What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Why can't these stinking people honor their contracts! (1 Viewer)

comfortably numb

Footballguy
Michael Turner

Beanie Wells

Adrian Wilson

Ahmad Bradshaw

DeAngelo Hall

Early Doucet

James Harrison

Charles Woodson

Bart Scott

Nick Barnett

etc..etc...etc

All these players had contracts that were signed by the teams they played on.

The team decides to not honor the contract they signed with the player and outright cuts them.

Why is this OK, but when a player wants a new contract they are being unreasonable?

 
They didn't break the contracts. They probably exercised clauses which allowed the players to be cut while paying them guaranteed monies and whatever else was stipulated. If the teams "did not honor" the contracts you can be sure the player and the players union would be a$& deep in that team with an entire battalion of lawyers.

 
All these players had contracts that were signed by the teams they played on.

The team decides to not honor the contract they signed with the player and outright cuts them.

Why is this OK, but when a player wants a new contract they are being unreasonable?
The part in bold is inaccurate, the contract wasn't guaranteed in the later years of the deal, so nothing was contractually obligated (other than any outstanding bonus money). It's the nature of the business, and was one thing that was somewhat rectified with the latest CBA where rookie deal money is now guaranteed.

 
'matttyl said:
'comfortably numb said:
All these players had contracts that were signed by the teams they played on.

The team decides to not honor the contract they signed with the player and outright cuts them.

Why is this OK, but when a player wants a new contract they are being unreasonable?
The part in bold is inaccurate, the contract wasn't guaranteed in the later years of the deal, so nothing was contractually obligated (other than any outstanding bonus money). It's the nature of the business, and was one thing that was somewhat rectified with the latest CBA where rookie deal money is now guaranteed.
blah blah

legal mumbo jumbo talk

player outperforms his contract and wants to tear up and do a new one he is a dooosh.

player underperforms his contract team decides to cut him...it's just business

 
'comfortably numb said:
Michael TurnerBeanie WellsAdrian WilsonAhmad BradshawDeAngelo HallEarly DoucetJames HarrisonCharles WoodsonBart ScottNick Barnettetc..etc...etcAll these players had contracts that were signed by the teams they played on.The team decides to not honor the contract they signed with the player and outright cuts them.Why is this OK, but when a player wants a new contract they are being unreasonable?
Because the players, thru their union have collectively bargained that is how things go.
 
'matttyl said:
'comfortably numb said:
All these players had contracts that were signed by the teams they played on.

The team decides to not honor the contract they signed with the player and outright cuts them.

Why is this OK, but when a player wants a new contract they are being unreasonable?
The part in bold is inaccurate, the contract wasn't guaranteed in the later years of the deal, so nothing was contractually obligated (other than any outstanding bonus money). It's the nature of the business, and was one thing that was somewhat rectified with the latest CBA where rookie deal money is now guaranteed.
blah blah

legal mumbo jumbo talk

player outperforms his contract and wants to tear up and do a new one he is a dooosh.

player underperforms his contract team decides to cut him...it's just business
You are completely ignoring the distinction that the teams are following the contract terms and exercising an option to end it. Players do the same exact thing and aren't called douches. See Jackson, Steven and Seymour, Richard as 2013 examples of this.Exercising the options in the contract is a lot different than wanting the old contract torn up when that wasn't a right bargained into the contract. If the ability to end the contract early was important to players, they should include that as a term just like Jackson and Seymour did.

 
'comfortably numb said:
Michael TurnerBeanie WellsAdrian WilsonAhmad BradshawDeAngelo HallEarly DoucetJames HarrisonCharles WoodsonBart ScottNick Barnettetc..etc...etcAll these players had contracts that were signed by the teams they played on.The team decides to not honor the contract they signed with the player and outright cuts them.Why is this OK, but when a player wants a new contract they are being unreasonable?
why are these dumb posts continually put up year after year?what happened to the shark pool?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
'comfortably numb said:
Michael Turner

Beanie Wells

Adrian Wilson

Ahmad Bradshaw

DeAngelo Hall

Early Doucet

James Harrison

Charles Woodson

Bart Scott

Nick Barnett

etc..etc...etc

All these players had contracts that were signed by the teams they played on.

The team decides to not honor the contract they signed with the player and outright cuts them.

Why is this OK, but when a player wants a new contract they are being unreasonable?
when a player wants a new contract they are not being unreasonable, this is how the system worksbut when a player wants a new contract the team wants to save cash, s they are willing to let it look like the player is greedy. And fans look at the millions a player is making already and it seems obvious the player is just being greedy

the system works and works pretty well, many people just have a distorted view of it

 
'comfortably numb said:
Michael Turner

Beanie Wells

Adrian Wilson

Ahmad Bradshaw

DeAngelo Hall

Early Doucet

James Harrison

Charles Woodson

Bart Scott

Nick Barnett

etc..etc...etc

All these players had contracts that were signed by the teams they played on.

The team decides to not honor the contract they signed with the player and outright cuts them.

Why is this OK, but when a player wants a new contract they are being unreasonable?
when a player wants a new contract they are not being unreasonable, this is how the system worksbut when a player wants a new contract the team wants to save cash, s they are willing to let it look like the player is greedy. And fans look at the millions a player is making already and it seems obvious the player is just being greedy

the system works and works pretty well, many people just have a distorted view of it
correct, just seems one likes to hear when the player wants to end his current deal and start a new one, people get up in arms.

When a team wants to cut or renegotiate a deal it's business

 
'comfortably numb said:
Michael Turner

Beanie Wells

Adrian Wilson

Ahmad Bradshaw

DeAngelo Hall

Early Doucet

James Harrison

Charles Woodson

Bart Scott

Nick Barnett

etc..etc...etc

All these players had contracts that were signed by the teams they played on.

The team decides to not honor the contract they signed with the player and outright cuts them.

Why is this OK, but when a player wants a new contract they are being unreasonable?
when a player wants a new contract they are not being unreasonable, this is how the system worksbut when a player wants a new contract the team wants to save cash, s they are willing to let it look like the player is greedy. And fans look at the millions a player is making already and it seems obvious the player is just being greedy

the system works and works pretty well, many people just have a distorted view of it
correct, just seems one likes to hear when the player wants to end his current deal and start a new one, people get up in arms.

When a team wants to cut or renegotiate a deal it's business
That is the unfortunate partI actually do not mind this system, it is far superior to the guaranteed contracts other places. But the system only works if players hold outs are seen as part of the model, not as a greedy crybaby

Every player has the right to get whatever money they can, and they have the right t not play if the money is not right. Adding to the misconception is the fact that the owners are seen as wanting to save cap space not as wanting to save money, where as the players are seen as pure greed.

It's not a great system, I admit, but it works ok. Fans just need to remember there are 32 owners and a league that are every bit as "greedy" as players and have a lot more money to boot.

 
'comfortably numb said:
Michael Turner

Beanie Wells

Adrian Wilson

Ahmad Bradshaw

DeAngelo Hall

Early Doucet

James Harrison

Charles Woodson

Bart Scott

Nick Barnett

etc..etc...etc

All these players had contracts that were signed by the teams they played on.

The team decides to not honor the contract they signed with the player and outright cuts them.

Why is this OK, but when a player wants a new contract they are being unreasonable?
when a player wants a new contract they are not being unreasonable, this is how the system worksbut when a player wants a new contract the team wants to save cash, s they are willing to let it look like the player is greedy. And fans look at the millions a player is making already and it seems obvious the player is just being greedy

the system works and works pretty well, many people just have a distorted view of it
correct, just seems no one likes to hear when the player wants to end his current deal and start a new one, people get up in arms.

When a team wants to cut or renegotiate a deal it's business
That is the unfortunate partI actually do not mind this system, it is far superior to the guaranteed contracts other places. But the system only works if players hold outs are seen as part of the model, not as a greedy crybaby

Every player has the right to get whatever money they can, and they have the right t not play if the money is not right. Adding to the misconception is the fact that the owners are seen as wanting to save cap space not as wanting to save money, where as the players are seen as pure greed.

It's not a great system, I admit, but it works ok. Fans just need to remember there are 32 owners and a league that are every bit as "greedy" as players and have a lot more money to boot.
I think the system is the best out of all 4 sports.I was being mildly sarcastic with the OP noting that owners terminate contracts with X of years left and essentially have players renegotiate their deals to take a paycut whereas players do similar and fans will say they signed a contract they should play it out

 
'comfortably numb said:
Michael Turner

Beanie Wells

Adrian Wilson

Ahmad Bradshaw

DeAngelo Hall

Early Doucet

James Harrison

Charles Woodson

Bart Scott

Nick Barnett

etc..etc...etc

All these players had contracts that were signed by the teams they played on.

The team decides to not honor the contract they signed with the player and outright cuts them.

Why is this OK, but when a player wants a new contract they are being unreasonable?
when a player wants a new contract they are not being unreasonable, this is how the system worksbut when a player wants a new contract the team wants to save cash, s they are willing to let it look like the player is greedy. And fans look at the millions a player is making already and it seems obvious the player is just being greedy

the system works and works pretty well, many people just have a distorted view of it
correct, just seems one likes to hear when the player wants to end his current deal and start a new one, people get up in arms.

When a team wants to cut or renegotiate a deal it's business
No, it really isn't correct. As soon as a player is willing to return the pro rated portion of his bonuses for the amount of time left on a contract, then maybe they are being reasonable. They get enormous amounts of money up front that binds them to the team for whatever length of time they agreed to. When a team cuts a player with time left, they don't get the signing bonus back. I'm shocked that this concept still eludes people. It's really very simple.
 
These are NOT guaranteed contracts from either side.

So to take bonus money and then to hold out is perfectly acceptable option, its part of the the structure of the system.

It works both ways.

 
'comfortably numb said:
Michael Turner

Beanie Wells

Adrian Wilson

Ahmad Bradshaw

DeAngelo Hall

Early Doucet

James Harrison

Charles Woodson

Bart Scott

Nick Barnett

etc..etc...etc

All these players had contracts that were signed by the teams they played on.

The team decides to not honor the contract they signed with the player and outright cuts them.

Why is this OK, but when a player wants a new contract they are being unreasonable?
when a player wants a new contract they are not being unreasonable, this is how the system worksbut when a player wants a new contract the team wants to save cash, s they are willing to let it look like the player is greedy. And fans look at the millions a player is making already and it seems obvious the player is just being greedy

the system works and works pretty well, many people just have a distorted view of it
correct, just seems one likes to hear when the player wants to end his current deal and start a new one, people get up in arms.

When a team wants to cut or renegotiate a deal it's business
No, it really isn't correct. As soon as a player is willing to return the pro rated portion of his bonuses for the amount of time left on a contract, then maybe they are being reasonable. They get enormous amounts of money up front that binds them to the team for whatever length of time they agreed to. When a team cuts a player with time left, they don't get the signing bonus back. I'm shocked that this concept still eludes people. It's really very simple.
there are possibly some dumb people wandering around in the world.if, as the op now spins it, this thread was just sarcastic mockery of these individuals, then it makes more sense, but I doubt that's actually the case.

 
'comfortably numb said:
Michael Turner

Beanie Wells

Adrian Wilson

Ahmad Bradshaw

DeAngelo Hall

Early Doucet

James Harrison

Charles Woodson

Bart Scott

Nick Barnett

etc..etc...etc

All these players had contracts that were signed by the teams they played on.

The team decides to not honor the contract they signed with the player and outright cuts them.

Why is this OK, but when a player wants a new contract they are being unreasonable?
when a player wants a new contract they are not being unreasonable, this is how the system worksbut when a player wants a new contract the team wants to save cash, s they are willing to let it look like the player is greedy. And fans look at the millions a player is making already and it seems obvious the player is just being greedy

the system works and works pretty well, many people just have a distorted view of it
correct, just seems one likes to hear when the player wants to end his current deal and start a new one, people get up in arms.

When a team wants to cut or renegotiate a deal it's business
No, it really isn't correct. As soon as a player is willing to return the pro rated portion of his bonuses for the amount of time left on a contract, then maybe they are being reasonable. They get enormous amounts of money up front that binds them to the team for whatever length of time they agreed to. When a team cuts a player with time left, they don't get the signing bonus back. I'm shocked that this concept still eludes people. It's really very simple.
correct.I get the team is still on hook for guaranteed money.

It's still a contract both agreed upon. I get that when both parties agree, they both grasp that there is a 0% chance the deal will ever reach the last year untouched.

What am I missing on say Corey Webster?

NFL.com's Kimberly Jones reports the team's best cornerback will take a sizable pay cut to stay in New York, according to a source familiar with negotiations. Webster's salary will be slashed from $7.25 million to $4 million.

It's not a surprise. Webster turned 31 this month and he's in the final year of the six-year, $44.02 million contract he signed in 2008. There's no way the Giants were about to dish out $7 million-plus to a player in decline.

He was gonna be cut basically, but they came to him and said we want you but you sucked so we want you at less money then we initially agreed upon.

Is that not what happened here or am i missing something?

 
'comfortably numb said:
Michael Turner

Beanie Wells

Adrian Wilson

Ahmad Bradshaw

DeAngelo Hall

Early Doucet

James Harrison

Charles Woodson

Bart Scott

Nick Barnett

etc..etc...etc

All these players had contracts that were signed by the teams they played on.

The team decides to not honor the contract they signed with the player and outright cuts them.

Why is this OK, but when a player wants a new contract they are being unreasonable?
when a player wants a new contract they are not being unreasonable, this is how the system worksbut when a player wants a new contract the team wants to save cash, s they are willing to let it look like the player is greedy. And fans look at the millions a player is making already and it seems obvious the player is just being greedy

the system works and works pretty well, many people just have a distorted view of it
correct, just seems one likes to hear when the player wants to end his current deal and start a new one, people get up in arms.

When a team wants to cut or renegotiate a deal it's business
No, it really isn't correct. As soon as a player is willing to return the pro rated portion of his bonuses for the amount of time left on a contract, then maybe they are being reasonable. They get enormous amounts of money up front that binds them to the team for whatever length of time they agreed to. When a team cuts a player with time left, they don't get the signing bonus back. I'm shocked that this concept still eludes people. It's really very simple.
there are possibly some dumb people wandering around in the world.if, as the op now spins it, this thread was just sarcastic mockery of these individuals, then it makes more sense, but I doubt that's actually the case.
correct, i am not that bright
 
'comfortably numb said:
Michael Turner

Beanie Wells

Adrian Wilson

Ahmad Bradshaw

DeAngelo Hall

Early Doucet

James Harrison

Charles Woodson

Bart Scott

Nick Barnett

etc..etc...etc

All these players had contracts that were signed by the teams they played on.

The team decides to not honor the contract they signed with the player and outright cuts them.

Why is this OK, but when a player wants a new contract they are being unreasonable?
when a player wants a new contract they are not being unreasonable, this is how the system worksbut when a player wants a new contract the team wants to save cash, s they are willing to let it look like the player is greedy. And fans look at the millions a player is making already and it seems obvious the player is just being greedy

the system works and works pretty well, many people just have a distorted view of it
correct, just seems one likes to hear when the player wants to end his current deal and start a new one, people get up in arms.

When a team wants to cut or renegotiate a deal it's business
No, it really isn't correct. As soon as a player is willing to return the pro rated portion of his bonuses for the amount of time left on a contract, then maybe they are being reasonable. They get enormous amounts of money up front that binds them to the team for whatever length of time they agreed to. When a team cuts a player with time left, they don't get the signing bonus back. I'm shocked that this concept still eludes people. It's really very simple.
the contract in now way obligates them to playchoosing not to play is their right

 
'comfortably numb said:
Michael Turner

Beanie Wells

Adrian Wilson

Ahmad Bradshaw

DeAngelo Hall

Early Doucet

James Harrison

Charles Woodson

Bart Scott

Nick Barnett

etc..etc...etc

All these players had contracts that were signed by the teams they played on.

The team decides to not honor the contract they signed with the player and outright cuts them.

Why is this OK, but when a player wants a new contract they are being unreasonable?
when a player wants a new contract they are not being unreasonable, this is how the system worksbut when a player wants a new contract the team wants to save cash, s they are willing to let it look like the player is greedy. And fans look at the millions a player is making already and it seems obvious the player is just being greedy

the system works and works pretty well, many people just have a distorted view of it
correct, just seems one likes to hear when the player wants to end his current deal and start a new one, people get up in arms.

When a team wants to cut or renegotiate a deal it's business
No, it really isn't correct. As soon as a player is willing to return the pro rated portion of his bonuses for the amount of time left on a contract, then maybe they are being reasonable. They get enormous amounts of money up front that binds them to the team for whatever length of time they agreed to. When a team cuts a player with time left, they don't get the signing bonus back. I'm shocked that this concept still eludes people. It's really very simple.
there are possibly some dumb people wandering around in the world.if, as the op now spins it, this thread was just sarcastic mockery of these individuals, then it makes more sense, but I doubt that's actually the case.
correct, i am not that bright
/thread
 
I really dont think the educated fans get upset when a player holds out. Only sometimes when it is an idiot like Terrell Owens who signs a 7 year deal and then wants more money after the first year. Or Revis who keeps wanting a new deal every year.

These guys that demand new deals or whatever are doing what EVERY SINGLE PERSON reading this thread would do if in their position of severely outperforming their deals.

If you knew you could only work a few more years at most, pretty sure you would want more money also.

As for teams cutting players, when a player isn't worth what he is making he gets cut. When a player pisses a team off he gets cut. What's the problem exactly?

 
'comfortably numb said:
Michael Turner

Beanie Wells

Adrian Wilson

Ahmad Bradshaw

DeAngelo Hall

Early Doucet

James Harrison

Charles Woodson

Bart Scott

Nick Barnett

etc..etc...etc

All these players had contracts that were signed by the teams they played on.

The team decides to not honor the contract they signed with the player and outright cuts them.

Why is this OK, but when a player wants a new contract they are being unreasonable?
when a player wants a new contract they are not being unreasonable, this is how the system worksbut when a player wants a new contract the team wants to save cash, s they are willing to let it look like the player is greedy. And fans look at the millions a player is making already and it seems obvious the player is just being greedy

the system works and works pretty well, many people just have a distorted view of it
correct, just seems one likes to hear when the player wants to end his current deal and start a new one, people get up in arms.

When a team wants to cut or renegotiate a deal it's business
No, it really isn't correct. As soon as a player is willing to return the pro rated portion of his bonuses for the amount of time left on a contract, then maybe they are being reasonable. They get enormous amounts of money up front that binds them to the team for whatever length of time they agreed to. When a team cuts a player with time left, they don't get the signing bonus back. I'm shocked that this concept still eludes people. It's really very simple.
the contract in now way obligates them to playchoosing not to play is their right
Tell that to Barry Sanders. They don't have to play, but what if Drew Brees took a check for 60 million, and just never showed up at camp? Don't you thimk they would have the right to sue him for the money back? What is Manning signs with Denver, takes the cash, and then promptly retires? Have you seen the penalties these guys pay during a hold out?
 
'comfortably numb said:
Michael Turner

Beanie Wells

Adrian Wilson

Ahmad Bradshaw

DeAngelo Hall

Early Doucet

James Harrison

Charles Woodson

Bart Scott

Nick Barnett

etc..etc...etc

All these players had contracts that were signed by the teams they played on.

The team decides to not honor the contract they signed with the player and outright cuts them.

Why is this OK, but when a player wants a new contract they are being unreasonable?
when a player wants a new contract they are not being unreasonable, this is how the system worksbut when a player wants a new contract the team wants to save cash, s they are willing to let it look like the player is greedy. And fans look at the millions a player is making already and it seems obvious the player is just being greedy

the system works and works pretty well, many people just have a distorted view of it
correct, just seems one likes to hear when the player wants to end his current deal and start a new one, people get up in arms.

When a team wants to cut or renegotiate a deal it's business
No, it really isn't correct. As soon as a player is willing to return the pro rated portion of his bonuses for the amount of time left on a contract, then maybe they are being reasonable. They get enormous amounts of money up front that binds them to the team for whatever length of time they agreed to. When a team cuts a player with time left, they don't get the signing bonus back. I'm shocked that this concept still eludes people. It's really very simple.
correct.I get the team is still on hook for guaranteed money.

It's still a contract both agreed upon. I get that when both parties agree, they both grasp that there is a 0% chance the deal will ever reach the last year untouched.

What am I missing on say Corey Webster?

NFL.com's Kimberly Jones reports the team's best cornerback will take a sizable pay cut to stay in New York, according to a source familiar with negotiations. Webster's salary will be slashed from $7.25 million to $4 million.

It's not a surprise. Webster turned 31 this month and he's in the final year of the six-year, $44.02 million contract he signed in 2008. There's no way the Giants were about to dish out $7 million-plus to a player in decline.

He was gonna be cut basically, but they came to him and said we want you but you sucked so we want you at less money then we initially agreed upon.

Is that not what happened here or am i missing something?
They bought the right to do that for probably around 25 million up front. He sold the rights to them for his services for probaly 25 million, plus a salary for as long as he was there. They have the right contractually to do as they please. He does not.
 
I realize players have the hold out to use as a tool. It usually works, and I don't always blame them, but they are violating the contract when they do, and teams are not violating the contract when they cut players.

 
I realize players have the hold out to use as a tool. It usually works, and I don't always blame them, but they are violating the contract when they do, and teams are not violating the contract when they cut players.
It depends. The ability to hold out is also a term spelled out in the contract. In the new CBA it becomes a lot more painful to the player to hold out. Which is a term the players were ok with putting in their contracts in exchange for something else they gained.
 
I really dont think the educated fans get upset when a player holds out. Only sometimes when it is an idiot like Terrell Owens who signs a 7 year deal and then wants more money after the first year. Or Revis who keeps wanting a new deal every year. These guys that demand new deals or whatever are doing what EVERY SINGLE PERSON reading this thread would do if in their position of severely outperforming their deals. If you knew you could only work a few more years at most, pretty sure you would want more money also. As for teams cutting players, when a player isn't worth what he is making he gets cut. When a player pisses a team off he gets cut. What's the problem exactly?
I've found that one of the most common mechanisms for justifying bad behavior is by attributing it to everyone else and trying to hide in the crowd.It's probably true that you can't be trusted to honor your agreements, but that doesn't make it true of everyone.
 
I realize players have the hold out to use as a tool. It usually works, and I don't always blame them, but they are violating the contract when they do, and teams are not violating the contract when they cut players.
It depends. The ability to hold out is also a term spelled out in the contract. In the new CBA it becomes a lot more painful to the player to hold out. Which is a term the players were ok with putting in their contracts in exchange for something else they gained.
Sure. I have never read an NFL contract, but obviously they have language that defines the penalty if certain events are missed. Players have to pay that, as well as miss their paycheck, but isn't that just a built in mechanism to recoup some of the up frount bonus money that was already paid? Isn't that a penalty for being in violation of the contract?
 
I realize players have the hold out to use as a tool. It usually works, and I don't always blame them, but they are violating the contract when they do, and teams are not violating the contract when they cut players.
It depends. The ability to hold out is also a term spelled out in the contract. In the new CBA it becomes a lot more painful to the player to hold out. Which is a term the players were ok with putting in their contracts in exchange for something else they gained.
Sure. I have never read an NFL contract, but obviously they have language that defines the penalty if certain events are missed. Players have to pay that, as well as miss their paycheck, but isn't that just a built in mechanism to recoup some of the up frount bonus money that was already paid? Isn't that a penalty for being in violation of the contract?
Right, the owners and players agreed to what penalty, if any, can be assessed for not showing up and honoring the commitment to play for the team. I assume to avoid teams and players ending up in court every time a player wants to hold out.I don't know about it just being a mechanism to recover up front bonus money. I'm sure from the owners side it's to discourage hold outs, while from the player's side they would prefer no penalty be assessed... so the owners surely had to give something up to get the players to agree to those penalties.The CBA spells out all the details on the penalties, on terms like the teams being able to cut players, and players being able to become free agents after X years, etc.
 
I realize players have the hold out to use as a tool. It usually works, and I don't always blame them, but they are violating the contract when they do, and teams are not violating the contract when they cut players.
It depends. The ability to hold out is also a term spelled out in the contract. In the new CBA it becomes a lot more painful to the player to hold out. Which is a term the players were ok with putting in their contracts in exchange for something else they gained.
Sure. I have never read an NFL contract, but obviously they have language that defines the penalty if certain events are missed. Players have to pay that, as well as miss their paycheck, but isn't that just a built in mechanism to recoup some of the up frount bonus money that was already paid? Isn't that a penalty for being in violation of the contract?
Right, the owners and players agreed to what penalty, if any, can be assessed for not showing up and honoring the commitment to play for the team. I assume to avoid teams and players ending up in court every time a player wants to hold out.I don't know about it just being a mechanism to recover up front bonus money. I'm sure from the owners side it's to discourage hold outs, while from the player's side they would prefer no penalty be assessed... so the owners surely had to give something up to get the players to agree to those penalties.

The CBA spells out all the details on the penalties, on terms like the teams being able to cut players, and players being able to become free agents after X years, etc.
Like a dump truck full of cash?
 
I realize players have the hold out to use as a tool. It usually works, and I don't always blame them, but they are violating the contract when they do, and teams are not violating the contract when they cut players.
It depends. The ability to hold out is also a term spelled out in the contract. In the new CBA it becomes a lot more painful to the player to hold out. Which is a term the players were ok with putting in their contracts in exchange for something else they gained.
Sure. I have never read an NFL contract, but obviously they have language that defines the penalty if certain events are missed. Players have to pay that, as well as miss their paycheck, but isn't that just a built in mechanism to recoup some of the up frount bonus money that was already paid? Isn't that a penalty for being in violation of the contract?
Right, the owners and players agreed to what penalty, if any, can be assessed for not showing up and honoring the commitment to play for the team. I assume to avoid teams and players ending up in court every time a player wants to hold out.I don't know about it just being a mechanism to recover up front bonus money. I'm sure from the owners side it's to discourage hold outs, while from the player's side they would prefer no penalty be assessed... so the owners surely had to give something up to get the players to agree to those penalties.

The CBA spells out all the details on the penalties, on terms like the teams being able to cut players, and players being able to become free agents after X years, etc.
Like a dump truck full of cash?
Heh heh, most likely. Though it could have been something else... changes in the franchise tag and the calculation formula, or reductions in padded practices or more benefit money or any of dozens of other things.
 
This argument again? The only one worse than this is the one decrying players for holding out. Both sides are perfectly within their rights to hold out and cut players. That's how the system works. Move on...

 
'comfortably numb said:
Michael TurnerBeanie WellsAdrian WilsonAhmad BradshawDeAngelo HallEarly DoucetJames HarrisonCharles WoodsonBart ScottNick Barnettetc..etc...etcAll these players had contracts that were signed by the teams they played on.The team decides to not honor the contract they signed with the player and outright cuts them.Why is this OK, but when a player wants a new contract they are being unreasonable?
with all these contract violations every year I'm surprised there aren't more fines or lawsuits.
 
'comfortably numb said:
Michael Turner

Beanie Wells

Adrian Wilson

Ahmad Bradshaw

DeAngelo Hall

Early Doucet

James Harrison

Charles Woodson

Bart Scott

Nick Barnett

etc..etc...etc

All these players had contracts that were signed by the teams they played on.

The team decides to not honor the contract they signed with the player and outright cuts them.

Why is this OK, but when a player wants a new contract they are being unreasonable?
when a player wants a new contract they are not being unreasonable, this is how the system worksbut when a player wants a new contract the team wants to save cash, s they are willing to let it look like the player is greedy. And fans look at the millions a player is making already and it seems obvious the player is just being greedy

the system works and works pretty well, many people just have a distorted view of it
correct, just seems one likes to hear when the player wants to end his current deal and start a new one, people get up in arms.

When a team wants to cut or renegotiate a deal it's business
No, it really isn't correct. As soon as a player is willing to return the pro rated portion of his bonuses for the amount of time left on a contract, then maybe they are being reasonable. They get enormous amounts of money up front that binds them to the team for whatever length of time they agreed to. When a team cuts a player with time left, they don't get the signing bonus back. I'm shocked that this concept still eludes people. It's really very simple.
correct.I get the team is still on hook for guaranteed money.

It's still a contract both agreed upon. I get that when both parties agree, they both grasp that there is a 0% chance the deal will ever reach the last year untouched.

What am I missing on say Corey Webster?

NFL.com's Kimberly Jones reports the team's best cornerback will take a sizable pay cut to stay in New York, according to a source familiar with negotiations. Webster's salary will be slashed from $7.25 million to $4 million.

It's not a surprise. Webster turned 31 this month and he's in the final year of the six-year, $44.02 million contract he signed in 2008. There's no way the Giants were about to dish out $7 million-plus to a player in decline.

He was gonna be cut basically, but they came to him and said we want you but you sucked so we want you at less money then we initially agreed upon.

Is that not what happened here or am i missing something?
They bought the right to do that for probably around 25 million up front. He sold the rights to them for his services for probaly 25 million, plus a salary for as long as he was there. They have the right contractually to do as they please. He does not.
Wat?Why do they have rules for when players hold out then? Players holding out is just as much a part of the process as teams cutting players. It's all in the rules. No side is more right or wrong than the other. It's the way the game is played.

 
I really dont think the educated fans get upset when a player holds out. Only sometimes when it is an idiot like Terrell Owens who signs a 7 year deal and then wants more money after the first year. ...As for teams cutting players, when a player isn't worth what he is making he gets cut. When a player pisses a team off he gets cut. What's the problem exactly?
Part of this is understanding the structure of the deals, and I think the whole point of the OP. No one here is talking about what can and can't be done "legally" - but rather how the average fan perceives it. TO is a perfect example. He signed a 7 yr, $49m deal and that's what the fan thinks, and views him as greedy. But the reality is that his contract was especially backloaded (most NFL contracts are) and I believe even had very little guaranteed. Again, fuzzy on the numbers and couldn't find details in my brief search, but I believe it was something like $10m guaranteed and about $1m each the first two years of the contract. In later years of his contract, his salary would keep escalating up to $10-12m a year.What this means is that everyone involved knows that it's not REALLY a 7yr, $49m contract. He was clearly either going to have to restructure or more likely be cut. I believe the common belief based on the deal structure that it was always, in reality, a 2yr/12m contract. Again, I think the point of the OP was to point out the hypocrisy here. For the most part, the owners (who are richer than everyone) get a pass when they take action afforded to them by the CBA, but demonizes the player when he uses his available options. NFL players may be paid a lot, but their earning window is very small... certainly compared to the owners.
 
I really dont think the educated fans get upset when a player holds out. Only sometimes when it is an idiot like Terrell Owens who signs a 7 year deal and then wants more money after the first year.

...

As for teams cutting players, when a player isn't worth what he is making he gets cut. When a player pisses a team off he gets cut. What's the problem exactly?
Part of this is understanding the structure of the deals, and I think the whole point of the OP. No one here is talking about what can and can't be done "legally" - but rather how the average fan perceives it. TO is a perfect example. He signed a 7 yr, $49m deal and that's what the fan thinks, and views him as greedy. But the reality is that his contract was especially backloaded (most NFL contracts are) and I believe even had very little guaranteed. Again, fuzzy on the numbers and couldn't find details in my brief search, but I believe it was something like $10m guaranteed and about $1m each the first two years of the contract. In later years of his contract, his salary would keep escalating up to $10-12m a year.

What this means is that everyone involved knows that it's not REALLY a 7yr, $49m contract. He was clearly either going to have to restructure or more likely be cut. I believe the common belief based on the deal structure that it was always, in reality, a 2yr/12m contract.

Again, I think the point of the OP was to point out the hypocrisy here. For the most part, the owners (who are richer than everyone) get a pass when they take action afforded to them by the CBA, but demonizes the player when he uses his available options. NFL players may be paid a lot, but their earning window is very small... certainly compared to the owners.
CorrectAnd I know this has been beat to death 100 times, so I apologize for clouding the pool.

But on a day when many players who are expecting to be making X and playing for X in 2013 suddenly get a termination letter or have to restructure a contract due to poor play in 2012 (i.e SHolmes) no ones is claiming why don't the owners honor the contract THEY signed.

Perhaps I don't understand the legalities of contract as a whole to grasp this concept, but when a player holds out for more money on a contract he signed, the fans think they are greedy, but when a owner cuts a player to save money it is simply just business.

I get it's how the game goes and I actually like it this way on both sides, but no one seems to have the same care when a player is set to make 5M this year is just cut.

 
I really dont think the educated fans get upset when a player holds out. Only sometimes when it is an idiot like Terrell Owens who signs a 7 year deal and then wants more money after the first year.

...

As for teams cutting players, when a player isn't worth what he is making he gets cut. When a player pisses a team off he gets cut. What's the problem exactly?
Part of this is understanding the structure of the deals, and I think the whole point of the OP. No one here is talking about what can and can't be done "legally" - but rather how the average fan perceives it. TO is a perfect example. He signed a 7 yr, $49m deal and that's what the fan thinks, and views him as greedy. But the reality is that his contract was especially backloaded (most NFL contracts are) and I believe even had very little guaranteed. Again, fuzzy on the numbers and couldn't find details in my brief search, but I believe it was something like $10m guaranteed and about $1m each the first two years of the contract. In later years of his contract, his salary would keep escalating up to $10-12m a year.

What this means is that everyone involved knows that it's not REALLY a 7yr, $49m contract. He was clearly either going to have to restructure or more likely be cut. I believe the common belief based on the deal structure that it was always, in reality, a 2yr/12m contract.

Again, I think the point of the OP was to point out the hypocrisy here. For the most part, the owners (who are richer than everyone) get a pass when they take action afforded to them by the CBA, but demonizes the player when he uses his available options. NFL players may be paid a lot, but their earning window is very small... certainly compared to the owners.
CorrectAnd I know this has been beat to death 100 times, so I apologize for clouding the pool.

But on a day when many players who are expecting to be making X and playing for X in 2013 suddenly get a termination letter or have to restructure a contract due to poor play in 2012 (i.e SHolmes) no ones is claiming why don't the owners honor the contract THEY signed.

Perhaps I don't understand the legalities of contract as a whole to grasp this concept, but when a player holds out for more money on a contract he signed, the fans think they are greedy, but when a owner cuts a player to save money it is simply just business.

I get it's how the game goes and I actually like it this way on both sides, but no one seems to have the same care when a player is set to make 5M this year is just cut.
You have to be trolling.
 
I really dont think the educated fans get upset when a player holds out. Only sometimes when it is an idiot like Terrell Owens who signs a 7 year deal and then wants more money after the first year.

...

As for teams cutting players, when a player isn't worth what he is making he gets cut. When a player pisses a team off he gets cut. What's the problem exactly?
Part of this is understanding the structure of the deals, and I think the whole point of the OP. No one here is talking about what can and can't be done "legally" - but rather how the average fan perceives it. TO is a perfect example. He signed a 7 yr, $49m deal and that's what the fan thinks, and views him as greedy. But the reality is that his contract was especially backloaded (most NFL contracts are) and I believe even had very little guaranteed. Again, fuzzy on the numbers and couldn't find details in my brief search, but I believe it was something like $10m guaranteed and about $1m each the first two years of the contract. In later years of his contract, his salary would keep escalating up to $10-12m a year.

What this means is that everyone involved knows that it's not REALLY a 7yr, $49m contract. He was clearly either going to have to restructure or more likely be cut. I believe the common belief based on the deal structure that it was always, in reality, a 2yr/12m contract.

Again, I think the point of the OP was to point out the hypocrisy here. For the most part, the owners (who are richer than everyone) get a pass when they take action afforded to them by the CBA, but demonizes the player when he uses his available options. NFL players may be paid a lot, but their earning window is very small... certainly compared to the owners.
CorrectAnd I know this has been beat to death 100 times, so I apologize for clouding the pool.

But on a day when many players who are expecting to be making X and playing for X in 2013 suddenly get a termination letter or have to restructure a contract due to poor play in 2012 (i.e SHolmes) no ones is claiming why don't the owners honor the contract THEY signed.

Perhaps I don't understand the legalities of contract as a whole to grasp this concept, but when a player holds out for more money on a contract he signed, the fans think they are greedy, but when a owner cuts a player to save money it is simply just business.

I get it's how the game goes and I actually like it this way on both sides, but no one seems to have the same care when a player is set to make 5M this year is just cut.
I swear it's nothing personal, so don't take this as an internet dig, but the answer to all your questions is that you are just an idiot.I'm just keepin' it real -- try to take this as constructive criticism.

maybe in the future spend less time posting about things and spend more time reading about things.

 
I really dont think the educated fans get upset when a player holds out. Only sometimes when it is an idiot like Terrell Owens who signs a 7 year deal and then wants more money after the first year.

...

As for teams cutting players, when a player isn't worth what he is making he gets cut. When a player pisses a team off he gets cut. What's the problem exactly?
Part of this is understanding the structure of the deals, and I think the whole point of the OP. No one here is talking about what can and can't be done "legally" - but rather how the average fan perceives it. TO is a perfect example. He signed a 7 yr, $49m deal and that's what the fan thinks, and views him as greedy. But the reality is that his contract was especially backloaded (most NFL contracts are) and I believe even had very little guaranteed. Again, fuzzy on the numbers and couldn't find details in my brief search, but I believe it was something like $10m guaranteed and about $1m each the first two years of the contract. In later years of his contract, his salary would keep escalating up to $10-12m a year.

What this means is that everyone involved knows that it's not REALLY a 7yr, $49m contract. He was clearly either going to have to restructure or more likely be cut. I believe the common belief based on the deal structure that it was always, in reality, a 2yr/12m contract.

Again, I think the point of the OP was to point out the hypocrisy here. For the most part, the owners (who are richer than everyone) get a pass when they take action afforded to them by the CBA, but demonizes the player when he uses his available options. NFL players may be paid a lot, but their earning window is very small... certainly compared to the owners.
CorrectAnd I know this has been beat to death 100 times, so I apologize for clouding the pool.

But on a day when many players who are expecting to be making X and playing for X in 2013 suddenly get a termination letter or have to restructure a contract due to poor play in 2012 (i.e SHolmes) no ones is claiming why don't the owners honor the contract THEY signed.

Perhaps I don't understand the legalities of contract as a whole to grasp this concept, but when a player holds out for more money on a contract he signed, the fans think they are greedy, but when a owner cuts a player to save money it is simply just business.

I get it's how the game goes and I actually like it this way on both sides, but no one seems to have the same care when a player is set to make 5M this year is just cut.
You have to be trolling.
yeah, this is probably it.
 
'comfortably numb said:
Michael Turner

Beanie Wells

Adrian Wilson

Ahmad Bradshaw

DeAngelo Hall

Early Doucet

James Harrison

Charles Woodson

Bart Scott

Nick Barnett

etc..etc...etc

All these players had contracts that were signed by the teams they played on.

The team decides to not honor the contract they signed with the player and outright cuts them.

Why is this OK, but when a player wants a new contract they are being unreasonable?
when a player wants a new contract they are not being unreasonable, this is how the system worksbut when a player wants a new contract the team wants to save cash, s they are willing to let it look like the player is greedy. And fans look at the millions a player is making already and it seems obvious the player is just being greedy

the system works and works pretty well, many people just have a distorted view of it
correct, just seems one likes to hear when the player wants to end his current deal and start a new one, people get up in arms.

When a team wants to cut or renegotiate a deal it's business
No, it really isn't correct. As soon as a player is willing to return the pro rated portion of his bonuses for the amount of time left on a contract, then maybe they are being reasonable. They get enormous amounts of money up front that binds them to the team for whatever length of time they agreed to. When a team cuts a player with time left, they don't get the signing bonus back. I'm shocked that this concept still eludes people. It's really very simple.
the contract in now way obligates them to playchoosing not to play is their right
Tell that to Barry Sanders. They don't have to play, but what if Drew Brees took a check for 60 million, and just never showed up at camp? Don't you thimk they would have the right to sue him for the money back? What is Manning signs with Denver, takes the cash, and then promptly retires? Have you seen the penalties these guys pay during a hold out?
if the bonus is a signing bonus then by nature of signing they earned it
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top