Holdouts... players crying about salaries etc...

[Doomsday101]

Yeah it's a game... So let's pay them all peanuts. I mean they get to goof off for a living. Nevermind that the owners and the league make millions off of the players abilities. Nevermind that many of these guys can't walk when they leave the game.

You guys seem to be okay to let the league and owners be greedy, but when it comes to the players, that's just too taboo. How dare they?!?!? They're playing a GAME for a living.

I did not say that. I don't have a problem with guys making big money but I'm not going to feel sorry for some guys who is holding out for 10 mill because he is only making 5 mill right now. If the money is that bad then go get a real job and I can promise you some of these idiots would be crying their butts off for another chance to play this game. As for the Owners I agree they too can be greedy and we will it with ticket prices. I went to the SB in 1976 and we paid 25 dollars a ticket to see Dallas vs Pitt now day’s corporations buy these tickets and many avg fans that go to the games week in and week out can't afford those tickets.

 

[Stautner]

Like I said before, it's millions of dollars, so it all runs together right? These guys are making millions, they should be happy with what they get!!.

That's not at all what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that they negotiate a deal and get money up front - THAT's the protection they get in case they get cut - they cover the possibility of getting cut and not having a job by making sure they get money up fron that they don't even have to play to get, and they get a portion of their salary guaranteed.

THAT's what the negotiate into the deal to be sure they got plenty of money even if they get cut - THAT's what they negotiate to cover themselves.

They negotiat it, see it as a good deal and they sign a contract that they think is favorable to them and expect the team to abide by it ...... why should it only be binding on one side?

THAT's the point.

Tell that to Ricky Williams.

It was in the contract. Williams lost money by not living up to his end of the contract.

The team can cut a player at any time.... and many times they do so just to save cap space.

That's right - they can, because they are allowed to - yet the player keeps a lucrative bonus and a guranteed portion of his contract as a nice parting gift .......

WHY? Because that is also in the contract.

The player cannot retire at any time.... they have to have a "good reason.".

That's the most ridiculous comment you've made - a player can retire at any time. That's what Tiki Barber just did and Barry Sanders before that. That's why every year the PAckers sit on the edge of their seats waiting for Favre to make a decision.

You are delusional if you think a guy can't choose when to retire.

How often do we really have true holdouts though? How many are there this training camp season? Maybe 5?

I don't see your point. If that's the number, then those are the 5 I have a problem with ...... so what?

On the other hand, how many guys get cut every offseason so the team can save cap room? A lot.

Because, again, it's allowed under the contract ........ and again, the players get to keep big bonus money and the guaranteed portion of their salary.

Why ........? Becuase it's in the contract.

Oh, so if you stood to make $50 million over 5 years, you'd be happy with $5 or $10 million, and you wouldn't complain?

Maybe I wouldn't be happy, and I may even ask for a raise, but in the end I would honor what I agreed to

Bill Gates would never sign a contract lie that.

HELLO? The point is that the players did. What Gates would do doesn't even fit in the same galaxy as this conversation.

You seem to not realize that the player who stands to go from $10,000,000 to $50,000,000 also stands to go from $10,000,000 to $500,000 if he plays poorly, yet under the contract he signed he still gets to keep that lucrative signing bonus even if he sucks royally.

Why should there only be security on the player's side and not on the owner's?

First of all, that's a huge assumption, that agents and players think it's equitable... Obviously some of them DON'T think it's equitable, or they wouldn't be holding out.

You are missing the point - they think it's equitable AT THE TIME THEY SIGN IT. That's WHY they sign it. It's when they reneg that there is a problem.

Ans secondly, what are they going to do if they think it's not equitable? The only way they get a contract and play football is to agree to these terms. So if they don't like the terms, what recourse do they have? It's either not play football, or hold out.

They liked the terms as long as they work for the player, regardless of if the team gets screwed in the deal when the player sucks.



THE SIMPLE FACT OF THE MATTER STILL IS THAT YOU ARE SAYING THAT THE TEAM SHOULD HONOR THE CONTRACT AND THE PLAYER SHOULDN'T HAVE TO.

It doesn't matter how you feel about the contract, it's still a contract - and you are saying it should be binding on one party and not the other.

 

[Idgit]

I didn't forget it. It's all part of the guaranteed amount of the contract. They're still not getting as much from that team as they would make if they played out the deal. So if they go to another team and take a pay cut, they could easily lose money.


Hey I'm hypocritical, you're hypocritical, we're all hypocritical. You think players are evil for conducting business they way they feel they have to do it, but don't criticize the owners at all.

I basically agree with your position, btw, but the issue is really one of perception. For every player that holds out, an owner can demonstrate a roster full of successfully negotiated contracts that were more or less executed on time. In every draft year, ownership manages to get it's other 5 or six picks signed and delivered on time. When you're a single player holding out, especially when most of the picks around you have already signed, it's easy to see where perception comes into play.

Add to it that most people probably feel that first-round rookies are overpaid relative to veterans, and it's hard for a brother to get any sympathy.

 

[Stautner]

I basically agree with your position, btw, but the issue is really one of perception. For every player that holds out, an owner can demonstrate a roster full of successfully negotiated contracts that were more or less executed on time. In every draft year, ownership manages to get it's other 5 or six picks signed and delivered on time. When you're a single player holding out, especially when most of the picks around you have already signed, it's easy to see where perception comes into play.

Add to it that most people probably feel that first-round rookies are overpaid relative to veterans, and it's hard for a brother to get any sympathy.

The discussion wasn't about rookies who aren't under contract, it was about players holding out who are under contract. That's what Peplaw was supporting - players not honoring their contract.

 

[peplaw06]

The discussion wasn't about rookies who aren't under contract, it was about players holding out who are under contract. That's what Peplaw was supporting - players not honoring their contract.

You're blatantly oversimplifying my position. It's not only about players "not honoring" their contracts. It's about fairness. I think the standard NFL contracts are pretty unfair... I'm sure the players think so too. If a player thinks that, what recourse does he have? Holding out is pretty much their only option.

So I'm not gonna sit here and chastise them for doing the only thing they really can do. That's the difference. It's not about me thinking they shouldn't honor their contracts. I'm just not going to pretend that I'm morally superior to them.

 

[Doomsday101]

You're blatantly oversimplifying my position. It's not only about players "not honoring" their contracts. It's about fairness. I think the standard NFL contracts are pretty unfair... I'm sure the players think so too. If a player thinks that, what recourse does he have? Holding out is pretty much their only option.

So I'm not gonna sit here and chastise them for doing the only thing they really can do. That's the difference. It's not about me thinking they shouldn't honor their contracts. I'm just not going to pretend that I'm morally superior to them.

So basically the player has it made on 2 fronts he has the labor union who can call for a strike for what they think is unfair and then he has his own agent who can call for a strike (Holdout) until he gets what he wants. I know very few jobs where this can take place. I think most people boss would laugh them out of the office if they told them they were holding out.

 

[Stautner]

You're blatantly oversimplifying my position. It's not only about players "not honoring" their contracts. It's about fairness. I think the standard NFL contracts are pretty unfair... I'm sure the players think so too. If a player thinks that, what recourse does he have? Holding out is pretty much their only option.

So I'm not gonna sit here and chastise them for doing the only thing they really can do. That's the difference. It's not about me thinking they shouldn't honor their contracts. I'm just not going to pretend that I'm morally superior to them.

So essentially you are saying the players and their agents are too stpid to negotiate contracts .......... I guess you need to get into the business to show them how it's done.


Nevertheless, I fail to see how someone getting a $2,000,000 signing bonus that he keeps regardless of whether he makes the team after his 2nd year or not is so unfair.

If you can't see that the players get their benefits as well as the owners you are just refusing to look.



BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS THIS: You are still advocating that a legal contract negotiated by representatives of both the player and the team should be binding on one party but not the other.



Why don't you try this. After your the interest rate on your mortgage goes down, go to your mortgage company, tell them it's unfair that you are paying 10% interest when others are paying 8% interest, and tell them that you refuse to pay another dime until they drop your interest rate. I'm sure they would be happy to change the terms of the contract because you think it's unfair ........ don't you agree?

After all - it would be unfair that you got stuck with old market rates ........ just as it's unfair that a veteran under contract is stuck with a salary at old market rates ............

Of course, if interest rates went up to 12% and the mortgage company wanted to raise your rate you would be screaming that they can't because they signed a contract and have to abide by it ........ wouldn't you?

 

[peplaw06]

So essentially you are saying the players and their agents are too stpid to negotiate contracts .......... I guess you need to get into the business to show them how it's done.


Nevertheless, I fail to see how someone getting a $2,000,000 signing bonus that he keeps regardless of whether he makes the team after his 2nd year or not is so unfair.

If you can't see that the players get their benefits as well as the owners you are just refusing to look.



BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS THIS: You are still advocating that a legal contract negotiated by representatives of both the player and the team should be binding on one party but not the other.

You need to hammer this into your thick skull. I'm NOT ADVOCATING anything. You're advocating, and I'm resisting your call for complete player bashing.

I see both sides. You love owners and hate players. I hate neither.

None of this stuff that you say I'm "basically saying" is even in the ballpark. You keep trying to paint me into a corner, but I haven't done that to myself, and I know better than to fall for your rhetoric.

Why don't you try this. After your the interest rate on your mortgage goes down, go to your mortgage company, tell them it's unfair that you are paying 10% interest when others are paying 8% interest, and tell them that you refuse to pay another dime until they drop your interest rate. I'm sure they would be happy to change the terms of the contract because you think it's unfair ........ don't you agree?

After all - it would be unfair that you got stuck with old market rates ........ just as it's unfair that a veteran under contract is stuck with a salary at old market rates ............

Of course, if interest rates went up to 12% and the mortgage company wanted to raise your rate you would be screaming that they can't because they signed a contract and have to abide by it ........ wouldn't you?

Well if at any time the mortgage company could foreclose on you, whether you fulfill your end of the contract or not, then you probably wouldn't feel the same. The analogy doesn't fit.

 

[Stautner]

You need to hammer this into your thick skull. I'm NOT ADVOCATING anything. You're advocating, and I'm resisting your call for complete player bashing.

I see both sides. You love owners and hate players. I hate neither..

You reached a new low in absurdity.

In fact, you are so far removed from logic with this remark I would swear it cme from a small child.


I'm saying BOTH sides agreed to the contract, and BOTH sides should abide by the terms of that contract.

If the teams were the ones not abiding by the terms of the contracts I would be bashing them.

I don't try to backpeddle now - you have said that you think it's okay for the players to not abide by their contract ........ as long as they only do it once - remember?


The analogy fits perfectly - in both cases someone is dissatisfied because market conditions changed that hurts them financially. The diference is that in one instance BOTH you AND the mortgage company have to live up to the terms of the contract, regardless of which side loses some money, but you are saying that in the NFL only the team should have to live up to the terms of the contract.



It's you that is only taking one side, while I'm saying BOTH sides should be bound by the contract, you are saying only the team, but not the players as well, should be bound by it..

None of this stuff that you say I'm "basically saying" is even in the ballpark. You keep trying to paint me into a corner, but I haven't done that to myself, and I know better than to fall for your rhetoric.

Okay - I'll tell you what you DID say ....... you DID say that you felt it was okay for the players to hold out as long as they only do it once.

Now tell me how that doesn't amount to saying that they shouldn't have to be bound to the contract they signed.

Well if at any time the mortgage company could foreclose on you, whether you fulfill your end of the contract or not, then you probably wouldn't feel the same. The analogy doesn't fit.

IF ....... that's the point - the contract with the mortgage company doesn't allow that, and THAT'S why they can't do that.

Your comment is so far from logic it's funny - it's mindless.

Let me get this straight, are you actually arguing that because the mortgage company has to abide by it's contract that a player shouldn't abide by his?

Wow, this is a new peak in absurdity.


I'll tell you what, the day a contract between a team and a player says the team can't cut that player, then I will agree that a team shouldn't be allowed to cut that player.

But until then, the player should abide by the contract they signed.

 

[peplaw06]

.....

I swear it's like I'm arguing with my sister's kids. Call me when you sleep off your stubbornness. I can't say it any clearer than I have.

It's like your consciously disregarding what I say and reading your own inane thoughts into it.

 

[Stautner]

I swear it's like I'm arguing with my sister's kids. Call me when you sleep off your stubbornness. I can't say it any clearer than I have.

It's like your consciously disregarding what I say and reading your own inane thoughts into it.

Let's try a different approach.


Let's say a player and a team negotiate a contract whereby the player gets a $5 million signing bonus and a 3 year contract at $2 million per year with 2 years salary guaranteed.

Then the team cuts him after his first season - which is their option - should the team be obligated to pay the 2 years salary ($4 million) along with any unpaid portion of the signing bonus ($9 million total)?



Now, suppose the team doesn't cut the player and wants to keep him around, should the player be able to say "screw the contract", I'm not going to abide by it?


2 simple questions ........... lets see what your answers are.

 

[Stautner]

Let's try a different approach.


Let's say a player and a team negotiate a contract whereby the player gets a $5 million signing bonus and a 3 year contract at $2 million per year with 2 years salary guaranteed.

Then the team cuts him after his first season - which is their option - should the team be obligated to pay the 2 years salary ($4 million) along with any unpaid portion of the signing bonus ($9 million total)?



Now, suppose the team doesn't cut the player and wants to keep him around, should the player be able to say "screw the contract", I'm not going to abide by it?


2 simple questions ........... lets see what your answers are.

The questions must have been too straightforward to dodge.

 

[peplaw06]

Let's try a different approach.


Let's say a player and a team negotiate a contract whereby the player gets a $5 million signing bonus and a 3 year contract at $2 million per year with 2 years salary guaranteed.

Then the team cuts him after his first season - which is their option - should the team be obligated to pay the 2 years salary ($4 million) along with any unpaid portion of the signing bonus ($9 million total)?



Now, suppose the team doesn't cut the player and wants to keep him around, should the player be able to say "screw the contract", I'm not going to abide by it?


2 simple questions ........... lets see what your answers are.

The very fact that you can have this exact scenario multiple times every offseason is the point I'm trying to make -- an exercise in futility when Stautner is involved. And it's the problem I have with the system.

Teams are allowed to "legally breach" the contracts. Players are not.

I wouldn't like it if I were a party to a contract like that.

So like I said, I'm not going to pretend to be morally superior to these guys.

Simple enough for you? I would wager that you still don't understand.

EDIT: I assure you I was not avoiding your questions. I am in San Antonio, attending a seminar for work, and Cowboys Camp on the side. The delay was unavoidable.

 

[Stautner]

The very fact that you can have this exact scenario multiple times every offseason is the point I'm trying to make -- an exercise in futility when Stautner is involved. And it's the problem I have with the system.

Teams are allowed to "legally breach" the contracts. Players are not.

I wouldn't like it if I were a party to a contract like that.

So like I said, I'm not going to pretend to be morally superior to these guys.

Simple enough for you? I would wager that you still don't understand.

EDIT: I assure you I was not avoiding your questions. I am in San Antonio, attending a seminar for work, and Cowboys Camp on the side. The delay was unavoidable.

Wow - you get goofier by the second.

FIRST: You completely avoided answsering my question, which tells me you aren't confident you can support your argument.

SECOND: If what the team is doing is legal, then it's not a breach of contract.

You apparently think that your personal sense of what is fair somehow is the determining factor in what is a breach - which is bizarre at the very least.

Don't you realize that what is actually written in the contract is what detemines a breach - and that whether you agree with its fairness doesn't have any bearing?


The other bizarre thing is that you act as if the players don't actually negotiate their contracts, that they sign them unwillingly and forceably, and that they get no advantages at all ....... again, very bizarre to say the least.


A contract is a contract, and the bottom line is that the contract is legally and properly negotiated by both parties, yet you are saying it should be okay for the player to reneg and not the team.

 

[CrazyCowboy]

Wonder if they could tell me how to manage my check?