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

[Flamma]

I would have loved to see the look on Jerry's and Stephen's face when Randy told them to F off.

When it's all said and done, Gregory bit the hand that fed him. He doesn't get any contract if not for Jerry and company. Lets not forget that. The dude is an ingrateful SOB.

 

[CowboyoWales]

Well surely if the Cowboys got out of paying La'el's guarantees due to his transgressions ....and the principles are in the CBA and are perfectly legal and reasonable as per the League ..... the FO did something right (for once).
Denver .... Caveat Emptor.

 

[CowboyoWales]

Still tellling you guys that got a sniff of Von wanting to come here and added this fluff knowing Randy would rip it off, lol. So says a fan who has no faith in our ownership being smart enough to do this

If the clause was already in Randy's previous contract, it's his agent who tried to fluff

 

[lostar2009]

Well this is the thing. There checks and balances in the NFL. A team cant just take a player bonus etc without the player association getting into the mix. To say the Cowboys can take his money due to a stupid fine is stupid. Teams can only do what has been agree upon by the CBA and rules. Reason why some ex players faught hard for some changes. But I never seen the Cowboys hold or take money from a player over bs. The Cowboys stuck with RG when he know any team wouldve release him. The fact is RG wanted to go to Denver to have his take in certain usage. Now he dont have to worry about being extra cautious moving with it. If anything RG should send the Cowboys 10% of his new contract. Without us it never happens.

 

[BrassCowboy]

Honestly who really cares.... First of all, should be common sense that if you can't perform your job you shouldn't get paid when you dont. As far as Randy goes, this team stood behind his dumb *** multiple times so we are better now that he is gone

 

[CWR]

If it is warranted, you make sure that point is brought up from the get-go and not slipped in at the end. Also, why would Randy sign here if he has an offer from a competing team that doesn't contain that language? Why would he play himself out of potentially tens of millions of dollars? The cowboys didn't 'work with' Randy Gregory because they were just being good boys. They stood by him because they thought he had immense talent. We seen a peak of it last season and Jerry felt like he was about to reap the rewards of it until Stephen came in and did what he did. \

We also almost lost Demarcus Lawrence this year when Stephen came in with the low ball. I get the impression players don't really like Stephen Jones, especially with the way he has this cold, accountant like, bean counting nature about himself. He doesn't have rapport with the players that Jerry does and him constantly lowballing players is going to put the team in a position to where they are going to start demanding more and more compensation.

I dont know all the facts. There are contradictory reports. Some have said this language is in all their contracts, including Randy's initial one. The team has never exercised the option. Dak had it taken out, and the team probably did so because he's a qb and doesn't have an extensive history etc.

One report said the initial contract was written up by a younger executive, bounced back and forth and everyone was in agreement in principle. Then they sent it to ownership and SJ saw the clause was left out, so he amended it and sent it back around. Then the bottom fell out.

 

[lostar2009]

Dumb young agent..the forfeiture clause from the CBA is not enforced for late hits on QB's but used for people who get suspended or fined for drug use

This here.

 

[RodeoJake]

Don't care about what was included or when it was added to the contract offer. The important thing is aside from his occasional splash plays, Gregory was an average DE. Upgrades are available. Will the Joneses pull the trigger?

 

[AbeBeta]

yes
it is part of the standard dallas contract. They dont slip it in, or do it just for some players.
The thing is they have never used it to my knowledge.
It would be up to the jones boys as to whether they would void anything if a player violated one of the items in that paragraph.

randy is a dummy to not know all this, and that it is in cba too, and his agent probably knows or he isnt much of an agent.
I think maybe he wanted randy to sign with denver, he does live in denver, and maybe denver offered him a bonus if RG signed with them.

then all he had to do was point out that clause to the dummy, and say hey they slipped this in at last minute ! lol

Wow. You do like conspiracy theories.

How many contracts have been voided by simple fines? There is a reason it is explicit. Team would lose a grievance

 

[CyberB0b]

I would have loved to see the look on Jerry's and Stephen's face when Randy told them to F off.

Especially after all they’ve done for him. This is a blessing in disguise. Gregory may be the dumbest player in the league. The Jones boys dodged a bullet.

 

[Aerolithe_Lion]

Post the whole paragraph as well.

"Voiding of Guarantees. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Section 9, a Club and player may negotiate the circumstances under which the guarantee of any unearned Salary (including, without limitation, Paragraph 5 Salary and/or future year roster bonuses, option bonuses or reporting bonuses) may be voided. This Subsection (g) only applies to the guarantee aspect of the contract provision, and not to the amount that can be earned, and in no way expands the permissible scope of Forfeitable Salary under this Section.



You are making stuff up. Fish posted the language Dallas has used in previous contracts. They are referencing Article 4, Section 9.

The separate negotiated provision that you claim the Cowboys added says, "Player shall be subject to forfeiture of salary to the maximum extent permitted under Article 4, Section 9 of the CBA."

What am I making up? What you just copy pasted says it has to be written into the contract. It says players may negotiate whether or not it’s in the contract. He didn’t want it in the contract, Dallas did.

 

[CowboyoWales]

What am I making up? What you just copy pasted says it has to be written into the contract. It says players may negotiate whether or not it’s in the contract. He didn’t want it in the contract, Dallas did.

Yep, the argument that other teams don't insist on the clause is immaterial,Dallas does.

 

[Merlin]

What am I making up? What you just copy pasted says it has to be written into the contract. It says players may negotiate whether or not it’s in the contract. He didn’t want it in the contract, Dallas did.

You made up that Dallas negotiated for something outside of the CBA. The phrase they used refers to the CBA. Provide some proof of what you are saying. Fish has posted several Dallas contracts.

 

[CouchCoach]

Should I give Ed a timeout for language?

 

[nightrain]

It's ridiculous to enforce financial punishment on a player who is fined. I can see recouping salary for a suspension, but fine? Geez, guys get fiend for ticky- tak crap all the time.

In any case, I am glad Gregory won't be around to disappoint any more.

 

[eromeopolk]

Reading is fundamental my Arlington Jonesboys. So read this link and understand why the Arlington Jonesboys will never ever and have never ever tried to win a Super Bowl the last 26 years...https://journals.library.columbia.edu/index.php/lawandarts/announcement/view/218
You can not ask for something uncommon in NFL contracts but you can not expect to get great players with average NFL agents.

 

[Aerolithe_Lion]

You made up that Dallas negotiated for something outside of the CBA. The phrase they used refers to the CBA. Provide some proof of what you are saying. Fish has posted several Dallas contracts.

No I did not say it was negotiated outside the CBA, I said it’s not in every teams’ contract, nor is it inferred whether the language is there or not. The CBA gives you the option of putting it in the contract, which Dallas opted to do.

You said this:

If it's in the CBA, teams can use it. The Cowboys have never used it before though so it may be up to the team whether to enforce it.

Denver did not put it in their contract, therefore they cannot enforce it.

 

[Merlin]

No I did not say it was negotiated outside the CBA, I said it’s not in every teams’ contract, nor is it inferred whether the language is there or not. The CBA gives you the option of putting it in the contract, which Dallas opted to do.

You said this:

If it's in the CBA, teams can use it. The Cowboys have never used it before though so it may be up to the team whether to enforce it.

Denver did not put it in their contract, therefore they cannot enforce it.

You obviously don't know what you are talking about. It's in the CBA. Denver can use it. And this is not what you said before.

 

[Aerolithe_Lion]

You obviously don't know what you are talking about. It's in the CBA. Denver can use it. And this is not what you said before.

Yes it is, quote me where I’m contradicting my argument. No where in the CBA can you enforce a voiding of guarantees for a fine if it’s not in the contract.

 

[Bullflop]

Is it that Gregory's matching offer from the Broncos did not have such a clause?

That's what I've read lately. It's, essentially, an act of bad faith for a VP to enact such a rule!

In Randy's case, it seems understandable but inserting it at the last minute?!

Sorry, but it seems just a tad too sneaky!! Exit, Randy, Stage Left.