What's with all this contract BS lately?

[project myu]

Suddenly, all these players are signing contracts and then backpedalling almost immediately, looking for more money.

See Lavar Arrington, Terrell Owens, Sean Taylor, Laveranues Coles, etc.

[G-Prime]

Originally posted by project myu
Suddenly, all these players are signing contracts and then backpedalling almost immediately, looking for more money.

See Lavar Arrington, Terrell Owens, Sean Taylor, Laveranues Coles, etc.

It's called greed.. It's called lying.. It's called suck.

People have heard me rant on this before but the players imo have way to much power in terms of money these days. I think once a player is signed, that should be it, there should be no re-negotiations unless it benefits the team as a whole.

Some will say "yeah but teams can cut people anytime they want".. Well yeah but a lot of these players have guarenteed money in their contract so it really doesn't matter when or if a team cuts them, they know they'll get free money.. Sure the majority of the players don't get the big contacts, but then again, the majority of the players aren't b!tching about their contracts every year either.

Now I'm not sure about this part maybe someone can explain it to me.. Is the signing bonus spread out over years or games? I know a player has a base salary but is part of their bonus added into the salary come pay day? Reason why I'm asking, if a player holds out do they lose rights to any per-game bonus money? I know they don't get paid their salary.

[G-Prime]

Originally posted by project myu
Suddenly, all these players are signing contracts and then backpedalling almost immediately, looking for more money.

See Lavar Arrington, Terrell Owens, Sean Taylor, Laveranues Coles, etc.

To defend Lavar a little bit because lord knows I've trashed him lately. Admittedly perhaps I was a bit hasty but we'll see come later in the season..

Anyway Lavar isn't backpedalling on his contract.. He thinks he was cheated out of some money so like anyone who thinks they've been cheated, he's trying to get what he thinks is owed to him.. Owed or not though it basically falls in the lap of his agent to take care of these things.. If there was a discrepency in his contract the agent should have caught it and had the corrections made... Regardless Lavar should have also read his contract before signing.. At work we have lawyers that work for us that brings me things to sign all the time.. Sure my lawyer read it to make sure everything is accurate, but you better believe I'm going to read it very carefully myself.

[MaddogCT]

Originally posted by Gothtimus


It's called greed.. It's called lying.. It's called suck.

People have heard me rant on this before but the players imo have way to much power in terms of money these days. I think once a player is signed, that should be it, there should be no re-negotiations unless it benefits the team as a whole.

Some will say "yeah but teams can cut people anytime they want".. Well yeah but a lot of these players have guarenteed money in their contract so it really doesn't matter when or if a team cuts them, they know they'll get free money.. Sure the majority of the players don't get the big contacts, but then again, the majority of the players aren't b!tching about their contracts every year either.

Now I'm not sure about this part maybe someone can explain it to me.. Is the signing bonus spread out over years or games? I know a player has a base salary but is part of their bonus added into the salary come pay day? Reason why I'm asking, if a player holds out do they lose rights to any per-game bonus money? I know they don't get paid their salary.

Teams do the same thing to the players that TO is doing to the Eagles. He is holding out for the most value. Right now TO has a lot of value. He holds the cards. In 5 years(TO will be 36) the team will hold the cards. His value (in terms of skills) will have fallen. Then they will hold out for the most value. Thats the "buisness" side of things. And I don't hold any anamosity toward TO for that. Most of us don't when it is done the right way.
Tom Brady wants a new deal. I don't see anyone calling him "greedy". No one is talking about that. Why? Brady has gone about it the right way. He's not bad mouthing the team. And, most importantly, he not taking shots at his teammates.
If TO had done this more descretely, and without the public comments, he might have more money coming to him this year already. Probably not in terms of a new conract(Eagles just don't do that), but more likely some guarenteed money in his current deal.

I believe the bonus is paid at the start of the contract. It is then spread out over the length of the contract for salary cap calculations. A player might have to pay back part of his bonus on top of loosing his salary, if he holds out. But that's just a guess.

:logo:

[Thiebear]

What with a contract like this.
6 million signing bonus.
450k 1st year
700k 2nd year
3.4 million 3rd year
6.3 million 4th year
and EVERYONE knows there is no 3rd and 4th year even though its in the contract:

See Brunell.. it's o.k. for the team but not the player?

[Burgold]

Player isn't being cheated with that contract. He knows in reality it is a two year or three year deal and the signing bonus is the guarenteed money for the first two years. It's just being paid in advance. No ones being hood winked.

[G-Prime]

Originally posted by MaddogCT


Teams do the same thing to the players that TO is doing to the Eagles. He is holding out for the most value. Right now TO has a lot of value. He holds the cards. In 5 years(TO will be 36) the team will hold the cards. His value (in terms of skills) will have fallen. Then they will hold out for the most value. Thats the "buisness" side of things. And I don't hold any anamosity toward TO for that. Most of us don't when it is done the right way.
Tom Brady wants a new deal. I don't see anyone calling him "greedy". No one is talking about that. Why? Brady has gone about it the right way. He's not bad mouthing the team. And, most importantly, he not taking shots at his teammates.
If TO had done this more descretely, and without the public comments, he might have more money coming to him this year already. Probably not in terms of a new conract(Eagles just don't do that), but more likely some guarenteed money in his current deal.

I believe the bonus is paid at the start of the contract. It is then spread out over the length of the contract for salary cap calculations. A player might have to pay back part of his bonus on top of loosing his salary, if he holds out. But that's just a guess.

:logo:

I don't have any problem with a player trying to get the best contract possible. I would do the same thing. But when you do sign a contract, your in essence giving your word. The team is also giving their word that Such and Such amount of money is guarenteed. So when these guys sign a contract and a year later want a new one, that's going back on their word. My dad always told me there is nothing more valuable a man can possess then his word. Maybe I'm old fashioned.

So yeah this is how I look at it..

Player "I'm signing this contract, that pays me such and such amount of guarenteed money, and I promise I'll do my job"

a year later

Player "I lied, I want more money or I won't play another down".

Show me the logic behind that sort of behavior being acceptable.. That is at it's very essense what these players are doing.

Last year if TO and ST weren't happy with the contracts they were given they shouldn't of signed them.. They should have asked for more money then. Again, I don't have a problem at all, with players negotiating for more money before the contract is signed.

[MaddogCT]

Originally posted by Gothtimus


I don't have any problem with a player trying to get the best contract possible. I would do the same thing. But when you do sign a contract, your in essence giving your word. The team is also giving their word that Such and Such amount of money is guarenteed. So when these guys sign a contract and a year later want a new one, that's going back on their word. My dad always told me there is nothing more valuable a man can possess then his word. Maybe I'm old fashioned.

So yeah this is how I look at it..

Player "I'm signing this contract, that pays me such and such amount of guarenteed money, and I promise I'll do my job"

a year later

Player "I lied, I want more money or I won't play another down".

Show me the logic behind that sort of behavior being acceptable.. That is at it's very essense what these players are doing.

Last year if TO and ST weren't happy with the contracts they were given they shouldn't of signed them.. They should have asked for more money then. Again, I don't have a problem at all, with players negotiating for more money before the contract is signed.

For the contracts to equal a mans word, BOTH parties have to believe in that. The owners don't. The owners renegotiate contracts all the time. Chris Samuels has done it twice so far. If he had said "I want to be paid based on the contract I signed two years ago and I don't want to restructure a new deal", who side whould you have been on? Would you be saying the Redskins should be "men of thier word" and pay him what they signed the contrat for? Or would you be saying he is just being a greedy player who is only out for him self and not the team?
You cant have the players be men of their word and the owners not.

forgive speeling mistakes, and if this makes no sense...I'm tired and need sleep. :cheers:


:logo:

[Tarhog]

Originally posted by MaddogCT


For the contracts to equal a mans word, BOTH parties have to believe in that. The owners don't. The owners renegotiate contracts all the time. Chris Samuels has done it twice so far. If he had said "I want to be paid based on the contract I signed two years ago and I don't want to restructure a new deal", who side whould you have been on? Would you be saying the Redskins should be "men of thier word" and pay him what they signed the contrat for? Or would you be saying he is just being a greedy player who is only out for him self and not the team?
You cant have the players be men of their word and the owners not.

forgive speeling mistakes, and if this makes no sense...I'm tired and need sleep. :cheers:


:logo:

Heres the problem with your analogy. When teams approach players asking THEM to renegotiate, its going to afford the player advantages (guaranteed cash up front usually). Theres no similarity to the situations.

[tr1]

Players should always ask for more...it's a short career, lots of risks and when their value is up, a natural decision. They should also expect to hear no...

What makes TO different from say, 'GotMoss', is that not only is he asking for more money, but he's calling out his quarterback....that's why you have to put TO on a different level...he has no allegiance to players or management.

[TLusby]

Originally posted by MaddogCT


Chris Samuels has done it twice so far. If he had said "I want to be paid based on the contract I signed two years ago and I don't want to restructure a new deal", who side whould you have been on? Would you be saying the Redskins should be "men of thier word" and pay him what they signed the contrat for? Or would you be saying he is just being a greedy player who is only out for him self and not the team?
You cant have the players be men of their word and the owners not.
:logo:

THink before you speak. Samuels didn't give up anything; e.g.; if a player has three years remaining on his contract and he is due $5M in salary this year, the team approaches the player and says, "We will pay you league minimum at $700k and the difference of $4.3M in a signing bonus. The palyer has not done anything and gets his money now. Give me that deal any day! The $4.3M is now spread out over three years and the cap hit that year goes from $5M to $700k plus his prorated signing bonus of $1.43M for a total cap hit of roughly 2.13M. The team saves almost $3M in cap hit for the year; however, the palyer gave up nothing and got his money before the season. Please understand the cap before you blast owners!

[FedUpField]

What's not being said here is the increasing power of the NFLPA -- think about how many arbitration hearings and decisions the union has made on the players' behalfs. It makes sense, I mean, the union's power is important in these days of multi-hundred billion dollar network deals with the league -- it's a power struggle that is just now sort of shifting to the talent, which is where it belongs in theory, since no talent = no league....(though this historically means the Skins will win the Superbowl that year too, so no problems here!) but the unholy triumverate of Union/Player/Agent is making all the hoopla look like greed and ego -- and in a lot of ways it is. No solutions here, and the outlook looks bleak (this is only going to get worse, basically) but that might help put things into better perspective -- think of it as any other business industry with ownership, distributors, suppliers, workers, representatives and unions....

Don't be fooled into thinking pro sports aren't anything but a widget, a product produced by some who love their jobs but also many who are good at the job and can take monatary advantage of their natural talents but who have no love for the game or the people in charge. Sounds like any other job.

- FUF

[jimster]

I argued this idea the other day, that the players are taking advantage of the guarenteed part of the contract by collecting the guarenteed money, then holding themselves out for more.

The Eagles front loaded his contract, so he had a big salary last year, plus the big money he gets in signing bonus no matter what, and now suddenly he doesn't like the contract?

[MaddogCT]

I tried to say if Contract=Word then BOTH sides have to agree to that. Otherwise it won't work.

Samuels, I agree, was not the best example because he did benefit from the new contract. But it is an example of a team approachig a player, mid-contract, to work out a new deal.

Which is exactlly what TO is doing. The man has a contract which ows him 3.5 mil this year and 7.5 in 2006. If both teams and players were to be "men of their word" then there should not be any worry about him getting paid that money or him playing for the team. But guess what the word is about that year of the contract? TO is gone and he is not getting that money. If you were TO what would you do? Would you follow Tom Brady's lead too?

:cheers:

:logo: