Ultimately it comes down to whether they have a right to get the money away from the player whether already paid or not. Procedurely there might be advantages if not yet paid, but it won't change the determination of rights. Besides, chances are he will already have the money anyway because the postponed payment is only until March anyway.Originally Posted by pbmax
I do not agree that the final amount is determined by legal rights only. Settlements of claims alone add in variation to the letter of the law.
But put that aside. Both sides want to be in control of the money for as long as possible.
This is the reverse of the player agents who tried, successfully for a while, to get mega bonuses into the contracts of the early first round picks. Year by year they wore teams down and got the money for lower picks. Before the last CBA, they were close to the 10th pick of the round.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
Potential settlements are the procedural advantages I was referring to. However, the chance of a settlement is really quite small because the overlying issue is huge for the league and the union. Each will take it as far as they can to win.
Of course each side wants control of the money for as long as possible, and I completely understand why the union and agent want to make a big deal about it. If he were honest when asked, I would bet Bosa himself would gladly sign and come into camp. In effect he is "taking one for the team", with the team being the NFLPA.
I don't think there is a right or wrong here. I negotiated many contracts in the business world that had huge guaranteed payments upon signing. Sometimes the checks were on the table when the contracts were signed, sometimes they were payable over time. Ultimately, when the time period is short, it is a silly issue to delay a deal unless cash flow is a problem. In the world of NFL rookie contracts it seems to me to be an absolutely stupid issue to keep a player out of camp because it is not the actual players issue, it is the team vs the union, and the player suffers. So, specify it in the next CBA and force the teams and union to address issues of significance instead of quibbling.
Last edited by Patler; 08-04-2016 at 10:27 AM.
Boss was the third pick in the first round in 2016. Has it been standard for other 3rd picks overall?
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
Has it been standard for the Chargers? Has it even been standard for 1st round picks generally?
My point is simply it is stupid to have an artificial, probably varying line at some level in the first round for treating bonuses differently.
Hindsight is 20-20 and I'm sure the NFL sees letting these issues to be negotiable at all a mistake. They should've known that agents are looking to justify their existence, so will pick whatever fight they can. On thee other hand, it might be an artificial line but the Chargers know damn well that they're well above it, and are being obstinate. To answer your question Patler, since the new CBA has been in place, no #3 pick has had both deferred money and offset language.
I agree with pbmax that teams want to hold onto the money because if the player goes off his nut, they have a much better chance of keeping it than trying to get it back. Manziel managed to not get paid for the last two years of his "fully guaranteed" contract.
--
Imagine for a moment a world without hypothetical situations...
From the team's perspective, should the Packers be bound to follow a negotiable term in the same way that teams like Cleveland, Detroit, TB, etc. think is a good idea? If it's negotiable, it's negotiable; and maybe more successful organizations who seldom find themselves in those positions really do have better approaches.
My personal opinion, when a contract really is guaranteed, offset should be automatic. The player should be embarrassed to double dip for failing.
No, they are not bound, but if they don't follow the precedent, moving to terms more favorable to them (and less favorable to labour) without offering something in return, they are bound to get some push back. Which they are.
Taking "labour's" approach, maybe the team failed to provide the player with the necessary opportunity to succeed, and should be embarassed? See: Lions, Detroit. Collecting a (relatively) little extra money seems fair payment for the 2-3 years of your very short career the drafting team burned through.
--
Imagine for a moment a world without hypothetical situations...
Of course there is pushback. I'm sure they expect it, no matter what they say publicly. However, I won't condemn them for doing it, as some seem to want to.
How many failed early 1st round picks. who are cut before their contract expires, go on to a decent career anywhere else? I also abhor golden parachutes in the corporate world.
After the 2012 CBA made slotting iron clad, I can't believe its not baked into the contract terms.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
Ya, had to have been an oversight, something they didn't even think of.
They also missed guarantees and claw backs I think.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote