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

[joseephuss]

Restricted FAs are still under contract, no?

How can a team hold the rights to a guy who is not under contract? That is, unless he's a rookie, which is obvious.

Sorry, I missed where you said not a rookie. You are right, he would be a free agent unless designated a transition player or franchise player by the team. Then he could be a hold out with an offer on the table and the inability to negotiate with other teams. Lance Briggs just went through that with Chicago.

 

[peplaw06]

Bottom line for me... I don't think any less of a player because they hold out... one time. If it becomes an every year thing, then it gets bothersome.

The players are in a business just like the owners. But there's a double standard there. Owners aren't generally despised for taking a hard line in negotiating.

 

[Stautner]

Restricted FAs are still under contract, no?

How can a team hold the rights to a guy who is not under contract? That is, unless he's a rookie, which is obvious.

And yeah, it bugs me that owners seem to escape all criticism from these contract disputes. The players are money grabbing and selfish. The owners are just "doing business."

Bottom line for me... I don't think any less of a player because they hold out... one time. If it becomes an every year thing, then it gets bothersome.

The players are in a business just like the owners. But there's a double standard there. Owners aren't generally despised for taking a hard line in negotiating.

So your position is that players should be allowed to disregard a legally and properly negotiated contract as long as they only do it once .......

and on the other hand the owners who are "just doing business" should be obligated to abide by that same legally and properly negotiated contract no matter what?

You may make a great player agent some day, but your sense of what is fair and right needs a little work.

 

[peplaw06]

So your position is that players should be allowed to disregard a legally and properly negotiated contract as long as they only do it once .......

and on the other hand the owners who are "just doing business" should be obligated to abide by that same legally and properly negotiated contract no matter what?

No my "position," is that both sides do it. If you're going to criticize one for doing it, you damn sure better be as critical of the other party.

 

[Stautner]

No my "position," is that both sides do it. If you're going to criticize one for doing it, you damn sure better be as critical of the other party.

Name me a team that has told a player that they wouldn't honor the terms of a contract that they negotiated with a player?

 

[Doomsday101]

No my "position," is that both sides do it. If you're going to criticize one for doing it, you damn sure better be as critical of the other party.

When considering what the players are after is the signing bonus and they will keep that regardless of how they perform or not. I think if the player is going to sign a deal then he needs to stick it out and after the contract is complete he can ask for as much as he wants and I would have no issue with that. Only expectation I would look at different is when the player has a renegotiation clause in the contract. If you not going to do that then why even bother with the contract?

 

[peplaw06]

Name me a team that has told a player that they wouldn't honor the terms of a contract that they negotiated with a player?

I don't have any contract language, but aren't the Colts having to buy out Corey Simon's contract before releasing him?

 

[Doomsday101]

I don't have any contract language, but aren't the Colts having to buy out Corey Simon's contract before releasing him?

So Simons still gets the money and is able to talk and sign with another team. Hey 2 paydays I would give the edge to the player on this. :laugh2:

 

[Stautner]

I don't have any contract language, but aren't the Colts having to buy out Corey Simon's contract before releasing him?

If they are, it's because that's what is allowed under the terms of the contract.

That's the point - the owners are expected to abide by the terms of the contract, but you seem to think the players shouldn't be held to the same standard.

 

[peplaw06]

If they are, it's because that's what is allowed under the terms of the contract.

That's the point - the owners are expected to abide by the terms of the contract, but you seem to think the players shouldn't be held to the same standard.

So let's all live up to all the terms of the contract no matter what they may say?

1) Do you know for sure what the contract says?

2) So teams are allowed to get out from under a contract at any point they want, but players cannot? And that seems fair to you? Screw equity, the contract says so!!!

 

[5Stars]

2) So teams are allowed to get out from under a contract at any point they want, but players cannot? And that seems fair to you? Screw equity, the contract says so!!!

It's beneficial to the owners to be allowed to get out from under a contract just on the basis that if a player signs a big money contract then "dogs it" for the rest of his time on the team, is that fair to the owner?

How would you like to sign an employee to a contract, pay big money, then have to abide by that contract while the employee just shows up to drink coffee all day and do nothing else? Would you like that?

 

[Stautner]

So let's all live up to all the terms of the contract no matter what they may say?

1) Do you know for sure what the contract says?

2) So teams are allowed to get out from under a contract at any point they want, but players cannot? And that seems fair to you? Screw equity, the contract says so!!!

The players get a signing bonues - often a very lucrative one - that is theirs even if they get hurt and never play a down for the team, or even if cut.

How's that for equity ...... ?



You seem to have the wrong concept of these contracts. They do not force teams to keep players, and they do not force players to play football. When a team and a player negotiate a contract the team knows that the player could retire at any time, and the player knows the team could cut him at any time.

The contract is only to say that as long as the player wants to play and as long as the team wants him to play, these are the terms under which he will play.



In addition to the bonus, the player also often negotiates that some portion of his salary is guaranteed, regardless of whether he gets cut - so he gets a big bonus and a payday for not playing.



That's the way it works. If the agents and players think it is equitable, then who are you to tell them they are wrong?

 

[peplaw06]

So Simons still gets the money and is able to talk and sign with another team. Hey 2 paydays I would give the edge to the player on this. :laugh2:

That's if another team signs him. What if his new contract is substantially less money (not unlikely)? He technically loses money. But hey, it's millions of dollars, so it all runs together right?

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

You know i know the NFL is more business orientated now these days but does anybody think it is a disgrace to the legends of the game that played in a time were money was not the most important thing... they played for the shirt on their back.. these holdouts are ridiculous and i honestly the think the old time greats are just disgusted about how these players act now.. guys back then were getting paid 27,000 a year at the most back then but they played their butts off.. im not saying the all players now don't but some just show no effort at all and always complain

$27,000 back in the old says was A LOT OF MONEY, DUDE!
As for playing their butts off, you also have to take into account that those um, players, though I am sure really nice guys, could not carry the jock straps of today's chiseled, sonic-fast athletes.
You cannot compare the packers of the mid 60s to say, the Patriots or even the Cowboys of today.
Sure, they worked their butts off, but they did it very slowly and with less invested in their workouts and regime. So cry me a river.
I will pick today's highly paid athletes to the so-so and very slow players of yesteryear.
As an aside, with $27,000 in those days you could by a house and a new care. How is that for a salary?

 

[Stautner]

That's if another team signs him. What if his new contract is substantially less money (not unlikely)? He technically loses money. But hey, it's millions of dollars, so it all runs together right?

You conveniently have forgotton the millions the player gets upfront as a signing bonus that he gets to keep even if not on the team. OR the guaranteed portion of his salary that he gets to keep even if cut and not even playing for the team.

Seems that money for nothing aint such a bad deal.


Regardless of how you feel about the contracts, that's the way they are, and it's hypocritical to say the owners have to abide by the terms but the players don't.

If you haven't already, read above - it may clear up your misconception about the contracts.

 

[peplaw06]

The players get a signing bonues - often a very lucrative one - that is theirs even if they get hurt and never play a down for the team, or even if cut.

How's that for equity ...... ?

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!!

You seem to have the wrong concept of these contracts. They do not force teams to keep players, and they do not force players to play football. When a team and a player negotiate a contract the team knows that the player could retire at any time, and the player knows the team could cut him at any time.

Tell that to Ricky Williams.

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

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

The contract is only to say that as long as the player wants to play and as long as the team wants him to play, these are the terms under which he will play.

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

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

In addition to the bonus, the player also often negotiates that some portion of his salary is guaranteed, regardless of whether he gets cut - so he gets a big bonus and a payday for not playing.

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?

Bill Gates would never sign a contract lie that.

That's the way it works. If the agents and players think it is equitable, then who are you to tell them they are wrong?

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.

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.

 

[Doomsday101]

That's if another team signs him. What if his new contract is substantially less money (not unlikely)? He technically loses money. But hey, it's millions of dollars, so it all runs together right?

Millions of dollars for a game? Sorry I don't see where the player is getting hosed in any of this. These owners were rich before they even bought a team the players are getting a very nice some of money to play a game. Unfortunately that got lost somewhere along the lines.

 

[peplaw06]

You conveniently have forgotton the millions the player gets upfront as a signing bonus that he gets to keep even if not on the team. OR the guaranteed portion of his salary that he gets to keep even if cut and not even playing for the team.

Seems that money for nothing aint such a bad deal.

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.

Regardless of how you feel about the contracts, that's the way they are, and it's hypocritical to say the owners have to abide by the terms but the players don't.

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.

 

[peplaw06]

Millions of dollars for a game? Sorry I don't see where the player is getting hosed in any of this. These owners were rich before they even bought a team the players are getting a very nice some of money to play a game. Unfortunately that got lost somewhere along the lines.

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.

 

[5Stars]

I didn't forget it. It's all part of the guaranteed amount of the contract. They're still not 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.

Isn't there something (trying to remember contract law) where a contract can come togeather that is agreed upon by both parties with latitude in certain areas of the contract, and then another contract called a "binding" contract where both MUST abide to the contract, regardless?