News: PFT: New CBA will make it harder to hold out

kskboys · Feb 27, 2020

MarcusRock said:
Then what do you think of owners cutting a player still under contract due to enormous cap hits, etc.?

The players should be smart and sign for lesser amounts, but more guaranteed money. I've always thought that.

kskboys · Feb 27, 2020

Jake said:
And yet, it apparently doesn't bother you at all when a team dumps a player when there's still time on his contract.

This has nothing to do with any sacred "word", because if it did you'd be mad both ways. You're only mad at the players.

You're not an old coot with an alleged value system. You're just a fan who wants to see his favorite uniform win on Sunday.

As long as what was agreed to get paid gets paid, why would anyone have a problem w/ it.

Hey, you want to lose less when you get cut? Sign for lesser money, but more guaranteed. The players are signing these contracts w/ huge unguaranteed paydays by choice.

Tussinman · Feb 27, 2020

kskboys said:
As long as what was agreed to get paid gets paid, why would anyone have a problem w/ it.

Hey, you want to lose less when you get cut? Sign for lesser money, but more guaranteed. The players are signing these contracts w/ huge unguaranteed paydays by choice.

Not only that "time on there contract" is moot

Contract states you get your base rate IF your on the roster. If your not on the roster then what is this magically "time" or "deal" that there breaking ?

jaythecowboy · Feb 27, 2020

visionary said:
for the life of me I cannot understand why people don’t seem to have ANY understanding of how a contract works and keep asking this silly question year after year and year

if ANY team cut a player ‘still under contract’ that they could not have as part of the contract (hence violated the contract), the player could sue the team

BUT we haven’t heard of ANY players doing this

WHY OH WHY might that be?

perhaps it is because the clause allowing a team to do so is PART OF THE CONTRACT in exchange for things like big signing bonus etc HENCE the team is actually ALLOWED to do this AS PART OF THE CONTRACT

if the player doesn’t want to be in that position, negotiate the contract differently

can’t be this simple, can it?

No team has sued a player either. Because what the players were doing in holding out was also allowed under the cba.

408Cowboy · Feb 27, 2020

BatteryPowered said:
I knew that one was coming. A professional athlete should understand (or his agent should explain to them) that their services can...and will...be terminated at any time for a multitude of reasons. That is why, even the rookie minimum, gets the NFL player more money in one year than the average person can expect to earn in a decade. For those that say, "That's not fair"...show me where is it written that life will be fair.

Life's not fair. Not fair to players that get cut or owners when players holdout. Two way street.

Sevenup3000 · Feb 28, 2020

visionary said:
for the life of me I cannot understand why people don’t seem to have ANY understanding of how a contract works and keep asking this silly question year after year and year

if ANY team cut a player ‘still under contract’ that they could not have as part of the contract (hence violated the contract), the player could sue the team

BUT we haven’t heard of ANY players doing this

WHY OH WHY might that be?

perhaps it is because the clause allowing a team to do so is PART OF THE CONTRACT in exchange for things like big signing bonus etc HENCE the team is actually ALLOWED to do this AS PART OF THE CONTRACT

if the player doesn’t want to be in that position, negotiate the contract differently

can’t be this simple, can it?

Just like it is part of the CONTRACT that players will/can hold out...

visionary · Feb 28, 2020

Sevenup3000 said:
Just like it is part of the CONTRACT that players will/can hold out...

Yes it is
Where did I say it isn’t?

visionary · Feb 28, 2020

jaythecowboy said:
No team has sued a player either. Because what the players were doing in holding out was also allowed under the cba.

so?

Reverend Conehead · Feb 28, 2020

Jake said:
And yet, it apparently doesn't bother you at all when a team dumps a player when there's still time on his contract.

This has nothing to do with any sacred "word", because if it did you'd be mad both ways. You're only mad at the players.

You're not an old coot with an alleged value system. You're just a fan who wants to see his favorite uniform win on Sunday.

Bull****. I didn't say anything about the team. You put those words in my mouth. The team should live up to its agreements too. Thanks for putting words in my mouth, but I'm fully capable of speaking for myself.

jaythecowboy · Feb 28, 2020

visionary said:
so?

The conversation you were responding to was from another poster who was upset about players holding out but not owners prematurely ending contracts. It's two sides of the same coin. Both parties are doing what they are allowed according to the rules in place.

visionary · Feb 28, 2020

jaythecowboy said:
The conversation you were responding to was from another poster who was upset about players holding out but not owners prematurely ending contracts. It's two sides of the same coin. Both parties are doing what they are allowed according to the rules in place.

my point was that BOTH are ok as long as they are in your contract

once again, SO???

Manwiththeplan · Feb 28, 2020

Reality said:
After reading this article, this is likely one of the main reasons many of the higher tier paid players are coming out publicly against the CBA.

yea...probably :laugh:

doomsday9084 · Feb 28, 2020

The issue I have with holdouts is the guaranteed money. If some guy took a big signing bonus and some roster guarantees to start up a 5 year deal and then holds out before the contract is up, he should owe some of that back. People will bring up the teams cutting players. That's fair but if a team cuts a player before a contract is up, do they ask for part of his signing bonus back? Absolutely not.

In general, I think the owners are ***** and they are using their leverage over the players to get unfair agreements but this isn't an example of that.

jaythecowboy · Feb 28, 2020

visionary said:
my point was that BOTH are ok as long as they are in your contract

once again, SO???

You only mentioned one perspective. Had you mentioned both I wouldn't have responded.

Froski · Feb 28, 2020

MarcusRock said:
Then what do you think of owners cutting a player still under contract due to enormous cap hits, etc.?

It's a business if they don't think you're worth the money you get cut.

A lot of people get laid off from their jobs for that same reason. So nfl players can't really complain. They get the option to take pay cuts and still make millions, normal peeps aren't so lucky.

garyo1954 · Feb 28, 2020

doomsday9084 said:
The issue I have with holdouts is the guaranteed money. If some guy took a big signing bonus and some roster guarantees to start up a 5 year deal and then holds out before the contract is up, he should owe some of that back. People will bring up the teams cutting players. That's fair but if a team cuts a player before a contract is up, do they ask for part of his signing bonus back? Absolutely not.

In general, I think the owners are ***** and they are using their leverage over the players to get unfair agreements but this isn't an example of that.

Teams do sue players to recover at least part of the signing bonus in some cases.....

ATLANTA FALCONS
We all know that Michael Vick has quite the troubled past. From accusations of sexual assault to dog fighting, he’s considered the “bad boy” of the NFL. In fact, his own team, the Atlanta Falcons, sued him in 2007 in order to recover $20 million from his signing bonus. The team alleged that Vick used the bonus money to pay for his illegal dog-fighting operation.

Final Verdict: The case was eventually sent to arbitration, and an arbitrator ruled that Vick had to reimburse the Falcons for $19.97 mill.

The Bills were expected to seek repayment of a $1.5 million signing bonus from from CB Vontae Davis after he went to a coach and said, "I'm done." (not sure if they did)

Antonio Brown, last year?

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2019/09/20/will-antonio-brown-get-his-9-million-signing-bonus/

Reid1boys · Feb 28, 2020

DakPresgoat said:
Interesting thought. I’ve never been in a union so I honestly can’t speak to the inter union politics that I’m sure take place amongst the members.

Comparing a union in the real world, like UPS, with a pro sports union makes ZERO sense. A driver at ups has one option, show to work for the bargained pay, or quit. There is no holding out for higher pay. Trust me, the union leadership does not like these rules in regards to holdiuts.

Reid1boys · Feb 28, 2020

Jake said:
This will make a lot of fans happy, who would play for their favorite team for free (until they were actually good enough to do it).

They like the players being treated as indentured servants, so they can see their favorite uniforms win on Sunday.

Gthoh with that indentured servant crap. Players can walk at any time.

gjkoeppen · Feb 28, 2020

CouchCoach said:
The owners are using this opportunity with a proposed player percentage increase to bring the clamps down and the majority of the player base is still in first contracts. They're playing the %'s to the majority and I will be surprised now if it doesn't work. I've 180'd on this and given the lack of leverage the players have and the "take it or leave it" approach the NFL is taking and if I am a player rep, I'd be thinking about the fact not all of the owners were in favor of this, which could be an effective ploy, and assume they thought this was too good for the players.

I think the other reason the owners have taken this approach is to get this put to bed and go hunting TV. They gave up a couple of points, they're out to get them back from the Golden Geese.

The last time the CBA was up there was a work stoppage, Before the stoppage the owners then too said it was their final offer but low and behold they had more offers in them when the stoppage happened. And you don't think the players know this too. The last stoppage most players lost money. Some who had the foresight of a possible stoppage got insurance from Lloyd's of London and didn't lose money. All of the owners did lose money and there were enough of them who were upset that they didn't keep negotiating and possibly avoiding the shut down and I'm sure the owners remember that and will go back to negotiating if the players reject this offer if for no other reason than they won't want another work stoppage even though the current CBA isn't up until after this season.

The TV contracts aren't up until when the new league starts in 2022.
.

Reid1boys · Feb 28, 2020

Sevenup3000 said:
Just like it is part of the CONTRACT that players will/can hold out...

Won't be in a week or 2...lol

News: PFT: New CBA will make it harder to hold out

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member