OT: Would you ever hold out?

[eom]

Yet another person who has no idea that criminal law and civil law are totally different. More importantly, you can't respond to a civil post without insulting everyone who disagrees with you (probably because you haven't at any point had a leg to stand on, since you think dead money cap hits are somehow a 'benefit'). Welcome to ignore.

 

[Ring 6]

Salary cap ramifications are a competitive penalty, and a disincentive for releasing productive players.

There are no salary cap penalties. There is a rule that allows you to spread an upfront bonus over the life of the contract. If the contract is terminated, there is no future to continue to spread it over.
This is an accounting method, not a penalty or disincentive.

In practice, it actually serves as an unintended disincentive to cut UNPRODUCITVE players. You don't need a disincentive to cut a productive player but an unproductive player could keep his job if the team cant afford the acceleration of the amortized bonus.

 

[Ring 6]

This is exactly correct. Many moons ago I had a crappy job running a mail room and copy center. When all of the copiers, printers, etc started going network, my company paid for me to take a computer networking program at a local college under the agreement that I would either work for them for at least 3 more years or be responsible for paying them back for the tuition.

After I completed the course and started getting certifications I got a really good job offer and I took it. I 'broke' my contract, paid the penalty (paying back the tuition my employer had paid for) and never looked back.

The penalty for my leaving was specified, which is what allowed me to leave. They could just as easily have not given me that out so obviously there is a reason they did it. Probably because it's not worth it for them to sue later.

I'm not so sure that is a penalty for leaving as it is a forfeiture of the benefit under the terms it was given.
They paid your tuition with certain provisions. Breaking any provisions (I would imagine a failing grade may have been one) calls for you to reimburse the expense because the company didn't get what it bargained for.
Perhaps its too picky, but I would consider having to pay back the tuition a consequence of the terms of the benefit paid, not a penalty for quitting your job.

 

[BradyFTW!]

There are no salary cap penalties. There is a rule that allows you to spread an upfront bonus over the life of the contract. If the contract is terminated, there is no future to continue to spread it over.
This is an accounting method, not a penalty or disincentive.

In practice, it actually serves as an unintended disincentive to cut UNPRODUCITVE players. You don't need a disincentive to cut a productive player but an unproductive player could keep his job if the team cant afford the acceleration of the amortized bonus.

No penalty would be not having dead money hit the cap at all. And if a player is unproductive enough, he'll be cut even with a significant cap hit. In any case, it is kind of an iffy point, and in the context of the larger debate is pretty much irrelevant anyways. The real issue, which is that holdouts are explicitly permitted under the CBA and do not constitute a breach of contract, has nothing to do with this, so I'll cede this one rather than derail the topic.

 

[Ring 6]

Ignore. The Internet Tough Guys Right hook.

 

[eom]

Ignore. The Internet Tough Guys Right hook.

haha....what I always find funniest is the proclamation of it --- it's like the opposite of ignore.
HEY!!! I AM IGNORING YOU!!! HEY!! HEY!! DO YOU HEAR ME??
lolz

 

[BradyFTW!]

I'm not so sure that is a penalty for leaving as it is a forfeiture of the benefit under the terms it was given.
They paid your tuition with certain provisions. Breaking any provisions (I would imagine a failing grade may have been one) calls for you to reimburse the expense because the company didn't get what it bargained for.
Perhaps its too picky, but I would consider having to pay back the tuition a consequence of the terms of the benefit paid, not a penalty for quitting your job.

However you feel like characterizing it, the principle still directly applies to player contracts. If you want to call the $30,000 per day fine against holdouts "foreiture of the benefit under the terms it was given", then go ahead.

 

[Ring 6]

No penalty would be not having dead money hit the cap at all.

It is not a penalty.
They are not being penalized in any way. Players are given signing bonusses that are amortized over all the years of the contract. When the contract is terminated there are no years left so it must be accelerated. That is not a penalty.
The impact on that seasons cap is a CONSEQUENCE of players being cut, but by no means is it a penalty.
You have penalty and consequence mixed up. No CONSEQUENCE would be that the cap hit continued into the future as originally amortized, but that would be silly accounting.

And if a player is unproductive enough, he'll be cut even with a significant cap hit.

Well, yes, but you said it was a disincentive to cut productive players. It is not an incentive to cut or not cut anyone, it is an accounting method, which does nothing to affect the incentive in keeping or cutting a productive player.

In any case, it is kind of an iffy point,

No actually its about as black and white as it gets.

and in the context of the larger debate is pretty much irrelevant anyways. The real issue, which is that holdouts are explicitly permitted under the CBA and do not constitute a breach of contract, has nothing to do with this, so I'll cede this one rather than derail the topic.

. Yeah, I purposely avoided that semantic debate but I don't know how not honoring the terms of a contract could not be considered breaching it. Thats why holdouts don't get paid.
As far as 'allowed', 'permitted' and the rest of the parsing of words to create an argument I'll sit that one out.

 

[Ring 6]

However you feel like characterizing it, the principle still directly applies to player contracts. If you want to call the $30,000 per day fine against holdouts "foreiture of the benefit under the terms it was given", then go ahead.

Not really.
We are talking about the difference of a company offering to pay tuition under certain conditions and then requiring it paid back when those conditions were not met, compared to not showing up for your job. They are vastly different.

 

[BradyFTW!]

. Yeah, I purposely avoided that semantic debate but I don't know how not honoring the terms of a contract could not be considered breaching it.

It is not considered breach of contract because the contract spells out the penalties for holding out. By forfeiting $30,000 per day, the player is honoring the terms of the contract. There is no grey area whatsoever here. It's just like any other contract that has predetermined penalties for undesirable behavior. There's a reason why cases like Ricky Williams are the exception and not the rule.

 

[Ring 6]

haha....what I always find funniest is the proclamation of it --- it's like the opposite of ignore.
HEY!!! I AM IGNORING YOU!!! HEY!! HEY!! DO YOU HEAR ME??
lolz

If it wasn't an attempt at bravado, why say "I am going to ignore you" like its a punishment? Why not just start ignoring?

 

[BradyFTW!]

Not really.
We are talking about the difference of a company offering to pay tuition under certain conditions and then requiring it paid back when those conditions were not met, compared to not showing up for your job. They are vastly different.

It is a benefit that is provided, with predetermined penalties assessed in the event of certain, undesired behavior. Of course they're not identical scenarios, since it is, after all, an analogy. The principle of paying the penalty precluding a breach of contract is identical in both cases.

 

[Ring 6]

It is not considered breach of contract because the contract spells out the penalties for holding out. By forfeiting $30,000 per day, the player is honoring the terms of the contract. There is no grey area whatsoever here. It's just like any other contract that has predetermined penalties for undesirable behavior. There's a reason why cases like Ricky Williams are the exception and not the rule.

As I said I have no interest in the semantic argument, but many contracts define actions that constitute breach of contract and follow with consequences, so I would imagine your assertion that any violation that has a consequence stipulated is not breach of contract is probably wrong.

 

[BradyFTW!]

If it wasn't an attempt at bravado, why say "I am going to ignore you" like its a punishment? Why not just start ignoring?

It's to let someone know that they shouldn't bother directly responding to you.

 

[Ring 6]

It is a benefit that is provided, with predetermined penalties assessed in the event of certain, undesired behavior. Of course they're not identical scenarios, since it is, after all, an analogy. The principle of paying the penalty precluding a breach of contract is identical in both cases.

You were the one who chastised Patchick for using analogies.
I'm sure you would agree that the terms of payment of tuition and the contract of employment are very different things that really don't belong as analogies.

 

[BradyFTW!]

As I said I have no interest in the semantic argument, but many contracts define actions that constitute breach of contract and follow with consequences, so I would imagine your assertion that any violation that has a consequence stipulated is not breach of contract is probably wrong.

In the event that this predefined penalty is paid, can the aggrieved party sue for breach of contract? If the answer is no (and it is), then attempting to call it a breach of contract is tenuous at best.

 

[Ring 6]

It's to let someone know that they shouldn't bother directly responding to you.

Then why 'welcome to ignore' rather than, "I won't be responding any longer"?
If you can't admit your intention was to indicate you think you are better than him, then welcome.....ah, never mind

 

[eom]

It's to let someone know that they shouldn't bother directly responding to you.

but if you're ignoring them then what does it matter to you?

also, what if they see a particularly nutty post they need to correct......

 

[BradyFTW!]

Then why 'welcome to ignore' rather than, "I won't be responding any longer"?
If you can't admit your intention was to indicate you think you are better than him, then welcome.....ah, never mind

And now you're a mind-reader. This thread has obviously gone off a cliff into complete pointlessness.

 

[Ring 6]

In the event that this predefined penalty is paid, can the aggrieved party sue for breach of contract? If the answer is no (and it is), then attempting to call it a breach of contract is tenuous at best.

This is exactly the semantics I said I was avoiding because it stupid.

If there is a consequence for breaching a contract, and you pay the consequence did you breach the contract then pay the consequence or not breach because you did. Its foolish.

However, I think you need to consider that if the player holds out, the fine is assessed to him, not paid as a holdout fee. The holdout doesnt walk in with a $30,000 check each day to avoid breach of the contract, and even if he did, by not showing up tomorrow he breaches it again.
The contract calls for him to show up. If he doesn't its violated, regardless of whether or not the fine is predetermined.

If my contract of employment says that I am allowed 15 days off per year, and I take a 16th, I have violated (breached) my contract. If my contract also states that I will be docked pay for an unexcused absences, that does not mean I cannot breach my contract by not showing up.
By your explanation, I could never be fired for attendence.