Twitter: Voiding Deals for FINES is not used by any other team in the league

Dan Rogers @DannyPhantom24

Randy Gregory missed five games last season. Micah Parsons had a sack in EVERY one of them and seven sacks total in those games. In fact, Parsons had MORE sacks in just those five games than he did in all 12 of the games that Gregory played.

Paying out all that money out, why wouldn't you have clauses in contracts..??

LatinMind said:

Shows how much reporters actually know. And how much some of you don't bother to do your own research. The raiders voided Antonio browns guarantees for conduct detrimental for his confrontation with their gm.

Click to expand...

There is a difference between losing guarantees based on a fine for conduct detrimental to the team vs losing guarantees based on ANY FINE.

Only in Dallas. The ceiling is the floor

jaythecowboy said:

There is a difference between losing guarantees based on a fine for conduct detrimental to the team vs losing guarantees based on ANY FINE.

Click to expand...

You failed to realize the point. It's not about why but the raiders had that in their contracts. Clearly the raiders put a clause in his contract that would allow them to void the guarantees. And that's the issue with welders post and source saying the cowboys are the only team to put guaranteed money voids in contracts. You get it?

LatinMind said:

Shows how much reporters actually know. And how much some of you don't bother to do your own research. The raiders voided Antonio browns guarantees for conduct detrimental for his confrontation with their gm.

Click to expand...

That was an isolated, egregious incident. It was not about his contract.

LatinMind said:

You failed to realize the point. It's not about why but the raiders had that in their contracts. Clearly the raiders put a clause in his contract that would allow them to void the guarantees. And that's the issue with welders post and source saying the cowboys are the only team to put guaranteed money voids in contracts. You get it?

Click to expand...

The DFT was quoted to have the clause in all contracts, except for Dak’s. It is not universally used.

LatinMind said:

You failed to realize the point. It's not about why but the raiders had that in their contracts. Clearly the raiders put a clause in his contract that would allow them to void the guarantees. And that's the issue with welders post and source saying the cowboys are the only team to put guaranteed money voids in contracts. You get it?

Click to expand...

That’s like me saying a certain restaurant is the only restaurant that sells pb and j sandwiches. And then someone replies “No I just got a turkey sandwich at a different place yesterday.”

I just don’t trust Peter Schaffers role in all this. The connection with Denver is one thing and the fact the exact same language was in Collins contract. From what I’ve gathered it’s not that the guarantee money could be terminated by any fine, it would have to be linked to personal conduct/drug related. The other aspect of this that doesn’t sit well by looking at the timing of this. Schaffer said he gave the management the opportunity to take out the language but they refused but if you look at the timeframe when this would have occurred, the entire brass was at Marylyn Loves funeral. I’m not saying it would be impossible for communication to have occurred but the fact is the bait and switch happened during her services.

It doesn’t matter now, what’s done is done but my gut feeling is for some reason (maybe the pressure or state laws) Gregory didn’t want to be a Cowboy anymore and his Denver base agent also had the incentive to sign close. The contract language was an excuse to make Dallas look bad after everything they did for Gregory the last 8 years.

Starforever said:

But that should have been agreed on before presenting the contract, knowing that Dak's contract had no such language.

Click to expand...

Presenting the contract is *how* you communicate what is in it.

QBs get special treatment and everyone knows it. If *all other players* had no such clause, then Gregory might have a case, although according to FIsher, the language was in his *last* contract, so it can hardly be a surprise that the next would contain it too.

jaythecowboy said:

That’s like me saying a certain restaurant is the only restaurant that sells pb and j sandwiches. And then someone replies “No I just got a turkey sandwich at a different place yesterday.”

Click to expand...

You don't get it. Oh well

at the clowns still defending Jones.