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

[kevm3]

Randy Gregory was smart for not signing that contract if getting fined allowed the FO to void the contract. Getting suspended for things like drug use and constantly having detrimental behavior is one thing, but signing a contract that can be voided if you get fined is idiotic. So if he gets fined for say fighting on the field or roughing the passer, technically the club would be able to void his contract. This gives the FO an immense amount of leverage over him and that sort of language has nothing to do with 'protecting the club' as much as it gives the FO an out if they get in salary cap trouble. "Hey, we need to free up space. Didn't such and such get in a fight and get fined? Let's get rid of that contract."

I don't blame Randy Gregory for signing that if that's the kind of language that was in there. The NFL is a short lived and very dangerous business, so he needs to get his money while it's there and certainly not give any front office such immense power.

 

[Merlin]

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.

You don't have any idea what you are talking about. You haven't provided any evidence to support your claims. We are done here.

 

[Doomsday]

The odds of him not messing up now that he got paid are pretty small in my opinion. Not worth the risk.

 

[Aerolithe_Lion]

You don't have any idea what you are talking about. You haven't provided any evidence to support your claims. We are done here.

We’re not done.

The evidence is the tweet, the entire point of this thread. It comes directly from the agent saying Dallas puts this in their contract, no one else does, and Denver didn’t. Not only that, but Dallas didn’t not inform RG before the contract was agreed to that they’re adding it. Whether or not it’s commonplace for Dallas to do, it is not commonplace to omit it until after terms are agreed upon.

That is the evidence, why has Dallas not disputed this? To say this isn’t what happened would be calling into question the Agent’s integrity, and both Dallas and Denver’s knowledge of the situation as they would have immediately debunked it.

 

[jterrell]

Randy Gregory was smart for not signing that contract if getting fined allowed the FO to void the contract. Getting suspended for things like drug use and constantly having detrimental behavior is one thing, but signing a contract that can be voided if you get fined is idiotic. So if he gets fined for say fighting on the field or roughing the passer, technically the club would be able to void his contract. This gives the FO an immense amount of leverage over him and that sort of language has nothing to do with 'protecting the club' as much as it gives the FO an out if they get in salary cap trouble. "Hey, we need to free up space. Didn't such and such get in a fight and get fined? Let's get rid of that contract."

I don't blame Randy Gregory for signing that if that's the kind of language that was in there. The NFL is a short lived and very dangerous business, so he needs to get his money while it's there and certainly not give any front office such immense power.

Not the way it works.
The guarantee is only rescinded if fine or suspension results from forfeiture event.
This is essentially conduct detrimental to team or suspension stuff, not player fines for missing meetings or hitting QBs in the face.

In any case it would have only mattered for year 2 as year 1 money was being paid in signing bonus and year 2 was all that remained of guarantees.

Randy was really happy with the Denver offer and was leaning strongly to them before Jerry matched the money.
Then he once again with Jerry off the phone chose Denver when the provision wasn't removed.

Randy has every right to task for what he wants and go take the best offer.

Dallas has no reasonable expectation of removing that language and also paying top of market for a guy they've remained committed t5oi and invested in through years of league suspension nonsense.
Even when Randy was in Cali away from the team they paired him with an "accountability coach".

 

[Merlin]

We’re not done.

The evidence is the tweet, the entire point of this thread. It comes directly from the agent saying Dallas puts this in their contract, no one else does, and Denver didn’t. Not only that, but Dallas didn’t not inform RG before the contract was agreed to that they’re adding it. Whether or not it’s commonplace for Dallas to do, it is not commonplace to omit it until after terms are agreed upon.

That is the evidence, why has Dallas not disputed this? To say this isn’t what happened would be calling into question the Agent’s integrity, and both Dallas and Denver’s knowledge of the situation as they would have immediately debunked it.

That's your proof. Relying on what the agent said. Now I see the problem. You don't seem to understand that any team can enforce this under the CBA whether it's in the contract or not. Dallas didn't negotiate a separate clause as you suggested. It referred to the CBA. Fish has provided portions of the contract. What has the agent provided that you are relying on?

 

[jterrell]

We’re not done.

The evidence is the tweet, the entire point of this thread. It comes directly from the agent saying Dallas puts this in their contract, no one else does, and Denver didn’t. Not only that, but Dallas didn’t not inform RG before the contract was agreed to that they’re adding it. Whether or not it’s commonplace for Dallas to do, it is not commonplace to omit it until after terms are agreed upon.

That is the evidence, why has Dallas not disputed this? To say this isn’t what happened would be calling into question the Agent’s integrity, and both Dallas and Denver’s knowledge of the situation as they would have immediately debunked it.

This is complete nonsense and requires using left brain goofball conspiracy thinking.

Denver had a WRITTEN offer on the table.
JERRY JONES got on the PHONE and matched the financial parameters of that offer.
Dallas then WROTE up the offer with those numbers and their standard clauses.
The agent expecting it to not be there is entirely stupid because he is the agent and extended La'el which has the clause.
Expecting a clause removal that ONLY Dak Prescott had gotten is ludicrous.

Dallas made a very fair and very rewarding offer. Randy got that same offer with some accountability removed.
Seeing as Dallas was the one paying for the accountability coach Gregory had, maybe it was warranted expect that in a 70M deal.

 

[kevm3]

At the end of the day, the Broncos gave him a much better contract in his eyes, since his contract is much harder to be voided.

The Cowboys need to stop playing the role of "Rehabilitation home for wayward boys". The cowboys knew about randy gregory's problems when they drafted him. There was a reason he fell to the 2nd round when he was projected to be picked within the top 10 and possibly top 5 if those issues didn't exist. They decided to take the risk of trying to rehab him due to his immense potential. We need to stop with these risks and gambles in the 2nd round.

We gotta stop trying to rebuild broken or injured players and then expecting them to reward us with a cheap 2nd contract in return. It's almost like a guy that goes around looking for broken women and then spends his resources patching them up and then he feels like he owns her and she has to stick around because he made her.

 

[jaythecowboy]

Which is why I call BS. Gregory had this language in his first contract. Another client of his La’el Collins signed a contract with the same lingo and terminology in the contract. So I find it hard to believe this is something Stephen tried to sneak in last second.

The way I read it is,

- Randy wanted to be in Denver
- Randy negotiated with Denver and agreed to terms
- They gave Dallas a chance to match, ultimately trying to get more money out of Dallas. Jerry tried to sell him on how they’ve been through so much
- Randy bought the cheese and agreed with Dallas
- Randy then gets cold feet, realizes he wants to really be in Denver
- Agent comes up with “bogus” way to make Dallas the bad guys and to get him in Denver

I just find it all ridiculous. They should’ve just came out and said, after everything Denver is just a better fit.

The Cowboys wanted him to do that from the beginning. Find the best offer and give them a chance to match. Gregory gave the Cowboys a chance to match and they didn't do it.

 

[jaythecowboy]

Randy Gregory was smart for not signing that contract if getting fined allowed the FO to void the contract. Getting suspended for things like drug use and constantly having detrimental behavior is one thing, but signing a contract that can be voided if you get fined is idiotic. So if he gets fined for say fighting on the field or roughing the passer, technically the club would be able to void his contract. This gives the FO an immense amount of leverage over him and that sort of language has nothing to do with 'protecting the club' as much as it gives the FO an out if they get in salary cap trouble. "Hey, we need to free up space. Didn't such and such get in a fight and get fined? Let's get rid of that contract."

I don't blame Randy Gregory for signing that if that's the kind of language that was in there. The NFL is a short lived and very dangerous business, so he needs to get his money while it's there and certainly not give any front office such immense power.

Yea you can get fined for wearing your uniform wrong. I don't blame Gregory for taking a better deal.

 

[jterrell]

Whole discussion has went silly.

If you got a better job offer tomorrow and your job said OK I'll match the title, salary and bonus increase and you go "Well naw, I'm also going to need the standard non-compete removed" they will 99 times out of 100 let you leave.
Staying at the job you know is the easy and natural thing.
Leaving for a fresh start is fine if that's what you want but man up and admit you left for the fresh start versus crying over provisions that only effect 20% of the contract and have never been leveraged against a player by Dallas.

Randy Gregory is NOT A VICTIM HERE. OR a Villian.
He is just a guy that made the decision he wanted for himself.

 

[Aerolithe_Lion]

That's your proof. Relying on what the agent said. Now I see the problem. You don't seem to understand that any team can enforce this under the CBA whether it's in the contract or not. Dallas didn't negotiate a separate clause as you suggested. It referred to the CBA. Fish has provided portions of the contract. What has the agent provided that you are relying on?

It’s in the CBA that they cannot enforce a forfeiture of guarantees based on a fine if it’s not in the contract. You quoted that very paragraph. Where does it say it doesn’t have to be written into the contract?

 

[Merlin]

It’s in the CBA that they cannot enforce a forfeiture of guarantees based on a fine if it’s not in the contract. You quoted that very paragraph. Where does it say it doesn’t have to be written into the contract?

We are done. You obviously don't understand how Collective Bargaining Agreements work if you don't think a team can enforce it without it being in a contract. I got better things to do.

 

[WoodysGirl]

 

[Aerolithe_Lion]

We are done. You obviously don't understand how Collective Bargaining Agreements work if you don't think a team can enforce it without it being in a contract. I got better things to do.

Do you though? That’s the entire point of a contract, and the entire point of putting it in the collective bargaining agreement that it must be negotiated into the contract. The CBA itself says to put it in the contract, is there a CBA that ratifies the CBA?

You can’t say something happens that’s not in the CBA just because a CBA exists.

 

[Redsfan_83]

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

I originally said the naive fan would think this, not the realist which 99% of us are, lol. I am not giving any credit to the Jones' when it comes to player personnel decisions

 

[TX_Yid]

If you refuse to gamble on your own behavior, why should I?

 

[jaythecowboy]

If you refuse to gamble on your own behavior, why should I?

You're not just gambling on your own behavior though. You are gambling on the whims of other people.

 

[kumizi]

I blocked Ed Werner on twitter a couple years ago because he was ran out of Dallas media and then began a fledging career working for ESPN for scraps becoming relevant for 15 minutes every year by having he most salacious take on a Cowboys situation. This is just him being "on brand".

Gregory had every right to take the best offer on the table and he did. Fair play to him.
Dallas had every right to protect itself in a big money deal with a guy who has never started more than 11 games and has a career high 6.5 sack in a season.

good take

fans bashing Gregory for taking the better deal leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

 

[Merlin]

Do you though? That’s the entire point of a contract, and the entire point of putting it in the collective bargaining agreement that it must be negotiated into the contract. The CBA itself says to put it in the contract, is there a CBA that ratifies the CBA?

You can’t say something happens that’s not in the CBA just because a CBA exists.

The CBA doesn't say that. You did. Cause you don't understand how it works. You obviously just like to argue whether you have any idea what you are talking about. This is it.

Dallas just refers to the CBA for that clause. It is citing the CBA in the contract. You just keep making up stuff with no substance behind your claims.