Poison Pill wording in Contracts, What do you think....

[jksmith269]

I'm just wondering what you guys think about clubs doing this.

If your not sure what I'm talking about, in the past week the NFLPA has sent a letter to the NFL concerning the original wording of the contract the Pat's where going to offer to Welker (Dolphins) which contained if Welker played 4 games in FL his entire contract would be guarnteed. Now before presenting Welker with the contract the Pats actually did the right thing and worked out a trade with the Fins. Now if they hadn't and Welker had signed the contract it would have made it almost impossible for the fins to match due to the Language.

Personally I think the NFL needs to put a stop to this. What do you think?

 

[AbeBeta]

Put a stop yes. But the league didn't move on it because it was so hard to contractually define the rule. I think the league simply has to handle this internally and informally.

 

[theogt]

They could simply change the rule such that a team only has to match any non-contingency base salary and guaranteed bonuses.

 

[JoeCorrado]

I think the NFL needs to put such clauses, when they are based upon where a team plays and silly stuff like that, to an end.

When the Eagles tried to sign Fowler they added wording in the contract that if he played 4 games in Dallas that the contract would become guaranteed. Of course that means that if he resigned w/ Dallas.

Fowler did not sign w/ the Eagles- but that sort of stuff is low down garbage. The league just needs to tie up a few loose ends to prevent that sort of thing.

 

[Crown Royal]

Put a stop yes. But the league didn't move on it because it was so hard to contractually define the rule. I think the league simply has to handle this internally and informally.

I was going to come in here and say that. Trying to find a way to word it so that you wouldn't have something like this would be hell.

 

[jksmith269]

Put a stop yes. But the league didn't move on it because it was so hard to contractually define the rule. I think the league simply has to handle this internally and informally.

Not only that but I don't think the Pats actually had Welker sign the contract so all in all no harm no foul, and the Pats I think actually gave more than Welker was tendered at....

 

[theogt]

I was going to come in here and say that. Trying to find a way to word it so that you wouldn't have something like this would be hell.

Why not just require them to match "non-contingency" salary and bonus?

 

[AbeBeta]

Why not just require them to match "non-contingency" salary and bonus?

That would eliminate any bonus based on performance as well. And the league don't want that.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

I don't think the poison pill is that big of an issue, all teams have to do is dis-regard the certain tag that would allow a team to poison-pill 'ya

 

[iceberg]

in the end it has to be addressed. as it sits it's a glaring hole that while some have gone through it to get what they wanted, it's only a matter of time before it goes to court (i would think that would be possible) and it becomes a HUGE issue.

it would take some defining to hit the mark, but it can be done, and should be.

 

[iceberg]

I don't think the poison pill is that big of an issue, all teams have to do is dis-regard the certain tag that would allow a team to poison-pill 'ya

and what tag would welker have gotten?

maybe i don't get what you're saying. please elaborate.

 

[AbeBeta]

in the end it has to be addressed..

I kind of think that the commish is addressing this informally -- we haven't seen any poison pill deals yet -- also the RFA market is usually too weak to necessitate this - it was just the Hutchinson situation that was crazy last year -- and I don't see anyone being stupid enough to use the transition tag again.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

and what tag would welker have gotten?

maybe i don't get what you're saying. please elaborate.

there's a certain transition tag that teams use that allow other teams to poison pill you

 

[iceberg]

there's a certain transition tag that teams use that allow other teams to poison pill you

was welker going to get tagged?

 

[theogt]

That would eliminate any bonus based on performance as well. And the league don't want that.

Of course, but I doubt many RFAs that are signed to offer sheets have very many performance based contracts.

 

[theogt]

I kind of think that the commish is addressing this informally -- we haven't seen any poison pill deals yet -- also the RFA market is usually too weak to necessitate this - it was just the Hutchinson situation that was crazy last year -- and I don't see anyone being stupid enough to use the transition tag again.

The problem with the poison pill in this scenario was that it forced Miami and New England to make a trade rather than doing the normal RFA route. The trade resulted in Welker having a lower overall contract because New England didn't have the incentive to price Miami out. In the end, the only person that was screwed here was Welker -- so yeah, the poison pill problem was a big problem even here.

 

[AbeBeta]

The problem with the poison pill in this scenario was that it forced Miami and New England to make a trade rather than doing the normal RFA route. The trade resulted in Welker having a lower overall contract because New England didn't have the incentive to price Miami out. In the end, the only person that was screwed here was Welker -- so yeah, the poison pill problem was a big problem even here.

Or Welker signed the deal he would have gotten had he played in NE rather than the deal he would have gotten if he played in MIA. If there was a poison pill provision -- e.g., Welker's base was doubled if he played more than 2 games in FLA each year -- it would have existed only to keep Welker from signing in MIA.

Oh yeah. Welker signed the NE deal -immediately after the trade. So screwed, he did not likely get.

 

[theogt]

Or Welker signed the deal he would have gotten had he played in NE rather than the deal he would have gotten if he played in MIA. If there was a poison pill provision -- e.g., Welker's base was doubled if he played more than 2 games in FLA each year -- it would have existed only to keep Welker from signing in MIA.

Oh yeah. Welker signed the NE deal -immediately after the trade. So screwed, he did not likely get.

I agree that he wasn't screwed. That's what the NFLPA is claiming, though, and sometimes I just make other people's arguments for them.

 

[AbeBeta]

I agree that he wasn't screwed. That's what the NFLPA is claiming, though, and sometimes I just make other people's arguments for them.

The NFLPA wants an investigation -- They aren't claiming he was screwed -- they want to see if he was screwed.

I think as far as the NFLPA is concerned, poison pilll deals are fine as they create the potential for players to earn more $.

 

[iceberg]

Or Welker signed the deal he would have gotten had he played in NE rather than the deal he would have gotten if he played in MIA. If there was a poison pill provision -- e.g., Welker's base was doubled if he played more than 2 games in FLA each year -- it would have existed only to keep Welker from signing in MIA.

Oh yeah. Welker signed the NE deal -immediately after the trade. So screwed, he did not likely get.

or jacksonville or tampa.