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

[kumizi]

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

Terrible take. We know you’re not an attorney.

Who cares how the clause is usually enforced? The clause gives the team the legal standing to enforce it however they see fit.

The agents job is to protect his client.

 

[texbumthelife]

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.

It’s all in the language. Allegedly Dallas wanted to work with Gregory’s team on the language and they refused and took Denver’s offer.

The Cowboys had every right to take whatever recourse possible to protect themselves. They owed Gregory nothing, just like he owed them nothing.

In the end, this is essentially Gregory choosing to take a contract without that language over one with it. It’s not sneaky or underhanded by Dallas. And it’s not an excuse by Gregory. This is just a guy choosing one contract over another and it just happens to not be about money this time.

The entire thing is being blown grossly out of proportion and it’s remarkable how many media memebers, Werder included, who have previously chided the Cowboys for taking unnecessary risks, want to ignore Gregory’s history.

It’s all sensationalist journalism. It’s ridiculous.

 

[Aerolithe_Lion]

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.

It says it right here:

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.

The CBA is on a league wide level. It is the federal government. A contract is on the team level. It is the state government. All forfeiture possibilities are in the contract terms. If they’re not there, they can’t be enforced by the CBA, that’s exactly what this section is for: to allow to teams and players to negotiate the terms of forfeiture. You can actually remove guarantee forfeitures from a contract even due to suspensions if the situation calls for it. The CBA is to enforce contract terms, it’s not to overrule or undermine them.

No one but Dallas has literature in their contract that adds additional forfeitures for something as simple as fines. If what you’re claiming is true, Dallas just lost Randy Gregory to redundancy language and had no reason not to take it out.

 

[Merlin]

It says it right here:

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.

The CBA is on a league wide level. It is the federal government. A contract is on the team level. It is the state government. All forfeiture possibilities are in the contract terms. If they’re not there, they can’t be enforced by the CBA, that’s exactly what this section is for: to allow to teams and players to negotiate the terms of forfeiture. You can actually remove guarantee forfeitures from a contract even due to suspensions if the situation calls for it. The CVA is to enforce contract terms, it’s not to overrule or undermine them.

No one but Dallas has literature in their contract that adds additional forfeitures for something as simple as fines. If what you’re claiming is true, Dallas just lost Randy Gregory to redundancy language and had no reason not to take it out.

Stop quoting stuff you don't understand. I already posted what Dallas uses in their contracts.

"Player shall be subject to forfeiture of salary to the maximum extent permitted under Article 4, Section 9 of the CBA."

What part of this don't you understand? Ignore button engaged. Geez.

 

[CTcowboy203]

It would be foolish to give huge guaranteed money to a guy who hasn’t played a full season in the NFL in his entire career

he was already getting guaranteed money. If he doesn’t get suspended he would have.

 

[texbumthelife]

Stop quoting stuff you don't understand. I already posted what Dallas uses in their contracts.

"Player shall be subject to forfeiture of salary to the maximum extent permitted under Article 4, Section 9 of the CBA."

What part of this don't you understand? Ignore button engaged. Geez.

The CBA defines the scope of the rules, but it does not specifically say or enforce the language in a contract.

The CBA is saying teams have the power to/are allowed to, not that they will or have to. It’s up to every team, and every negotiation, to determine how that language will be written into a specific contract, or if it will at all.

 

[Aerolithe_Lion]

Stop quoting stuff you don't understand. I already posted what Dallas uses in their contracts.

"Player shall be subject to forfeiture of salary to the maximum extent permitted under Article 4, Section 9 of the CBA."

What part of this don't you understand? Ignore button engaged. Geez.

You can run, but that doesn’t make you right. Section 9, article 4 allows Dallas to do it, but it does not require Dallas to do it. No other team does that specific clause, and it’s why he’s in Denver. If the clause in the contract is no there, Denver cannot take guaranteed money for fines.

The NFL can’t go over that contract, the NFLPA can’t go over that contract, the CBA is what allows that to exist (or not exist in Denver’s case). The money is between Gregory and the team, the contract decides what forfeiture clauses exist.

 

[birdwells1]

When he ran like a disgruntled spoiled brat refusing to acknowledge the wording added on the contract is because of Gregory's own doing.

Doesn't make sense to sign a deal with language that will take away millions when there's the same contract without that language.

You don't buy auto insurance thinking you will use it but when something happens you're happy you have it.

 

[Merlin]

The CBA defines the scope of the rules, but it does not specifically say or enforce the language in a contract.

The CBA is saying teams have the power to/are allowed to, not that they will or have to. It’s up to every team, and every negotiation, to determine how that language will be written into a specific contract, or if it will at all.

I can agree with that. Teams can also enforce something under the CBA whether it's in their contract or not. That's not what the other guy was saying though.

CBA definition: "A collective bargaining agreement (CBA) is a written legal contract between an employer and a union representing the employees. The CBA is the result of an extensive negotiation process between the parties regarding topics such as wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment."

 

[Aerolithe_Lion]

I can agree with that. Teams can also enforce something under the CBA whether it's in their contract or not.

Not the forfeiture of money. That not legal

 

[G2]

Wasn't the same "language" on his first contract?

 

[Starforever]

They stuck with him when every other team in the NFL would of cut him, multiple times. What are you even talking about lol .

Cool he made it out to Denver. Let's see how they handle drug suspensions.

My point is; no one made them do it, and as a fan it has no bearing on me.

 

[BigDPlayer]

Clown show

So disappointed I want to vomit!

 

[Dre11]

Right, that’s the point. Dallas adds the clause additional to the CBA just for fines

And he’s not a 30 year old agent, he’s been an agent for 30 years. I wouldn’t call that young

Then he just inept, because it was in his previous contract and everybody else's except Dak.

 

[unionjack8]

Why do think he will be suspended again?

Because past behaviour is the best indication of future behaviour and hespriven he's selfish and cannot be counted upon too many times.

 

[Proof]

The fine could be for anything, not just drugs. It shows that neither the DFT, nor a percentage of the fickle fan base, has forgiven his mistakes; yet they want a loyal lap dog. Gregory, you made it out, congratulations.

i mean if it's standard language and in all other cowboy contracts (except Dak's) i don't see the big deal. especially since we've never seen them enforce it, and actually seemed to do the opposite w/ randy for his whole career. Not sure why it's a sticking point now given track records.

At the same time, if it's not something they enforce not sure why they're so insistent on it.

 

[Brooksey]

Terrible take. We know you’re not an attorney.

Who cares how the clause is usually enforced? The clause gives the team the legal standing to enforce it however they see fit.

The agents job is to protect his client.

What the hell are you even talking about? You either did the drugs or you didn't. The suspension and "fine" clause is specifically for substance abuse not for late hits etc
you gotta problem with that?

 

[Proof]

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

didn't he say that he's been an agent for 30 years?

 

[kevm3]

Then he just inept, because it was in his previous contract and everybody else's except Dak.

It's not the agents business to cater to the Cowboys and cost himself a lot of money and his client tens of millions of dollars. If he has another offer that is paying the exact same, why would he get Randy Gregory an option that allows the club to kick him to the curb a lot more easily?

It would be inept of the agent to take the lesser deal for Randy Gregory. The agent works for Randy Gregory first and foremost, not the Cowboys. If that language they had was inconsequential and 'never used', they should have had no problem keeping it out and never adding it back.

 

[Brooksey]

didn't he say that he's been an agent for 30 years?

Yes I read wrong, thought he was 30..which make it a lot worse for the agent. What a clown