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

[tyke1doe]

Gregory created this. He still refuses to take responsibility. Why worry if you're supposedly clean/rehabbed?

Because a fine can be for hitting a player after the whistle or any number of infractions beyond smoking pot.

 

[plasticman]

From what I understand, it is normal procedure to include a clause that voids a contract as a result of a suspension. However, the Cowboys contract went beyond that. It would void the contract as a result of a fine. Players have been fined for illegal hits, behavior on the field, and fighting.

If, for example, a fight broke out during a game and Gregory intended to come to the defense of a teammate, he could be fined by teh league and Jones would have the option of voiding the contract.

This is actually standard to Cowboy contracts.....however, there has been exceptions. Dak is an example of an exception. It has been reported that the language is not in his contract. This weakens Jerry's argument because you cannot say "always" while an exception exists on the present team. I don't know why iit isn't on Dak's contract but it opens up a can of worms for future contracts.

They might as well eliminate the language now because you know other players are going to demand the same conditions which, again, would put the Cowboys on equal footing with most of teh league. Apparently, the issue was so critical that the team was willing to give the Broncos a shot at getting Gregory.

Apparently ego got in the way. Stephen seems to match, even exceed, his feather in that respect....not a good sign for the team's future.

Anyway, this is from what I understand..........there are some limits there. If anyone has information otherwise I would appreciate the source

 

[JoeyBoy718]

16.5 sacks in 50 games. That's 5 sacks per season if he played a full season.

 

[RoyTheHammer]

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

Lmao.

Yeah..nice spin. Stop sticking up for our foolish front office. It's already been proven that not only did they try to throw that language in at the last minute but no other team in the NFL has contract language like that for fines.

Don't join the clown show.

 

[Beast_from_East]

It's in the CBA. Article 4, Section 9. Not every team may use it in their contract but every team can enforce it under the CBA.

Then why not just play along and remove the clause. You know, kinda like they did when Dak objected?

 

[Beast_from_East]

From what I understand, it is normal procedure to include a clause that voids a contract as a result of a suspension. However, the Cowboys contract went beyond that. It would void the contract as a result of a fine. Players have been fined for illegal hits, behavior on the field, and fighting.

If, for example, a fight broke out during a game and Gregory intended to come to the defense of a teammate, he could be fined by teh league and Jones would have the option of voiding the contract.

This is actually standard to Cowboy contracts.....however, there has been exceptions. Dak is an example of an exception. It has been reported that the language is not in his contract. This weakens Jerry's argument because you cannot say "always" while an exception exists on the present team. I don't know why iit isn't on Dak's contract but it opens up a can of worms for future contracts.

They might as well eliminate the language now because you know other players are going to demand the same conditions which, again, would put the Cowboys on equal footing with most of teh league. Apparently, the issue was so critical that the team was willing to give the Broncos a shot at getting Gregory.

Apparently ego got in the way. Stephen seems to match, even exceed, his feather in that respect....not a good sign for the team's future.

Anyway, this is from what I understand..........there are some limits there. If anyone has information otherwise I would appreciate the source

Excellent points my friend.

Like you said, the problem is that Dak doesnt have this clause in his contract.

So that totally torpedoes the entire argument that this is in every Cowboy's contract and is nothing special. And if the argument is that it is still in the CBA and still enforceable, then why was it removed from Dak's contract? Why then could it have not been removed from Gregory's contract.

Nobody has been able to explain that to me.

 

[OhReally]

TBH, I can't blame Gregory in this position. Regardless if the rule has never been enforced by the Cowboys, that contract language is there for a reason. If it was in Dak's contract then ok but the Jones'set the precedent that that language can be removed. It would be different if the language listed causes of implying the rule but from what I understand it gives the Cowboys blanket reasons to take back pay from seasons he's already played under this new contract. No one and I mean no one of us here would sign a contract like that in our personal lives if we had an comparable offer in place without it.

 

[Beast_from_East]

TBH, I can't blame Gregory in this position. Regardless if the rule has never been enforced by the Cowboys, that contract language is there for a reason. If it was in Dak's contract then ok but the Jones'set the precedent that that language can be removed. It would be different if the language listed causes of implying the rule but from what I understand it gives the Cowboys blanket reasons to take back pay from seasons he's already played under this new contract. No one and I mean no one of us here would sign a contract like that in our personal lives if we had an comparable offer in place without it.

Excellent point you made............once the precedent was set and they removed the clause from Dak's contract, then its perfectly fair for any other players to request the same thing.

 

[cald0d30s0]

Gregory is a bad and cheap version of Antonio Brown. He wants to do all the circus he wants and get away with them.

 

[DandyDon52]

if the guarantees are voided the Cowboys can cut him for any reason and he’ll get nothing. So if he gets injured and can’t play again he could end up with nothing.

yeah but do you think jerry would do that to his pet cat RG ?? no way he would if he had signed here.
It is all up to the team, and cowboys have never done that to any player I can think of.

 

[DandyDon52]

Excellent point you made............once the precedent was set and they removed the clause from Dak's contract, then its perfectly fair for any other players to request the same thing.

but randy did not make that request, he just took the denver deal.

 

[jaythecowboy]

yeah but do you think jerry would do that to his pet cat RG ?? no way he would if he had signed here.
It is all up to the team, and cowboys have never done that to any player I can think of.

I think if Gregory had a career-ending injury after getting his guarantees voided Jerry Jones absolutely would take that money back. If Gregory was such a pet cat they would have removed the language like they did with Dak.

 

[jaythecowboy]

but randy did not make that request, he just took the denver deal.

He did make the request and the Cowboys refused.

 

[jaythecowboy]

According to this tweet Gregory was gonna take less money too

 

[BigStar]

Can RG still be suspended for positive marijuana tests? New players are no longer penalized; was he grandfathered in under the older policy? That seems backwards.

I don't see what would've gotten him suspended again outside of an arrest for possession...which can't legally happen in DEN unless he has a garbage bag full of it. I think he made the "smart" decision to avoid legal issues by living in Colorado. He can't come out and say that, but I bet someone made this case to him as well.

 

[DanTanna]

This is all about weed, not contracts, clauses or football. Just watch!

 

[DandyDon52]

I think if Gregory had a career-ending injury after getting his guarantees voided Jerry Jones absolutely would take that money back. If Gregory was such a pet cat they would have removed the language like they did with Dak.

injurys are not included lol
so he would have got all his money with any injury. just like on any other team.
the clause is about getting in trouble , and suspended.

 

[DandyDon52]

He did make the request and the Cowboys refused.

I havent seen that anywhere, see if you can find an official source saying he did and jerry refused.

 

[DandyDon52]

According to this tweet Gregory was gonna take less money too

just think about it, this doesnt make sense.
jerry was not there as he had to call RG, dont know if even stephen was there, or where gregory was, I am guessing in denver.
So how could the cowboys give him a contract with more money, that he was ok with and then get cute lol??
The only way to send a new contract would be fax or email.
So randy is signing the new cowboy contract with more money and no clause,then all of a sudden what another contract comes thru with the clause and cowboys
say no sign this one !!
And then somehow they read the whole contract, and notice the clause, which I think would be in both or all 3.
So then there would be 3 contracts,
1 the one with money 5 mil less
2 the one with ok money or a match
3 the cute one with same everything but new clause !

That just doesnt make sense or sound right. it is possible only but only if that clause which is in all cowboy contracts, was not in the first 2.

Like I have said before , the agent lives in denver, may be a denver fan, and wanted RG to be a bronco, so all he had to do is point out that clause on last contract,
to RG and say they were trying to slip in a fast one on him.
I also heard it included being fined, but no team would put that in a contract.

 

[CouchCoach]

The most interesting part of this to me is of all the players, Gregory is more Booger's pet cat than any other and the only one that showed a possible reward to the risk he took but he's nowhere in this until it looks like they're losing him and the son calls him in to play the "you owe me" card and Gregory agrees. But then the son runs some fine vs suspension verbiage into the contract setting off the agent's alarm so what does Booger think of his young protege now?

And why hasn't the NFLPA chimed in on this fine vs suspension thing. Did they agree to let fines work as guarantee killers?