spreading the cap hit over the life of the contract. And again, that's the rules of the CBA.

 

[DoctorDetroit]

The Seahawks would need some type of proof that the Vikings have another agreement in place.  That would be hard to prove since the guarantee clause doesn't affect the Vikings currently.

Definitely, they would. And they might be able to make a good argument that restructuring him right away is proof.But I was more objecting to the argument being waged than the situation. I think the more likely thing is the guarantee is compared to other O-linemen, not the whole team, so the Vikings wouldn't then immediately restructure him.

You know, I would love to see Seattle quickly get Walter Jones to modify his deal so he makes $1 less than Hutchinson for 3 years and then let him jump back up to his normal salary. Just because I think this kind of thing is getting a little cheap. It doesn't break the rules, but it definitely does nothing to keep to the spirit of them either.

AND ONE MORE TIME,The last three pages of argument is based on this poison pill idea that has only been reported by PFT and hasn't been confirmed or even mentioned by anyone else. This might all just be a bunch of

I still want to see a second source unrelated to PFT to believe this and even then, we aren't going to know until next week when Seattle matches or doesn't and the terms are released.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

I think this whole poison pill clause is complete bunk. If true, I do not see anyway the NFL will approve it, as it basically means that the contract is not the same for the Hawks and Vikings. The Hawks only have to match the Vikings offer, not exceed it due to the difference in personnel already on their team. You can't put a clause in a contract to directly play to another team, the contract has to be fair.

 

[cstu]

The Seahawks would need some type of proof that the Vikings have another agreement in place. That would be hard to prove since the guarantee clause doesn't affect the Vikings currently.

Definitely, they would. And they might be able to make a good argument that restructuring him right away is proof.But I was more objecting to the argument being waged than the situation. I think the more likely thing is the guarantee is compared to other O-linemen, not the whole team, so the Vikings wouldn't then immediately restructure him.

You know, I would love to see Seattle quickly get Walter Jones to modify his deal so he makes $1 less than Hutchinson for 3 years and then let him jump back up to his normal salary. Just because I think this kind of thing is getting a little cheap. It doesn't break the rules, but it definitely does nothing to keep to the spirit of them either.

Tell that to the Jets and Curtis Martin.

 

[BigJim®]

My point is the contract itself, and how it is structured, will decide what must be recognized as a whole and what must be recognized In a pro-rated manner. For example, if a 2007 roster bonus immediately became guaranteed in 2006, it could force it to be immediately recognized (as a whole) in 2006. If the Vikes were smart, they inserted a 2007 roster bonus they know they do not need to recognize this year, but Seattle would (if Hutch is not their highest paid player). That's my only point; you don't know the immediate impact of guaranteed amounts unless you know specifically what they are.

On your point that "they'd be paying $8-9M a year at the end of the contract because that's how contracts are usually setup" that is generalization beyond reason. It is true that many contracts are backloaded, but that is because teams do not have the cap space to front load. Since McCombs was so cheap, he left the Vikes with plenty of cap room to frontload deals which are actually cap friendly in future years. That's why they have paid Winfield/Smoot/Sharper immediately recognized roster bonuses as opposed to pro-rated signing bonuses used by other teams. The Vikes can easily honor these deals in future years because the big cap impacts are behind them. That's why it makes no sense to assume they are backloading this deal. They clearly aren't.

The problem is that the CBA governs what can be pro-rated and what has to be paid upfront. A team can't just say "well, this 2008 roster bonus will be treated as pro-rated money unless it becomes guaranteed before that in which case it's due immediately and all cap charges will accelerate to that year." The CBA governs how certain money is allocated against the cap. I'm fairly certain that a future roster bonus that is converted to guaranteed money can be spread out over the remainder of the contract. I understand what you're saying as far as an immediate roster bonus, but that would mean that the particular "guaranteed money poison pill" we're discussing would be pointless. If the Vikings are going to pay him so much upfront already with a roster bonus that Seattle couldn't match, why have a provision that would actually make it easier for them to match? The roster bonus is an immediate cap charge while the guaranteed money could be spread out over the life of the contract.

I do not discount that the Vikings actually have a provision that makes it nearly impossible for Seattle to match, I just don't think that it's the one that PFT says. I think that it's more likely that they simply have a large immediate roster bonus due.

Well, we don't see eye to eye but in fairness neither of us knows what the contract says. I do disagree with both of your points. On the first point, in my mind, it is theoretically possible for a 2007 roster bonus to be recognized in advance. Typically, a player would need to be on the roster as of a certain date (usually breaking of training camp) for it to be payable, and only then is its cap impact effective. I could absolutely write a contract provision that says "If you are not the highest paid player on the offensive line this roter bonus is payable whether or not you remain on the roster as of X date." I honestly think you need to think outside the box and understand they seem to be breaking new ground here.

On your second point, you lost me there. Contrary to what you said, I am assuming Seattle could and would be able to pay whatever 2006 roster bonus the Vikes have included... all told probably the $13M total cap impact that has been discussed previously. What we don't know is whether the Seahawks have room to recognize other bonuses that might immediately impact the cap being "guaranteed in 2006 but technically not payable until later years" (if W.Jones is higher paid than Hutch). People seem to be thinking the Seahawks can easily abosorb any amount without knowing whether those amounts are immediately recognized as a whole or pro-ratable. However, if the $13M cap hit becomes a $22M cap hit through some technical cap math, that would be a huge problem.

Again, a roster bonus converted into a guaranteed payment can be amortized over the length of the contract. So guaranteeing a future roster bonus, while making the owner have to cough up the money sooner, actually helps the team by spreading the cap hit over the life of the contract. And again, that's the rules of the CBA.

Ok, so a roster bonus convertd can be prorated. Thats a nit pick that shows I used a bad example but it is not the crux of my point. What is the impact of all other conditional bonus options becoming immediately guaranteed, and how would they impact the cap? If there's some type of conditional bonus that immediately impacts the cap in an onerous way when guaranteed, that's the sort I would use in a poison pill.

 

[GregR_2]

I don't recall seeing this posted. A newspaper is reporting the $13m first year cap figure is wrong:

Seahawks | More about Hutchinson's offerMon, 13 Mar 2006 06:14:53 -0800Mike Sando, of the Tacoma News Tribune, reports the offer sheet signed by Seattle Seahawks OG Steve Hutchinson with the Minnesota Vikings reportedly included a $10 million signing bonus, a $6 million roster bonus payable this year and a $585,000 base salary in 2006. That would translate to $8.585 million in salary cap charges this year, a high number but not a prohibitive one. Hutchinson is already counting $6.391 million against Seattle's cap after the Seahawks named him their transition player, which allows them to match offers he receives in free agency. Under those terms, the Seahawks could match the Vikings' offer and still have roughly $16 million in salary cap room, plenty to re-sign their own free agents and pursue others on the market. There were reports, however, that the Vikings' offer might carry a first-year cap charge of $13 million. That would be the figure if Hutchinson's 2006 base salary were $5.85 million instead of $585,000.

 

[BigJim®]

I think this whole poison pill clause is complete bunk. If true, I do not see anyway the NFL will approve it, as it basically means that the contract is not the same for the Hawks and Vikings. The Hawks only have to match the Vikings offer, not exceed it due to the difference in personnel already on their team. You can't put a clause in a contract to directly play to another team, the contract has to be fair.

How naive.

 

[GregR_2]

Again, a roster bonus converted into a guaranteed payment can be amortized over the length of the contract. So guaranteeing a future roster bonus, while making the owner have to cough up the money sooner, actually helps the team by spreading the cap hit over the life of the contract. And again, that's the rules of the CBA.

Does the prorated cap hit for a guaranteed, but future bonus, hit immediately? I'm pretty sure it does. If so, then you make it so you and the other team can both afford year 1's cap hit based on his base salary and signing bonus. But make it so there are roster bonuses the other guy has to guarantee, thus making them count as signing bonuses and making him have to charge part of them against the cap in year 1.You have effectively made his year 1 cap higher than he can afford, while keeping your year 1 cap lower than that if you get him.

(edited to clarify)

 

[fridayfrenzy]

I think this whole poison pill clause is complete bunk. If true, I do not see anyway the NFL will approve it, as it basically means that the contract is not the same for the Hawks and Vikings. The Hawks only have to match the Vikings offer, not exceed it due to the difference in personnel already on their team. You can't put a clause in a contract to directly play to another team, the contract has to be fair.

How naive.

How so? The clause makes the contract different for each team, and the Hawks only have to MATCH the financial terms of the Vikings.

To prove my point....is this contract fine as well?

For example last year, TE Bubba Franks was a transition tag player. What if we were to sign him with a clause saying that if he isn't the highest paid guy with the initials BF (Brett Favre), all of his contract is guaranteed including a 500% pay increase. That would make it virtually impossible for Green Bay to match and it would all be because of a nit picky clause.

 

[BigJim®]

I think this whole poison pill clause is complete bunk.  If true, I do not see anyway the NFL will approve it, as it basically means that the contract is not the same for the Hawks and Vikings.  The Hawks only have to match the Vikings offer, not exceed it due to the difference in personnel already on their team.  You can't put a clause in a contract to directly play to another team, the contract has to be fair.

How naive.

How so? The clause makes the contract different for each team, and the Hawks only have to MATCH the financial terms of the Vikings.

There's absolutely zero justification for saying a team/player can't agree to terms that would be difficult or impossible for the other team to match. That should be every team's goal in contracting with a transitioned player. To me this is not one iota different than inserting a $10 roster bonus knowing the other team only has $8M available cap. Gee, how unfair... they should know that Team X only has $8M to spend so let's invalidate it as "unfair." This is a contract negotiated between a player and an NFL team which happens to include an extremely pro-player provision. If it's really there, there's no way it will be invalidated as "unfair."

 

[fridayfrenzy]

I think this whole poison pill clause is complete bunk. If true, I do not see anyway the NFL will approve it, as it basically means that the contract is not the same for the Hawks and Vikings. The Hawks only have to match the Vikings offer, not exceed it due to the difference in personnel already on their team. You can't put a clause in a contract to directly play to another team, the contract has to be fair.

How naive.

How so? The clause makes the contract different for each team, and the Hawks only have to MATCH the financial terms of the Vikings.

There's absolutely zero justification for saying a team/player can't agree to terms that would be difficult or impossible for the other team to match. That should be every team's goal in contracting with a transitioned player. To me this is not one iota different than inserting a $10 roster bonus knowing the other team only has $8M available cap. Gee, how unfair... they should know that Team X only has $8M to spend so let's invalidate it as "unfair." This is a contract negotiated between a player and an NFL team which happens to include an extremely pro-player provision. If it's really there, there's no way it will be invalidated as "unfair."

The contract is essentially not the same for each team. It would be fine if it stipulates the highest paid player on the VIKINGS Offensive Line.

Thats like putting a contract forward that stipulates that the contract must be 50% of the remaining cap space available for a team. That way, a team that has less cap space will have an advantage.

The contract has to be the same for every team, and not compared to different items which changes the contract's value for each team.

 

[Preacher 1]

This is essentially the same thing as 4 pages of cavemen attempting to explain how lightning works...

None of you know all of the ramifications of the CBA, none of you know the contents of the contract, none of you know how the deal is structured, if there really is a poison pill, or what Hutchinson really thinks about the Seahaws management. But almost everyone is SURE that their team is in the right, and that they're right in their interpretations.

There are 4 groups that know for sure what's in the contract and what it'll do to each team...The Vikings, The Seahawks, Hutchinson and his legal team, and the NFL. The rest of us will have to wait until next Saturday to find out EXACTLY what the ramifications are...

 

[GregR_2]

How so?

The clause makes the contract different for each team, and the Hawks only have to MATCH the financial terms of the Vikings.

To prove my point....is this contract fine as well?

For example last year, TE Bubba Franks was a transition tag player. What if we were to sign him with a clause saying that if he isn't the highest paid guy with the initials BF (Brett Favre), all of his contract is guaranteed including a 500% pay increase. That would make it virtually impossible for Green Bay to match and it would all be because of a nit picky clause.

I'm not sure that the NFL would rule they have to meet the terms of the "BF" contract. But it's incorrect to say they only have to match the financial terms. At least under the old CBA. See the last section below:

(e) Principal Terms. For the purposes of this section, the Principal Terms of an Offer Sheet are only:

Page 64

(i) Salary, which shall consist only of: (a) the fixed and specified dollar amounts the New Club will pay, guarantee or lend to the Restricted Free Agent and/or his designees (currently and/or as deferred compensation in specified installments on specified dates) in consideration for his services as a football player under the Player Contract (i.e., signing bonus, Paragraph 5 Salary, and reporting and roster bonuses); and (b) Salary that is variable and/or is subject to calculation only upon the following bases: (i) based upon performance of the Club extending the Offer Sheet (only those incentives which are “likely to be earned” by the player if he enters into a Player Contract with the New Club, pursuant to subsection © above, must be matched by the Prior Club for the purpose of exercising a Right of First Refusal, and such incentives may not exceed fifteen percent (15%) of the Salary in the Offer Sheet); and (ii) generally recognized league honors to be agreed upon by the parties; and

(ii) Any modifications of and additions to the terms contained in the NFL Player Contract requested by the Restricted Free Agent and acceptable to the New Club, that relate to non‑compensation terms (including guarantees, no‑cut, and no-trade provisions) of the Restricted Free Agent’s employment as a football player (which shall be evidenced either by a copy of the NFL Player Contract, marked to show changes, or by a brief written summary contained in or attached to the Offer Sheet).

 

[fridayfrenzy]

How so?

The clause makes the contract different for each team, and the Hawks only have to MATCH the financial terms of the Vikings.

To prove my point....is this contract fine as well?

For example last year, TE Bubba Franks was a transition tag player. What if we were to sign him with a clause saying that if he isn't the highest paid guy with the initials BF (Brett Favre), all of his contract is guaranteed including a 500% pay increase. That would make it virtually impossible for Green Bay to match and it would all be because of a nit picky clause.

I'm not sure that the NFL would rule they have to meet the terms of the "BF" contract. But it's incorrect to say they only have to match the financial terms. At least under the old CBA. See the last section below:

(e) Principal Terms. For the purposes of this section, the Principal Terms of an Offer Sheet are only:

Page 64

(i) Salary, which shall consist only of: (a) the fixed and specified dollar amounts the New Club will pay, guarantee or lend to the Restricted Free Agent and/or his designees (currently and/or as deferred compensation in specified installments on specified dates) in consideration for his services as a football player under the Player Contract (i.e., signing bonus, Paragraph 5 Salary, and reporting and roster bonuses); and (b) Salary that is variable and/or is subject to calculation only upon the following bases: (i) based upon performance of the Club extending the Offer Sheet (only those incentives which are “likely to be earned” by the player if he enters into a Player Contract with the New Club, pursuant to subsection © above, must be matched by the Prior Club for the purpose of exercising a Right of First Refusal, and such incentives may not exceed fifteen percent (15%) of the Salary in the Offer Sheet); and (ii) generally recognized league honors to be agreed upon by the parties; and

(ii) Any modifications of and additions to the terms contained in the NFL Player Contract requested by the Restricted Free Agent and acceptable to the New Club, that relate to non‑compensation terms (including guarantees, no‑cut, and no-trade provisions) of the Restricted Free Agent’s employment as a football player (which shall be evidenced either by a copy of the NFL Player Contract, marked to show changes, or by a brief written summary contained in or attached to the Offer Sheet).

Howabout putting a contract forward that stipulates that the contract must be 50% of the remaining cap space available for a team. That way, a team that has less cap space will have an advantage.Is that alright?

My point is that the terms of the contract have to be the same for all teams, and do not change for each team depending on their personnel or cap situation. You can't have a contract that is compared to different values for different teams.

 

[BigJim®]

This is essentially the same thing as 4 pages of cavemen attempting to explain how lightning works...

None of you know all of the ramifications of the CBA, none of you know the contents of the contract, none of you know how the deal is structured, if there really is a poison pill, or what Hutchinson really thinks about the Seahaws management. But almost everyone is SURE that their team is in the right, and that they're right in their interpretations.

There are 4 groups that know for sure what's in the contract and what it'll do to each team...The Vikings, The Seahawks, Hutchinson and his legal team, and the NFL. The rest of us will have to wait until next Saturday to find out EXACTLY what the ramifications are...

[other than comparing me to a caveman]

 

[GregR_2]

How so?

The clause makes the contract different for each team, and the Hawks only have to MATCH the financial terms of the Vikings.

To prove my point....is this contract fine as well?

For example last year, TE Bubba Franks was a transition tag player. What if we were to sign him with a clause saying that if he isn't the highest paid guy with the initials BF (Brett Favre), all of his contract is guaranteed including a 500% pay increase. That would make it virtually impossible for Green Bay to match and it would all be because of a nit picky clause.

I'm not sure that the NFL would rule they have to meet the terms of the "BF" contract. But it's incorrect to say they only have to match the financial terms. At least under the old CBA. See the last section below:

(e) Principal Terms. For the purposes of this section, the Principal Terms of an Offer Sheet are only:

Page 64

(i) Salary, which shall consist only of: (a) the fixed and specified dollar amounts the New Club will pay, guarantee or lend to the Restricted Free Agent and/or his designees (currently and/or as deferred compensation in specified installments on specified dates) in consideration for his services as a football player under the Player Contract (i.e., signing bonus, Paragraph 5 Salary, and reporting and roster bonuses); and (b) Salary that is variable and/or is subject to calculation only upon the following bases: (i) based upon performance of the Club extending the Offer Sheet (only those incentives which are “likely to be earned” by the player if he enters into a Player Contract with the New Club, pursuant to subsection © above, must be matched by the Prior Club for the purpose of exercising a Right of First Refusal, and such incentives may not exceed fifteen percent (15%) of the Salary in the Offer Sheet); and (ii) generally recognized league honors to be agreed upon by the parties; and

(ii) Any modifications of and additions to the terms contained in the NFL Player Contract requested by the Restricted Free Agent and acceptable to the New Club, that relate to non‑compensation terms (including guarantees, no‑cut, and no-trade provisions) of the Restricted Free Agent’s employment as a football player (which shall be evidenced either by a copy of the NFL Player Contract, marked to show changes, or by a brief written summary contained in or attached to the Offer Sheet).

Howabout putting a contract forward that stipulates that the contract must be 50% of the remaining cap space available for a team. That way, a team that has less cap space will have an advantage.Is that alright?

My point is that the terms of the contract have to be the same for all teams, and do not change for each team depending on their personnel or cap situation. You can't have a contract that is compared to different values for different teams.

I wouldn't be surprised if the arbitrator rules that way, or says something close to it, like that is a fluid figure and thus doesn't have to be met, or something like that. But I would be equally not surprised if he didn't rule that way.I mean, obviously in the spirit of what the NFL wants there, they don't want the "BF" contract. How that is going to square with going by the letter of the CBA though is a legal matter.

 

[Preacher 1]

This is essentially the same thing as 4 pages of cavemen attempting to explain how lightning works...

None of you know all of the ramifications of the CBA, none of you know the contents of the contract, none of you know how the deal is structured, if there really is a poison pill, or what Hutchinson really thinks about the Seahaws management.  But almost everyone is SURE that their team is in the right, and that they're right in their interpretations.

There are 4 groups that know for sure what's in the contract and what it'll do to each team...The Vikings, The Seahawks, Hutchinson and his legal team, and the NFL.  The rest of us will have to wait until next Saturday to find out EXACTLY what the ramifications are...

[other than comparing me to a caveman]

That's why I put in the phrase "almost everyone", I wanted to make sure that you, Big Jim, were NOT lumped in with the caveman lawyers...

 

[Kleck]

This is essentially the same thing as 4 pages of cavemen attempting to explain how lightning works...

I don't quite agree with how you put it, but you have a point.Give it a week and see how it plays out. We just need to be patient. The only thing all this speculation will do is reveal just how stupid someone really is by announcing to the world how much they know is certain and guaranteed. Its more likely to turn out they knew exactly squat.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

How so?

The clause makes the contract different for each team, and the Hawks only have to MATCH the financial terms of the Vikings.

To prove my point....is this contract fine as well?

For example last year, TE Bubba Franks was a transition tag player. What if we were to sign him with a clause saying that if he isn't the highest paid guy with the initials BF (Brett Favre), all of his contract is guaranteed including a 500% pay increase. That would make it virtually impossible for Green Bay to match and it would all be because of a nit picky clause.

I'm not sure that the NFL would rule they have to meet the terms of the "BF" contract. But it's incorrect to say they only have to match the financial terms. At least under the old CBA. See the last section below:

(e) Principal Terms. For the purposes of this section, the Principal Terms of an Offer Sheet are only:

Page 64

(i) Salary, which shall consist only of: (a) the fixed and specified dollar amounts the New Club will pay, guarantee or lend to the Restricted Free Agent and/or his designees (currently and/or as deferred compensation in specified installments on specified dates) in consideration for his services as a football player under the Player Contract (i.e., signing bonus, Paragraph 5 Salary, and reporting and roster bonuses); and (b) Salary that is variable and/or is subject to calculation only upon the following bases: (i) based upon performance of the Club extending the Offer Sheet (only those incentives which are “likely to be earned” by the player if he enters into a Player Contract with the New Club, pursuant to subsection © above, must be matched by the Prior Club for the purpose of exercising a Right of First Refusal, and such incentives may not exceed fifteen percent (15%) of the Salary in the Offer Sheet); and (ii) generally recognized league honors to be agreed upon by the parties; and

(ii) Any modifications of and additions to the terms contained in the NFL Player Contract requested by the Restricted Free Agent and acceptable to the New Club, that relate to non‑compensation terms (including guarantees, no‑cut, and no-trade provisions) of the Restricted Free Agent’s employment as a football player (which shall be evidenced either by a copy of the NFL Player Contract, marked to show changes, or by a brief written summary contained in or attached to the Offer Sheet).

Howabout putting a contract forward that stipulates that the contract must be 50% of the remaining cap space available for a team. That way, a team that has less cap space will have an advantage.Is that alright?

My point is that the terms of the contract have to be the same for all teams, and do not change for each team depending on their personnel or cap situation. You can't have a contract that is compared to different values for different teams.

I wouldn't be surprised if the arbitrator rules that way, or says something close to it, like that is a fluid figure and thus doesn't have to be met, or something like that. But I would be equally not surprised if he didn't rule that way.I mean, obviously in the spirit of what the NFL wants there, they don't want the "BF" contract. How that is going to square with going by the letter of the CBA though is a legal matter.

I woudl like to see the Hawks turn around and offer Burleson a contract based on a % of the remaining cap space available for each team. If this poison pill clause is accepted, not only will I be very surprised, but it also opens pandora's box.

 

[BigJim®]

I woudl like to see the Hawks turn around and offer Burleson a contract based on a % of the remaining cap space available for each team.

Good idea, except Nate isn't a transition player so the Vikes will be entitled to compensation of a 3rd round draft pick.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

I woudl like to see the Hawks turn around and offer Burleson a contract based on a % of the remaining cap space available for each team.

Good idea, except Nate isn't a transition player so the Vikes will be entitled to compensation of a 3rd round draft pick.

The Seahawks could not care less, its not their 3rd round draft pick.

 

[ratpfink]

I woudl like to see the Hawks turn around and offer Burleson a contract based on a % of the remaining cap space available for each team.

Good idea, except Nate isn't a transition player so the Vikes will be entitled to compensation of a 3rd round draft pick.

The Seahawks could care less, its not their 3rd round draft pick.

Maybe they should care less...

 

[Biabreakable]

This is essentially the same thing as 4 pages of cavemen attempting to explain how lightning works...

I don't quite agree with how you put it, but you have a point.Give it a week and see how it plays out. We just need to be patient. The only thing all this speculation will do is reveal just how stupid someone really is by announcing to the world how much they know is certain and guaranteed. Its more likely to turn out they knew exactly squat.

Good post I see this more simply. Biggest contract a gaurd has gotten in the NFL so far and does Seattle want to pay him as such or not?

I dont have time for the rest of the speculation.

 

[ImTheScientist]

Signing hutchinson would be a HUGE mistake. They could use that money to strengthen the rest or their team or they could sign hutchinson. Move Spencer to guard.....problem solved. Guard is the least important position on the offensive line, why pay 13 million.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

Signing hutchinson would be a HUGE mistake. They could use that money to strengthen the rest or their team or they could sign hutchinson. Move Spencer to guard.....problem solved. Guard is the least important position on the offensive line, why pay 13 million.

Cause its only 13 million in the 1st year when the Hawks have room and after that it would be a decent contract.

 

[ImTheScientist]

Signing hutchinson would be a HUGE mistake. They could use that money to strengthen the rest or their team or they could sign hutchinson. Move Spencer to guard.....problem solved. Guard is the least important position on the offensive line, why pay 13 million.

Cause its only 13 million in the 1st year when the Hawks have room and after that it would be a decent contract.

Why break the bank for a guard?

 

[fridayfrenzy]

Signing hutchinson would be a HUGE mistake. They could use that money to strengthen the rest or their team or they could sign hutchinson. Move Spencer to guard.....problem solved. Guard is the least important position on the offensive line, why pay 13 million.

Cause its only 13 million in the 1st year when the Hawks have room and after that it would be a decent contract.

Why break the bank for a guard?

Cause its only breaking the bank in the 1st year, when Seattle has the room to do so. Break the bank when they have the room and then future years won't be as hard.Maybe besides Abraham or Julian Peterson, there are no FAs out there that Seattle won't be able to get even if they do match the Vikings' offer.

Seattle does not have any glaring holes at the moment, so not having a large amount of cap space is not a big deal.

What the heck are they supposed to do with 23 million in cap room if they don't match the offer?

 

[BigJim®]

10 hours after the PFT report, after other reputable reporters had denounced the report...

Vikings | Contract update: Hutchinson provision

Mon, 13 Mar 2006 17:33:21 -0800

Adam Schefter, of the NFL Network, reports Seattle Seahawks transition free agent OG Steve Hutchinson has a provision in his contract which states he must be the highest paid offensive lineman on his team for the 2006 season or his entire $50 million contract becomes guaranteed, according to someone who has seen the offer sheet the Minnesota Vikings offered him. The provision was added in an effort to make it increasingly difficult for the Seahawks to match the offer.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

10 hours after the PFT report, after other reputable reporters had denounced the report...

Vikings | Contract update: Hutchinson provision

Mon, 13 Mar 2006 17:33:21 -0800

Adam Schefter, of the NFL Network, reports Seattle Seahawks transition free agent OG Steve Hutchinson has a provision in his contract which states he must be the highest paid offensive lineman on his team for the 2006 season or his entire $50 million contract becomes guaranteed, according to someone who has seen the offer sheet the Minnesota Vikings offered him. The provision was added in an effort to make it increasingly difficult for the Seahawks to match the offer.

also posted this in the Seahawks thread:

Seahawks | Contract update: Hutchinson provision

Mon, 13 Mar 2006 17:12:40 -0800

Adam Schefter, of the NFL Network, reports Seattle Seahawks transition free agent OG Steve Hutchinson has a provision in his contract which states he must be the highest paid offensive lineman on his team for the 2006 season or his entire $50 million contract becomes guaranteed, according to someone who has seen the offer sheet the Minnesota Vikings offered him. Seahawks OT Walter Jones averages $7.5 million a season and Hutchinson's contract will average $7 million a season. If the Seahawks decide to match the offer, they would have to figure out a way to squeeze his over $13 million salary figure into their cap and would guarantee the rest of his $50 million contract, which would make it the richest cash contract in NFL history by $15 million.

Hutchinson. Seahawks probably will regret not using the franchise tag on him.

 

[BigJim®]

I am sure Ruskell and Co. know what they are doing.

You honestly think they didn't think of any of this before choosing which tag to place on Hutch?

I am sure Ruskell and Co. were prepared for a huge contract with a poison pill. This is no surprise to them and probably wanted to get the negotiating over and done with, instead of dragging it on like Walter Jones every year.

From NFL.com:"In turn, Hutchinson's agent devised one of the most innovative contracts ever created, a monumental deal that nobody in Seattle saw coming."

I assume when they say "nobody in Seattle" that includes Ruskell and Co. Let's face it, the Vikes made a savvy move and deserve some kudos for it.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

From NFL.com:

"In turn, Hutchinson's agent devised one of the most innovative contracts ever created, a monumental deal that nobody in Seattle saw coming."

I assume when they say "nobody in Seattle" that includes Ruskell and Co. Let's face it, the Vikes made a savvy move and deserve some kudos for it.

If thats the case and Hutch doesn't want to be in Seattle, then Ruskell won't match cause he won't want players who do not want to play with the Hawks.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

10 hours after the PFT report, after other reputable reporters had denounced the report...

Vikings | Contract update: Hutchinson provision

Mon, 13 Mar 2006 17:33:21 -0800

Adam Schefter, of the NFL Network, reports Seattle Seahawks transition free agent OG Steve Hutchinson has a provision in his contract which states he must be the highest paid offensive lineman on his team for the 2006 season or his entire $50 million contract becomes guaranteed, according to someone who has seen the offer sheet the Minnesota Vikings offered him. The provision was added in an effort to make it increasingly difficult for the Seahawks to match the offer.

also posted this in the Seahawks thread:

Seahawks | Contract update: Hutchinson provision

Mon, 13 Mar 2006 17:12:40 -0800

Adam Schefter, of the NFL Network, reports Seattle Seahawks transition free agent OG Steve Hutchinson has a provision in his contract which states he must be the highest paid offensive lineman on his team for the 2006 season or his entire $50 million contract becomes guaranteed, according to someone who has seen the offer sheet the Minnesota Vikings offered him. Seahawks OT Walter Jones averages $7.5 million a season and Hutchinson's contract will average $7 million a season. If the Seahawks decide to match the offer, they would have to figure out a way to squeeze his over $13 million salary figure into their cap and would guarantee the rest of his $50 million contract, which would make it the richest cash contract in NFL history by $15 million.

Hutchinson. Seahawks probably will regret not using the franchise tag on him.

It remains to be seen if that is allowed in a contract. The contract needs to be the same for both teams.

 

[BigJim®]

10 hours after the PFT report, after other reputable reporters had denounced the report...

Vikings | Contract update: Hutchinson provision

Mon, 13 Mar 2006 17:33:21 -0800

Adam Schefter, of the NFL Network, reports Seattle Seahawks transition free agent OG Steve Hutchinson has a provision in his contract which states he must be the highest paid offensive lineman on his team for the 2006 season or his entire $50 million contract becomes guaranteed, according to someone who has seen the offer sheet the Minnesota Vikings offered him. The provision was added in an effort to make it increasingly difficult for the Seahawks to match the offer.

also posted this in the Seahawks thread:

Seahawks | Contract update: Hutchinson provision

Mon, 13 Mar 2006 17:12:40 -0800

Adam Schefter, of the NFL Network, reports Seattle Seahawks transition free agent OG Steve Hutchinson has a provision in his contract which states he must be the highest paid offensive lineman on his team for the 2006 season or his entire $50 million contract becomes guaranteed, according to someone who has seen the offer sheet the Minnesota Vikings offered him. Seahawks OT Walter Jones averages $7.5 million a season and Hutchinson's contract will average $7 million a season. If the Seahawks decide to match the offer, they would have to figure out a way to squeeze his over $13 million salary figure into their cap and would guarantee the rest of his $50 million contract, which would make it the richest cash contract in NFL history by $15 million.

Hutchinson. Seahawks probably will regret not using the franchise tag on him.

It remains to be seen if that is allowed in a contract. The contract needs to be the same for both teams.

It will be the same for both teams. If Hutch is ever not the highest paid OL on the Vikes he gets guaranteed fully. Nice deal for him and his family.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

I am sure Ruskell and Co. know what they are doing.

You honestly think they didn't think of any of this before choosing which tag to place on Hutch?

I am sure Ruskell and Co. were prepared for a huge contract with a poison pill. This is no surprise to them and probably wanted to get the negotiating over and done with, instead of dragging it on like Walter Jones every year.

From NFL.com:"In turn, Hutchinson's agent devised one of the most innovative contracts ever created, a monumental deal that nobody in Seattle saw coming."

I assume when they say "nobody in Seattle" that includes Ruskell and Co. Let's face it, the Vikes made a savvy move and deserve some kudos for it.

A contract that has yet to be accepted by the NFL. You really think that clause acts in good faith of the CBA? If they allow this to pass, it basically makes the transition tag useless in the future as every team can make up an offer that does not allow the team to match.

 

[FunkyPlutos]

10 hours after the PFT report, after other reputable reporters had denounced the report...

Vikings | Contract update: Hutchinson provision

Mon, 13 Mar 2006 17:33:21 -0800

Adam Schefter, of the NFL Network, reports Seattle Seahawks transition free agent OG Steve Hutchinson has a provision in his contract which states he must be the highest paid offensive lineman on his team for the 2006 season or his entire $50 million contract becomes guaranteed, according to someone who has seen the offer sheet the Minnesota Vikings offered him. The provision was added in an effort to make it increasingly difficult for the Seahawks to match the offer.

also posted this in the Seahawks thread:

Seahawks | Contract update: Hutchinson provision

Mon, 13 Mar 2006 17:12:40 -0800

Adam Schefter, of the NFL Network, reports Seattle Seahawks transition free agent OG Steve Hutchinson has a provision in his contract which states he must be the highest paid offensive lineman on his team for the 2006 season or his entire $50 million contract becomes guaranteed, according to someone who has seen the offer sheet the Minnesota Vikings offered him. Seahawks OT Walter Jones averages $7.5 million a season and Hutchinson's contract will average $7 million a season. If the Seahawks decide to match the offer, they would have to figure out a way to squeeze his over $13 million salary figure into their cap and would guarantee the rest of his $50 million contract, which would make it the richest cash contract in NFL history by $15 million.

Hutchinson. Seahawks probably will regret not using the franchise tag on him.

It remains to be seen if that is allowed in a contract. The contract needs to be the same for both teams.

It will be the same for both teams. If Hutch is ever not the highest paid OL on the Vikes he gets guaranteed fully. Nice deal for him and his family.

The contract only says that he has to be the highest on the team in 2006...not ever. Could the Seahawks get Jones to restructure and make 6.99999 million for this coming season??

 

[cstu]

I am sure Ruskell and Co. know what they are doing.

You honestly think they didn't think of any of this before choosing which tag to place on Hutch?

I am sure Ruskell and Co. were prepared for a huge contract with a poison pill. This is no surprise to them and probably wanted to get the negotiating over and done with, instead of dragging it on like Walter Jones every year.

From NFL.com:"In turn, Hutchinson's agent devised one of the most innovative contracts ever created, a monumental deal that nobody in Seattle saw coming."

I assume when they say "nobody in Seattle" that includes Ruskell and Co. Let's face it, the Vikes made a savvy move and deserve some kudos for it.

So some guy on a Chargers board saw this coming but Seattle's management didn't?

 

[fridayfrenzy]

10 hours after the PFT report, after other reputable reporters had denounced the report...

Vikings | Contract update: Hutchinson provision

Mon, 13 Mar 2006 17:33:21 -0800

Adam Schefter, of the NFL Network, reports Seattle Seahawks transition free agent OG Steve Hutchinson has a provision in his contract which states he must be the highest paid offensive lineman on his team for the 2006 season or his entire $50 million contract becomes guaranteed, according to someone who has seen the offer sheet the Minnesota Vikings offered him. The provision was added in an effort to make it increasingly difficult for the Seahawks to match the offer.

also posted this in the Seahawks thread:

Seahawks | Contract update: Hutchinson provision

Mon, 13 Mar 2006 17:12:40 -0800

Adam Schefter, of the NFL Network, reports Seattle Seahawks transition free agent OG Steve Hutchinson has a provision in his contract which states he must be the highest paid offensive lineman on his team for the 2006 season or his entire $50 million contract becomes guaranteed, according to someone who has seen the offer sheet the Minnesota Vikings offered him. Seahawks OT Walter Jones averages $7.5 million a season and Hutchinson's contract will average $7 million a season. If the Seahawks decide to match the offer, they would have to figure out a way to squeeze his over $13 million salary figure into their cap and would guarantee the rest of his $50 million contract, which would make it the richest cash contract in NFL history by $15 million.

Hutchinson. Seahawks probably will regret not using the franchise tag on him.

It remains to be seen if that is allowed in a contract. The contract needs to be the same for both teams.

It will be the same for both teams. If Hutch is ever not the highest paid OL on the Vikes he gets guaranteed fully. Nice deal for him and his family.

Yes, but you the contract is comparing two different scenarios and thus making the contract different for each team. Compare it only to the Vikings O-line and the deal is fine. I can't see the NFL approving the clause.

 

[BigJim®]

From NFL.com:

"In turn, Hutchinson's agent devised one of the most innovative contracts ever created, a monumental deal that nobody in Seattle saw coming."

I assume when they say "nobody in Seattle" that includes Ruskell and Co. Let's face it, the Vikes made a savvy move and deserve some kudos for it.

If thats the case and Hutch doesn't want to be in Seattle, then Ruskell won't match cause he won't want players who do not want to play with the Hawks.

Yeah, that and they were surprised.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

From NFL.com:

"In turn, Hutchinson's agent devised one of the most innovative contracts ever created, a monumental deal that nobody in Seattle saw coming."

I assume when they say "nobody in Seattle" that includes Ruskell and Co. Let's face it, the Vikes made a savvy move and deserve some kudos for it.

If thats the case and Hutch doesn't want to be in Seattle, then Ruskell won't match cause he won't want players who do not want to play with the Hawks.

Yeah, that and they were surprised.

Surprised. Of course they are, the clause is probably not going to be deemed allowable.

 

[BigJim®]

I can't see the NFL approving the clause.

Yeah, and if Seattle had done this I'm sure you'd unable to see how the NFL could overturn it. Perspective is everything.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

I can't see the NFL approving the clause.

Yeah, and if Seattle had done this I'm sure you'd unable to see how the NFL could overturn it. Perspective is everything.

Nope, I would see how this deal is unfair for any team.

 

[BigJim®]

From NFL.com:

"In turn, Hutchinson's agent devised one of the most innovative contracts ever created, a monumental deal that nobody in Seattle saw coming."

I assume when they say "nobody in Seattle" that includes Ruskell and Co. Let's face it, the Vikes made a savvy move and deserve some kudos for it.

If thats the case and Hutch doesn't want to be in Seattle, then Ruskell won't match cause he won't want players who do not want to play with the Hawks.

Yeah, that and they were surprised.

Surprised. Of course they are, the clause is probably not going to be deemed allowable.

Oh, it "probably" will be not allowed? I trust your opinion over a bunch of capologists who do this stuff for a living.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

I can't see the NFL approving the clause.

Yeah, and if Seattle had done this I'm sure you'd unable to see how the NFL could overturn it. Perspective is everything.

Nope, I would see how this deal is unfair for any team.

seems fine to me. I'd be very surprised if it was not allowed.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

From NFL.com:

"In turn, Hutchinson's agent devised one of the most innovative contracts ever created, a monumental deal that nobody in Seattle saw coming."

I assume when they say "nobody in Seattle" that includes Ruskell and Co. Let's face it, the Vikes made a savvy move and deserve some kudos for it.

If thats the case and Hutch doesn't want to be in Seattle, then Ruskell won't match cause he won't want players who do not want to play with the Hawks.

Yeah, that and they were surprised.

Surprised. Of course they are, the clause is probably not going to be deemed allowable.

Oh, it "probably" will be not allowed? I trust your opinion over a bunch of capologists who do this stuff for a living.

Has the contract been approved by the NFL?