General question on Poison Pills in the NFL *Merge*

[Woods]

As far as I can remember Minn used a poison pill clause to lure away S Hutchinson.

And Seattle may have also used a poison pill versus Minn (to get even).

Have other NFL teams used poison pills to anyone's recollection?

Also, I vaguely remember the NFL deciding that going forward, that poison pills would not be used. I think that was based on general consensus rather than a formal rule, however.

Does anyone recollect hearing or reading something similar?

Thanks.

 

[Yeagermeister]

I'm pretty sure the NFL doesn't allow it anymore but I don't know if they made it a formal rule.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

I'm pretty sure the NFL doesn't allow it anymore but I don't know if they made it a formal rule.

i know it's not a formal rule just because I've seen the possibility mentioned, however I hope Goodell told all the owners to cut the BS out. Hopefully it's added to the next CBA

 

[dbair1967]

As far as I can remember Minn used a poison pill clause to lure away S Hutchinson.

And Seattle may have also used a poison pill versus Minn (to get even).

Have other NFL teams used poison pills to anyone's recollection?

Also, I vaguely remember the NFL deciding that going forward, that poison pills would not be used. I think that was based on general consensus rather than a formal rule, however.

Does anyone recollect hearing or reading something similar?

Thanks.

It's been used alot ovr the years.

And as far as I know, there is no rule against it. There is no specific "poison pill"...it just a way to structure a contract to make it less likely the other team can match the offer. As long as its within the bounds of contract rules, there's nothing wrong with it.

 

[burmafrd]

there have been nothing like that poison pill because a lot of the owners got ticked off about it. A "Gentlemen's" agreement that it would not be done again.

 

[Alexander]

there have been nothing like that poison pill because a lot of the owners got ticked off about it. A "Gentlemen's" agreement that it would not be done again.

Ownership is also presenting a united front to the Union right now.

Teams knifing each other in the back with poison pill contracts would be contrary to that effort. I strongly doubt teams will try to play dirty with each other trying to get a player right now.

 

[xWraithx]

can someone briefly (if possible) explain what a "poison pill" is?

 

[zrinkill]

In professional sports, a poison pill is a component of a contract, which one team offers a player, that makes it difficult or impossible for another team (which has the right of first refusal) to match. While it can often refer to a salary structure or clause that would affect all teams equally, it has taken on a new specific meaning of a clause that has unbalanced impact. For example, in March 2006, the Minnesota Vikings offered Steve Hutchinson, an offensive guard with the Seattle Seahawks, a seven-year, $49 million contract of which $16 million was guaranteed. This contract offer had two poison pills in it. One was the salary structure, which would require the team to pay $13 million in the first year of the contract. That salary structure would apply to both teams equally, as the Seahawks would also have to pay $13 million in the first contract year, were they to match the offer. The second was a clause that required Hutchinson to be the highest paid player on the offensive line, or else the entire contract would be guaranteed. Since the Seahawks had another offensive lineman, Walter Jones, with a higher salary and the Vikings did not, this clause would have required the Seahawks to guarantee $49 million, and it effectively eliminated the Seahawks' opportunity to match the contract offer.

.
.
.
.

God Bless Wikipedia

 

[AbeBeta]

i know it's not a formal rule just because I've seen the possibility mentioned, however I hope Goodell told all the owners to cut the BS out. Hopefully it's added to the next CBA

I think it is clear that Goodell did tell teams to cut the crap. The problem in addressing this through CBA is that it is really hard to write a rule that addresses all the creative stuff a team can do (e.g., contract is guaranteed if player is on the active roster for 3 or more games in the State of Minnesota during the regular season) - It does look like the union is on board with how he is handling it though

 

[Idgit]

Clearly, ownership has backed off the poison pill language. And I still don't think any credible agent is going to go afoul of Jerry Jones and the Cowboys on a signing the Cowboys are prepared to do, anyway.

 

[sonnyboy]

In professional sports, a poison pill is a component of a contract, which one team offers a player, that makes it difficult or impossible for another team (which has the right of first refusal) to match. While it can often refer to a salary structure or clause that would affect all teams equally, it has taken on a new specific meaning of a clause that has unbalanced impact. For example, in March 2006, the Minnesota Vikings offered Steve Hutchinson, an offensive guard with the Seattle Seahawks, a seven-year, $49 million contract of which $16 million was guaranteed. This contract offer had two poison pills in it. One was the salary structure, which would require the team to pay $13 million in the first year of the contract. That salary structure would apply to both teams equally, as the Seahawks would also have to pay $13 million in the first contract year, were they to match the offer. The second was a clause that required Hutchinson to be the highest paid player on the offensive line, or else the entire contract would be guaranteed. Since the Seahawks had another offensive lineman, Walter Jones, with a higher salary and the Vikings did not, this clause would have required the Seahawks to guarantee $49 million, and it effectively eliminated the Seahawks' opportunity to match the contract offer.

.
.
.
.

God Bless Wikipedia

I thought that Minnesota deal had a real poison pill that had to do with geography.
I don't see structuring a deal to pay a player anyway you want as a poison pill. It's when you include those rediculos clauses like if the player plays more than three games in the state of Washington he gets 50 mil!

 

[sonnyboy]

As far as I can remember Minn used a poison pill clause to lure away S Hutchinson.

And Seattle may have also used a poison pill versus Minn (to get even).

Have other NFL teams used poison pills to anyone's recollection?

Also, I vaguely remember the NFL deciding that going forward, that poison pills would not be used. I think that was based on general consensus rather than a formal rule, however.

Does anyone recollect hearing or reading something similar?

Thanks.

I believe Godell has the right or authority to void any deal.

 

[burmafrd]

Not sure if Goodell has absolute authority on that.

 

[johnnyd]

I thought that Minnesota deal had a real poison pill that had to do with geography.
I don't see structuring a deal to pay a player anyway you want as a poison pill. It's when you include those rediculos clauses like if the player plays more than three games in the state of Washington he gets 50 mil!

I belive the geography thing was what Seattle did with burleson for revenge and to make it look more ridiculous.

the thing we have to keep in mind is that hutch signed the offer sheet "poison pill" and all because he was upset that seattle gave him a low tender. And who knows what kind of bad blood he ad his agent had with seattle's front office already.

Maybe I'm just hoping and being a homer here but i think Austin's situation is different because even if he received a poison pill offer as long as he doesn't sign the offer sheet both he and his agent can tell Jerry this is what i got let's talk .. If Jerry low balls him then he could sign the sheet and move on.. again wishful thinking and also assuming miles loves playing for Dallas.

 

[mmillman]

Steve Hutchison get away when Minnesota loaded their offer with the clause that guaranteed Hutch would be the highest paid offensive linemen on the team. Seattle had Walter Jones so that became problematic.

Can Dallas run into the same problem because of Roy Williams' contract or did the league do something about stupid clauses like that?

 

[roy31]

I would'nt put it past Parcells to try something like this to get Miles.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

I think it is clear that Goodell did tell teams to cut the crap. The problem in addressing this through CBA is that it is really hard to write a rule that addresses all the creative stuff a team can do (e.g., contract is guaranteed if player is on the active roster for 3 or more games in the State of Minnesota during the regular season) - It does look like the union is on board with how he is handling it though

just say that all conditions must be matched by both teams. if some team is willing to garuntee miles austin's entire contract and we're not, I wouldn't consider that underhanded, just incompetence on our part for allowing it to come to that

 

[Dough Boy]

I still don't get why players agree to the poison pill. Lets say the Rams try to still Austin away from us. The contract states that the entire deal is guaranteed if Austin plays 6 games in the state of TX. Total contract of $36MM. Why sign that deal. If he plays for the Rams, he will never play 6 games in the state of TX. So in reality its a non-guarantee. Its only a guarantee if he plays for Dallas or Houston.

Conversely, Why wouldn't the Boys offer Austin the same contract but change the language to read, if Austin plays 6 games in the state of MO, the full value of the $36MM becomes guaranteed. Ostensibly, the contact is matched on like terms.

I'm sure I over simplified this and also sure I'm missing some key points. Please help me to understand this seldom used loop-hole.

 

[Hoofbite]

Pretty sure Team A cannot counter Team B's poison pill with a poison pill.

Team A only has the right to match.

 

[johnnyd]

I still don't get why players agree to the poison pill. Lets say the Rams try to still Austin away from us. The contract states that the entire deal is guaranteed if Austin plays 6 games in the state of TX. Total contract of $36MM. Why sign that deal. If he plays for the Rams, he will never play 6 games in the state of TX. So in reality its a non-guarantee. Its only a guarantee if he plays for Dallas or Houston.

Conversely, Why wouldn't the Boys offer Austin the same contract but change the language to read, if Austin plays 6 games in the state of MO, the full value of the $36MM becomes guaranteed. Ostensibly, the contact is matched on like terms.

I'm sure I over simplified this and also sure I'm missing some key points. Please help me to understand this seldom used loop-hole.

sorry to be evil thread watcher guy , but isnt there already a posion pill thread 4 lines down? again sorry for being that guy and all but it's still on page 1 so ...