WR Brandon Aiyuk, SF (5 Viewers)

[Joe Bryant]

News that isn't really news and tells us nothing new:


Schefter: Frustrating 49ers - Aiyuk situation nearing a resolution deadline.

With the regular season just around the corner, a deadline is looming for both sides, especially if Aiyuk plans to play in Week 1.

"I think we're at the point now where we're going to start to get a push here to see how this winds up, how it's resolved,"

"And here we are, on Tuesday, August 20, and nothing is still done. Nothing. And I just think that everybody—everybody—is at the point where they know they need to get resolution, whatever that is."

Schefter: Frustrating 49ers-Aiyuk situation nearing a resolution deadline

Brandon Aiyuk will either sign a contract extension with the San Francisco 49ers or possibly be traded to the Pittsburgh Steelers. These remain the two most...

www.49erswebzone.com

Thank you.

Interesting the website (NOT Schefter) used the word "deadline" in the video clip.

I'm not sure what they consider the "deadline".

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Schefter: Frustrating 49ers - Aiyuk situation nearing a resolution deadline.

With the regular season just around the corner, a deadline is looming for both sides, especially if Aiyuk plans to play in Week 1.

What's the deadline, exactly? Is there a world where the stalemate doesn't get resolved and he just suits up and plays week 1 without a new deal? Or are we certain he'll continue holding out into the regular season?

I would imagine there’s urgency because roster cut-downs are in a week, on Aug 27th.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I'm not sure what they consider the "deadline".

Speculation on the radio that it’s August 27th because that’s roster cut down date & the team would need to know whether Aiyuk is on that final roster.

 

[Ray_T]

This whole thing is stupid.

This whole thing is still stupid.

how about now?

still stupid.

 

[Wingnut]

I'm not sure what they consider the "deadline".

Speculation on the radio that it’s August 27th because that’s roster cut down date & the team would need to know whether Aiyuk is on that final roster.

I think the deadline is around Labor Day. Shanahan doesn't play players that don't practice, so if Aiyuk is gonna play week 1, he needs to be practicing leading up to that game.

Tick tock....

 

[Wingnut]

Latest "news":

Jordan Schultz:

The 49ers and WR Brandon Aiyuk had another meeting yesterday and talks continue to progress on a long-term contract extension. There has been movement on a deal, but there are some minor details that still need to be ironed out with ownership approval.

https://x.com/Schultz_Report/status/1826000375163531409

 

[pollardsvision]

I still just think the only thing that makes any sense for anyone involved (Aiyuk, 49ers, and all the terrible offensive teams trying to lowball Aiyuk) is for Aiyuk to play out this season with the 49ers and then hit the open market.

49ers window is closing fast. PIT, CLE, and NE are a dumpster fire offensively (and I love Maye). 49ers probably shouldn't/can't give Aiyuk a big long-term deal. But his best hope of getting one in a good place is having a massive year with the 49ers this year.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

there are some minor details

money, years, bronze statue at Levi stadium, Ninja 9-in-1 air fryer/pressure cooker in his locker.

You know, little stuff.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

I still just think the only thing that makes any sense for anyone involved (Aiyuk, 49ers, and all the terrible offensive teams trying to lowball Aiyuk) is for Aiyuk to play out this season with the 49ers and then hit the open market.

49ers window is closing fast. PIT, CLE, and NE are a dumpster fire offensively (and I love Maye). 49ers probably shouldn't/can't give Aiyuk a big long-term deal. But his best hope of getting one in a good place is having a massive year with the 49ers this year.

Aiyuk doesn't want to risk his health without a long-term guaranteed contract in place. This would 100% be the best thing for the 49ers though, I agree.

 

[Ray_T]

I still just think the only thing that makes any sense for anyone involved (Aiyuk, 49ers, and all the terrible offensive teams trying to lowball Aiyuk) is for Aiyuk to play out this season with the 49ers and then hit the open market.

49ers window is closing fast. PIT, CLE, and NE are a dumpster fire offensively (and I love Maye). 49ers probably shouldn't/can't give Aiyuk a big long-term deal. But his best hope of getting one in a good place is having a massive year with the 49ers this year.

agreed. thats his best path to the big bucks. I dont know why he feels he NEEDs to get this signed now. Security I guess. but if he wants that big contract he needs one more big year to get there.

 

[pollardsvision]

I still just think the only thing that makes any sense for anyone involved (Aiyuk, 49ers, and all the terrible offensive teams trying to lowball Aiyuk) is for Aiyuk to play out this season with the 49ers and then hit the open market.

49ers window is closing fast. PIT, CLE, and NE are a dumpster fire offensively (and I love Maye). 49ers probably shouldn't/can't give Aiyuk a big long-term deal. But his best hope of getting one in a good place is having a massive year with the 49ers this year.

Aiyuk doesn't want to risk his health without a long-term guaranteed contract in place. This would 100% be the best thing for the 49ers though, I agree.

I get it. Of all the possible deals (PIT/CLE/NE), he can be assured that there will not be another big contract after this one (I love Maye, but we are a long way from knowing if he can be "it")

So, yeah, maybe he can get a big deal from a terrible offense (and even they are low-balling him), but that will be it. You get a big contract with the Browns or Steelers, for sure, but that will be the last decent sized one.

 

[massraider]

I still just think the only thing that makes any sense for anyone involved (Aiyuk, 49ers, and all the terrible offensive teams trying to lowball Aiyuk) is for Aiyuk to play out this season with the 49ers and then hit the open market.

49ers window is closing fast. PIT, CLE, and NE are a dumpster fire offensively (and I love Maye). 49ers probably shouldn't/can't give Aiyuk a big long-term deal. But his best hope of getting one in a good place is having a massive year with the 49ers this year.

Aiyuk doesn't want to risk his health without a long-term guaranteed contract in place. This would 100% be the best thing for the 49ers though, I agree.

Is it your preference he plays out the year, then leaves? Knowing that Deebo is final year of his deal at 29 years old next year?

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

Is it your preference he plays out the year, then leaves? Knowing that Deebo is final year of his deal at 29 years old next year?

No. It’s my preference that the 49ers sign him to a 4 year deal and he continues his ascension as their WR1, while Deebo moves on.

 

[Bob Loblaw]

I heard something similar to the Tee Higgins issue (I could be remembering wrong though). If BA doesn't sign an extension, and only moves forward with playing out his final contract year, what's to stop him from sitting out games or weeks during the regular season if something is ailing him (thus, hurting the 9ers chances of being victorious), but maybe it's not a real season-ending, or career-ending ailment? Maybe it's just a hang nail, or paper cut, but it bothers him.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

FBG Dave Kluge breaks massive conspiracy wide open. You won’t believe what you read!

 

[osubuckeyeman]

With no training camp and this whole mess, how does this affect his play this season? Hamstring concerns? Health concerns? Or overall issues due to this whole drama? Are you buying in Dynasty now, even if you don't know where he is playing, or are you slamming the brakes?

 

[msudaisy26]

I heard something similar to the Tee Higgins issue (I could be remembering wrong though). If BA doesn't sign an extension, and only moves forward with playing out his final contract year, what's to stop him from sitting out games or weeks during the regular season if something is ailing him (thus, hurting the 9ers chances of being victorious), but maybe it's not a real season-ending, or career-ending ailment? Maybe it's just a hang nail, or paper cut, but it bothers him.

That is a slippery slope. He would then have to justify to his next team why he stubbed his toe and missed the game and how can they be sure he won't get upset and do that to us.

If he has a slightly sprained ankle through and they want to give him a shot so he can play would be a different story and he could justify that to a new team.

 

[satch]

With no training camp and this whole mess, how does this affect his play this season? Hamstring concerns? Health concerns? Or overall issues due to this whole drama? Are you buying in Dynasty now, even if you don't know where he is playing, or are you slamming the brakes?

Fantastic buy low window. Plenty of talented WRs have thrived in less-than-ideal situations. Wherever he ends up, he’s going to be paid to be a star, which means volume.

 

[GreenNGold]

With no training camp and this whole mess, how does this affect his play this season? Hamstring concerns? Health concerns? Or overall issues due to this whole drama? Are you buying in Dynasty now, even if you don't know where he is playing, or are you slamming the brakes?

Fantastic buy low window. Plenty of talented WRs have thrived in less-than-ideal situations. Wherever he ends up, he’s going to be paid to be a star, which means volume.

Something seems off here, I'm avoiding. Getting paid by the wrong team also doesn't really mean anything, similar to how the NY Giants paying Golladay didn't amount to anything.

 

[Lansdowne]

With no training camp and this whole mess, how does this affect his play this season? Hamstring concerns? Health concerns? Or overall issues due to this whole drama? Are you buying in Dynasty now, even if you don't know where he is playing, or are you slamming the brakes?

Fantastic buy low window. Plenty of talented WRs have thrived in less-than-ideal situations. Wherever he ends up, he’s going to be paid to be a star, which means volume.

Landing spot matters. Remember Peerless Price? Thanks to Drew Bledsoe in Buffalo, he had a star-making season in his 4th year to the tune of 94-1252-9 on 148 targets as the Bills' WR2 (WR7 in fantasy that year). Buffalo then slapped the franchise tag on him and traded him to Atlanta for their 1st round pick (23rd overall). Atlanta then signed him to a 7-year deal. At last he was undisputed WR1 on his own team. The problem was he was now getting targets from Michael Vick. He had similar target volume that first year with Atlanta but his numbers dropped significantly (64-838-3 on 141 targets). Volume is great, but quality of targets matters too. Hard to catch the ball if it's off target, just ask Drake London or Kyle Pitts. I know the Steeler faithful here might object to this but I wouldn't feel great going from Purdy to Fields/Russ.

 

[Lansdowne]

With no training camp and this whole mess, how does this affect his play this season? Hamstring concerns? Health concerns? Or overall issues due to this whole drama? Are you buying in Dynasty now, even if you don't know where he is playing, or are you slamming the brakes?

Fantastic buy low window. Plenty of talented WRs have thrived in less-than-ideal situations. Wherever he ends up, he’s going to be paid to be a star, which means volume.

Something seems off here, I'm avoiding. Getting paid by the wrong team also doesn't really mean anything, similar to how the NY Giants paying Golladay didn't amount to anything.

In hindsight, making Kenny Golladay look like an NFL caliber WR should be another case for Matthew Stafford to be inducted in Canton. That might be more impressive than winning the Super Bowl with the Rams or setting records with Calvin Johnson, Cooper Kupp, and Puka Nacua!

 

[satch]

With no training camp and this whole mess, how does this affect his play this season? Hamstring concerns? Health concerns? Or overall issues due to this whole drama? Are you buying in Dynasty now, even if you don't know where he is playing, or are you slamming the brakes?

Fantastic buy low window. Plenty of talented WRs have thrived in less-than-ideal situations. Wherever he ends up, he’s going to be paid to be a star, which means volume.

Something seems off here, I'm avoiding. Getting paid by the wrong team also doesn't really mean anything, similar to how the NY Giants paying Golladay didn't amount to anything.

Based on this comparison, you’re suggesting Aiyuk=Golladay in terms of talent, expectations, and potential. I’m not sure I agree with that.

 

[dblock05]

Schefter: Frustrating 49ers - Aiyuk situation nearing a resolution deadline.

With the regular season just around the corner, a deadline is looming for both sides, especially if Aiyuk plans to play in Week 1.

What's the deadline, exactly? Is there a world where the stalemate doesn't get resolved and he just suits up and plays week 1 without a new deal? Or are we certain he'll continue holding out into the regular season?

They wouldn’t be in these contract negotiations if they know he would suit up for 14M at any point

 

[GreenNGold]

With no training camp and this whole mess, how does this affect his play this season? Hamstring concerns? Health concerns? Or overall issues due to this whole drama? Are you buying in Dynasty now, even if you don't know where he is playing, or are you slamming the brakes?

Fantastic buy low window. Plenty of talented WRs have thrived in less-than-ideal situations. Wherever he ends up, he’s going to be paid to be a star, which means volume.

Something seems off here, I'm avoiding. Getting paid by the wrong team also doesn't really mean anything, similar to how the NY Giants paying Golladay didn't amount to anything.

Based on this comparison, you’re suggesting Aiyuk=Golladay in terms of talent, expectations, and potential. I’m not sure I agree with that.

Not really, I was focused on the part saying being paid like a star guarantees volume, I think we have seen enough example from multiple teams (both RB and WR) that show this is not the case. I just threw out Golladay as one of the more extreme examples, but he was probably considered more elite at the time than Aiyuk is considered now.

However, as far my opinion of Aiyuk goes, I think he is good but yet to prove he is elite. In SF he has a good QB, with lots of surrounding talent (CMC, Deebo, Kittle) that opposing defenses also need to focus on. Drop him in PIT or NE, I'm not sure how he would do. I'm not saying he wouldn't succeed, just that I genuinely don't know.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Aiyuk extension is at the goal line!

 

[sm8680]

Could the Commanders jump back for Aiyuk now that the traded Jahan Dotson.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Could the Commanders jump back for Aiyuk now that the traded Jahan Dotson.

I've been hearing some of the same but it's all been people like me just speculating.

It gets tougher and tougher for a player on a brand new team and system this late in the summer so that would be a factor.

In other words, every day that goes by in my opinion means it's more likely he's in SF this year.

 

[Rubi]

I just hope nothing happens until at least opening weekend.
I've grown quite fond of this thread.

 

[Lansdowne]

Could the Commanders jump back for Aiyuk now that the traded Jahan Dotson.

I've been hearing some of the same but it's all been people like me just speculating.

It gets tougher and tougher for a player on a brand new team and system this late in the summer so that would be a factor.

In other words, every day that goes by in my opinion means it's more likely he's in SF this year.

Kingsbury implements the Air Raid offense, which is what Aiyuk played in when he was teammates with Daniels at Arizona State. So while not entirely seamless I don't imagine it would be as tough a transition for Aiyuk as it would be if he went into a completely different offense at the last minute.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

I just hope nothing happens until at least opening weekend.
I've grown quite fond of this thread.

Maybe they can make a bye week trade.

 

[massraider]

Love this tweet

In 2023, Brandon Aiyuk ranked 51st among wide receivers in routes (446). In 2023, Brandon Aiyuk ranked 7th in receiving yards (1342).If you are worried about his ceiling, I don't know what to tell you.

 

[massraider]

This is how the garbage machine works

PFT sends out a tweet: A potential Brandon Aiyuk trade from the 49ers to the Commanders is reportedly back in play. LINK
Whoa. PFT definitely has broken some stories, agents def feed them stories, this isn't some misspelled Twitter randos. Must be legit.

But hey, let's say we dig down a bit, click the link, and see the "REPORT". So, we click the actual LINK

PFT writes a buncha filler and opinion, and here's the only sentence referencing this REPORT

Appearing Thursday on KNBR, Mike Silver of the San Francisco Chronicle put the Commanders back in play for a potential trade for 49ers receiver Brandon Aiyuk.

Whoa hey, look at that, Mike Silver, definitely a real person who gets paid to write about the NFL. WAS is 'back in play' So, hey, I guess WAS is back in play, because Mike Silver and PFT know more NFL guys than I do.

But hey, there's another link there, this must be to the actual REPORT where a reporter REPORTS something.

So because poor old untrusting massraider isn't the trusting sort, and wants to read the actual REPORT, I click the LINK

And hey, looky here, we are back on Twitter, wheeeeeeee. Three tabs open, and I am back to Twitter, nowhere near a newspaper site.

Latest on Aiyuk from @MikeSilver with Tolbert and @Adamcopes
: "My updated information is that everything is still on the table, including all the trades you've heard about... That Steelers scenario... I wouldn't rule out Washington."

Did you catch the REPORT? Where the REPORTer REPORTed some facts?

No? Me either.

Now, how many ads have you seen, and how many people clicked through three links to find out that Mike Silver WOULDN'T RULE OUT Washington?

 

[Spin]

This is how the garbage machine works

PFT sends out a tweet: A potential Brandon Aiyuk trade from the 49ers to the Commanders is reportedly back in play. LINK
Whoa. PFT definitely has broken some stories, agents def feed them stories, this isn't some misspelled Twitter randos. Must be legit.

But hey, let's say we dig down a bit, click the link, and see the "REPORT". So, we click the actual LINK

PFT writes a buncha filler and opinion, and here's the only sentence referencing this REPORT

Appearing Thursday on KNBR, Mike Silver of the San Francisco Chronicle put the Commanders back in play for a potential trade for 49ers receiver Brandon Aiyuk.

Whoa hey, look at that, Mike Silver, definitely a real person who gets paid to write about the NFL. WAS is 'back in play' So, hey, I guess WAS is back in play, because Mike Silver and PFT know more NFL guys than I do.

But hey, there's another link there, this must be to the actual REPORT where a reporter REPORTS something.

So because poor old untrusting massraider isn't the trusting sort, and wants to read the actual REPORT, I click the LINK

And hey, looky here, we are back on Twitter, wheeeeeeee. Three tabs open, and I am back to Twitter, nowhere near a newspaper site.

Latest on Aiyuk from @MikeSilver with Tolbert and @Adamcopes
: "My updated information is that everything is still on the table, including all the trades you've heard about... That Steelers scenario... I wouldn't rule out Washington."

Did you catch the REPORT? Where the REPORTer REPORTed some facts?

No? Me either.

Now, how many ads have you seen, and how many people clicked through three links to find out that Mike Silver WOULDN'T RULE OUT Washington?

Here's the fun part it was based on an interview, where Silver was just saying a trade is still on the table, which was known, but the Commanders part was him speculating based on them trading Dotson to the Eagles (and Peters' 49ers connections). Nothing new really.

 

[Lansdowne]

This is how the garbage machine works

PFT sends out a tweet: A potential Brandon Aiyuk trade from the 49ers to the Commanders is reportedly back in play. LINK
Whoa. PFT definitely has broken some stories, agents def feed them stories, this isn't some misspelled Twitter randos. Must be legit.

But hey, let's say we dig down a bit, click the link, and see the "REPORT". So, we click the actual LINK

PFT writes a buncha filler and opinion, and here's the only sentence referencing this REPORT

Appearing Thursday on KNBR, Mike Silver of the San Francisco Chronicle put the Commanders back in play for a potential trade for 49ers receiver Brandon Aiyuk.

Whoa hey, look at that, Mike Silver, definitely a real person who gets paid to write about the NFL. WAS is 'back in play' So, hey, I guess WAS is back in play, because Mike Silver and PFT know more NFL guys than I do.

But hey, there's another link there, this must be to the actual REPORT where a reporter REPORTS something.

So because poor old untrusting massraider isn't the trusting sort, and wants to read the actual REPORT, I click the LINK

And hey, looky here, we are back on Twitter, wheeeeeeee. Three tabs open, and I am back to Twitter, nowhere near a newspaper site.

Latest on Aiyuk from @MikeSilver with Tolbert and @Adamcopes
: "My updated information is that everything is still on the table, including all the trades you've heard about... That Steelers scenario... I wouldn't rule out Washington."

Did you catch the REPORT? Where the REPORTer REPORTed some facts?

No? Me either.

Now, how many ads have you seen, and how many people clicked through three links to find out that Mike Silver WOULDN'T RULE OUT Washington?

That’s how it is and even the big name insiders are guilty of it. For example you have Adam Schefter who doesn’t know anything about Ja’Marr Chase’s situation because Chase and the Bengals aren’t telling him anything. What does he do? He makes an assumption that Chase is unhappy and then we’ll see “Schefter reports Chase is unhappy”. That Aiyuk example though is really bad because you had to jump through a few hoops to sift through the BS.

x.com

x.com

 

[thecatch]

I've also heard reporting that one of the key issues is over guaranteed money and the fact that guaranteed money needs to be put in escrow at signing.

This isn't correct.

NFL bylaws state a team 'may' be required to place full guarantees in escrow. No one has reported that any teams have actually been required to do so.

I think this is a rule the NFL has to keep teams in check who may be financially in trouble. Far-fetched for the NFL, but looking at other pro leagues, it happens.

We have been told this for years, as a Raiders fan I was told this for at least 15 years, and it's not true.

I've been digging into this a little more today, because Kawakami's latest article again repeatedly emphasizes that guaranteed money has to go into escrow and I was reminded of your comment. There was a PFT news article pointing to the "may" versus "shall" language of the clause in the CBA last year regarding escrow funding, but I haven't seen any other indication that owners are doing anything other than putting a significant amount of the guaranteed money in escrow. There's even an NFLPA article acknowledging the rule.

Did you have any other sources on the fact that this requirement is fake news? Interested in learning more about it if so.

 

[massraider]

There was a PFT news article pointing to the "may" versus "shall" language of the clause in the CBA last year regarding escrow funding, but I haven't seen any other indication that owners are doing anything other than putting a significant amount of the guaranteed money in escrow. There's even an NFLPA article acknowledging the rule.

You are looking for an indication of something not happening.

I am unaware of ever hearing about a team actually doing it, and I feel like we would have. That NFLPA article doesn't quote the rule, it mentions it. THEY said 'must', because that's what agents have been getting told, but the PFT article quotes the actual rule, and the use of the word 'may'.

We have never heard from a news guy that the contract is signed, just awaiting escrow guarantee to hit the bank. When Watson signed, no one mentioned Haslem deposting 250 mill in an escrow account. Any NFL owner pulling together 250 mill for a deposit is going to be a news story.

We've never heard about the interest teams make on their escrow accounts, or any details of any of this happening, aside from reporters speculating that this team or that team was cash poor, and couldn't afford players. It's a Bay Area reporter folk tale.

 

[thecatch]

There was a PFT news article pointing to the "may" versus "shall" language of the clause in the CBA last year regarding escrow funding, but I haven't seen any other indication that owners are doing anything other than putting a significant amount of the guaranteed money in escrow. There's even an NFLPA article acknowledging the rule.

You are looking for an indication of something not happening.

I am unaware of ever hearing about a team actually doing it, and I feel like we would have. That NFLPA article doesn't quote the rule, it mentions it. THEY said 'must', because that's what agents have been getting told, but the PFT article quotes the actual rule, and the use of the word 'may'.

We have never heard from a news guy that the contract is signed, just awaiting escrow guarantee to hit the bank. When Watson signed, no one mentioned Haslem deposting 250 mill in an escrow account. Any NFL owner pulling together 250 mill for a deposit is going to be a news story.

We've never heard about the interest teams make on their escrow accounts, or any details of any of this happening, aside from reporters speculating that this team or that team was cash poor, and couldn't afford players. It's a Bay Area reporter folk tale.

Prior to the 2023 PFT article noting the "may require" language, every single article about the NFL CBA refers to this as an ironclad requirement. Dismissing it as bay area folk lore is silly - that's what the public understanding was. After the 2023 report, it doesn't seem like anyone's been able to confirm exactly what's going on, whether 0% goes into escrow, some percentage less than 100, or 100. I think it's probable that the agents would have heard some inkling of how this was being handled by teams and the NFL at some point during the course of the CBA, so their understanding of what was going on shouldn't be entirely dismissed, though I agree it is imperfect.

But as far as I can tell, there's about as much evidence or less evidence for the 0% goes to escrow theory as the 100% goes to escrow theory. Again, would love for someone to chime in with another source on this if I've missed something.

 

[massraider]

Prior to the 2023 PFT article noting the "may require" language, every single article about the NFL CBA refers to this as an ironclad requirement. Dismissing it as bay area folk lore is silly - that's what the public understanding was. After the 2023 report, it doesn't seem like anyone's been able to confirm exactly what's going on, whether 0% goes into escrow, some percentage less than 100, or 100. I think it's probable that the agents would have heard some inkling of how this was being handled by teams and the NFL at some point during the course of the CBA, so their understanding of what was going on shouldn't be entirely dismissed, though I agree it is imperfect.

The agent's understanding, in that article you provided, was basically saying it was a BS reason why they couldn't guarantee salaries.

As I said, there isn't going to be proof that something did NOT happen, so I cannot provide it.

I am unaware of any evidence any NFL team has ever done this.

 

[thecatch]

Prior to the 2023 PFT article noting the "may require" language, every single article about the NFL CBA refers to this as an ironclad requirement. Dismissing it as bay area folk lore is silly - that's what the public understanding was. After the 2023 report, it doesn't seem like anyone's been able to confirm exactly what's going on, whether 0% goes into escrow, some percentage less than 100, or 100. I think it's probable that the agents would have heard some inkling of how this was being handled by teams and the NFL at some point during the course of the CBA, so their understanding of what was going on shouldn't be entirely dismissed, though I agree it is imperfect.

The agent's understanding, in that article you provided, was basically saying it was a BS reason why they couldn't guarantee salaries.

As I said, there isn't going to be proof that something did NOT happen, so I cannot provide it.

I am unaware of any evidence any NFL team has ever done this.

Not because the rule wasn't real. The article is saying it was a BS reason because owners have the capability to fund the escrow accounts if they really want to. The Browns (allegedly) funded the Watson guarantees, and this proves owners can cough up the necessary cash if necessary, the NFLPA contends. The Browns' subsequent cagey responses to press inquiries seems to suggest that they weren't required to and didn't fund 100% of the guaranteed money in escrow, but it still remains unclear what the actual requirements or common practice about this is. And it seems like you don't have any additional sourcing on this, which is fine and expected - I can't find any either. I just thought I'd ask.

 

[massraider]

Not because the rule wasn't real. The article is saying it was a BS reason because owners have the capability to fund the escrow accounts if they really want to. The Browns (allegedly) funded the Watson guarantees, and this proves owners can cough up the necessary cash if necessary, the NFLPA contends. The Browns' subsequent cagey responses to press inquiries seems to suggest that they weren't required to and didn't fund 100% of the guaranteed money in escrow, but it still remains unclear what the actual requirements or common practice about this is. And it seems like you don't have any additional sourcing on this, which is fine and expected - I can't find any either. I just thought I'd ask.

There was an interview with Gruden, it was in print somewhere, and he said after he paid a fine once, Sean Payton was laughing at him, saying he was the only dumba$$ who actually paid a fine from the NFL (coaches and front office I mean).

So maybe it's a rule no one follows.

As I said earlier, it seemed to me that the NFL could have the rule, if they were concerned an owner was having financial issues, and maybe couldn't actually pay monies owed. It is crazy to think possible, with NFL money being the biggest in the world, but there are many instances of teams having financial issues in other sports, so maybe kind of a failsafe.

 

[thecatch]

Not because the rule wasn't real. The article is saying it was a BS reason because owners have the capability to fund the escrow accounts if they really want to. The Browns (allegedly) funded the Watson guarantees, and this proves owners can cough up the necessary cash if necessary, the NFLPA contends. The Browns' subsequent cagey responses to press inquiries seems to suggest that they weren't required to and didn't fund 100% of the guaranteed money in escrow, but it still remains unclear what the actual requirements or common practice about this is. And it seems like you don't have any additional sourcing on this, which is fine and expected - I can't find any either. I just thought I'd ask.

There was an interview with Gruden, it was in print somewhere, and he said after he paid a fine once, Sean Payton was laughing at him, saying he was the only dumba$$ who actually paid a fine from the NFL (coaches and front office I mean).

So maybe it's a rule no one follows.

As I said earlier, it seemed to me that the NFL could have the rule, if they were concerned an owner was having financial issues, and maybe couldn't actually pay monies owed. It is crazy to think possible, with NFL money being the biggest in the world, but there are many instances of teams having financial issues in other sports, so maybe kind of a failsafe.

Sure. Or maybe it's a rule that the NFL follows with some teams, or the NFL requires a percentage less than 100% to be escrowed. Rich Eisen has a clip where his research guy claims the Browns put 80% in escrow. It doesn't seem like we know. So as much as I'd like to beat Kawakami over the head with a source that says he's full of crap, we can't prove it. And thus there's a chance he's right about why the Niners are driving a hard bargain with respect to Aiyuk's guaranteed dollars.

 

[Wingnut]

“My understanding is Brandon Aiyuk has traveled with the team for the last preseason game, so that is perhaps a sign of good faith that he is with the team”

— Mike Garafolo

x.com

twitter.com

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

This is getting stupid. Ship him off to PIT already. Sick of this dude.

 

[Willie Mays Hayes]

This is getting stupid. Ship him off to PIT already. Sick of this dude.

You can't blame a guy for wanting to be paid his market value. The market has spoken and he is literally set to make at least 50% less than what he is worth as a Niner. I really don't know how they keep him since I would think that 10-time Pro Bowler Trent Williams has to be a signing priority over Aiyuk.

 

[Rubi]

 

[sm8680]

This is getting stupid. Ship him off to PIT already. Sick of this dude.

Oh, H no. I've had enough of this dude.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

This is getting stupid. Ship him off to PIT already. Sick of this dude.

Oh, H no. I've had enough of this dude.

Yeah, some dudes from PIT were calling in to 95.7 sayin "we don't want him"

At this point Niners should tell him to play for 14M or pound sand. I cannot believe he thinks he's worth as much as Lamb or JJ. Cmon.

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

This is getting stupid. Ship him off to PIT already. Sick of this dude.

You can't blame a guy for wanting to be paid his market value. The market has spoken and he is literally set to make at least 50% less than what he is worth as a Niner. I really don't know how they keep him since I would think that 10-time Pro Bowler Trent Williams has to be a signing priority over Aiyuk.

He's trying to be paid well beyond his market value. He was reportedly offered $29M a year.

That's well above market value. I can totally blame him for that because he's had opportunities to be paid & traded and has declined them all. At this point he is 100% to blame. Screw that dude. Me first player who's handled this terribly while the team has bent over backwards trying to accommodate him.

 

[eighsse2]

This is getting stupid. Ship him off to PIT already. Sick of this dude.

You can't blame a guy for wanting to be paid his market value. The market has spoken and he is literally set to make at least 50% less than what he is worth as a Niner. I really don't know how they keep him since I would think that 10-time Pro Bowler Trent Williams has to be a signing priority over Aiyuk.

That's just kind of how it goes ... If he's worth double his pay why did he sign a contract for that amount

 

[Hot Sauce Guy]

That's just kind of how it goes ... If he's worth double his pay why did he sign a contract for that amount

Exactly. And they're actively trying to pay him double that amount. And he keeps moving the goal posts. Ship him off to PA and let him play in the snow, and good riddance. We've reached the point where he's doing more harm than good.