Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
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.
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.
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.
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...