OT: Would you ever hold out?

[eom]

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.

omfg

you are 100% trolling this thread.

WHAT BENEFIT ARE THEY FORFEITING???
they weren't loaned 30k/day that's getting paid back!

that one guy used an example involving a company paying tuition and expecting benefit in return, so he has to pay back the tuition if he quits --- THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GETTING FINED 30K/DAY!
WHAT IS THE BENEFIT THEY ARE FORFEITING -- GETTING PAID????

how can you possibly link these 2 things together in your head??
how can you possibly claim that owners get fined for cutting players??

you are making all this nonsense up for the sole purpose of trolling us!
(and very effective - cudos)

 

[BradyFTW!]

.
By your explanation, I could never be fired for attendence.

If the contract stipulated exactly what penalties could be assessed for failure to attend, and firing wasn't one of them, then sure.

 

[Ring 6]

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

No but uyour intention was veiled as thinly as an 11 year olds sarcasm.
But your right, me discussing your 'ignore' manuever is equally lame.

 

[eom]

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

my question would be why even the need for the ignore function -- I ignore all kinds of posts on here with sheer force of will and gritty determination.

 

[stinkypete]

As someone who is basically in position to hold out at a job, I say "absolutely."

I work in a profession that is highly unionized with a very clearly slotted salary schedule. I recently found myself in a position where 3 different employers are interested in my services and my current employer has stepped forward and offered to negotiate with me.

I've paid my dues, started at the bottom, taken some extreme $h!t from a lot of unqualified and incompetent people, and earned my successes. I alot of people depend on me, but the same is true no matter where I work. After giving up so many years of my life, and sacraficing my time and my mental energies, I cannot pass up an opportunity to use my success as leverage, and to reward myself for the success that I have earned.

Why should an NFL player feel any different? These people are risking their long term physical health to entertain us. Why do we, as fans, treat a holdout as a disloyalty? Is out fandom any less valuable than the fandom of the people of another geographical region?

 

[Ring 6]

If the contract stipulated exactly what penalties could be assessed for failure to attend, and firing wasn't one of them, then sure.

That is ridiculous, and its not what you are arguing either.
First, you are trying to tell me that an employment contract could exist that would tipulated exactly what penalties could be assessed for failure to attend, and not inckude that if you never showed up you could be fired? Thats just silly.
Second, your argument is the existence of a fine voids the possibility of breach, and the example I gave shows that is totally incorrect.

What are the consequences (or remedies available to the team) beyond fine, of a protracted holdout?

 

[eom]

As someone who is basically in position to hold out at a job, I say "absolutely."

I work in a profession that is highly unionized with a very clearly slotted salary schedule. I recently found myself in a position where 3 different employers are interested in my services and my current employer has stepped forward and offered to negotiate with me.

I've paid my dues, started at the bottom, taken some extreme $h!t from a lot of unqualified and incompetent people, and earned my successes. I alot of people depend on me, but the same is true no matter where I work. After giving up so many years of my life, and sacraficing my time and my mental energies, I cannot pass up an opportunity to use my success as leverage, and to reward myself for the success that I have earned.

Why should an NFL player feel any different? These people are risking their long term physical health to entertain us. Why do we, as fans, treat a holdout as a disloyalty? Is out fandom any less valuable than the fandom of the people of another geographical region?

well, I'll explain it to you, but we're just rebooting page 1.

there are different types of hold outs, as well as situations lumped in that aren't technically hold outs, but similar.
some on here distinguish between them, and some don't, so not every one might match up with your personal experience.

however, one situation is where a guy stuffs a fat 20m bonus in his pocket on a 5 yr deal, frontloading money and sacrificing future salary only to hold out 2 yrs later in an attempt to extort additional money at the expense of the team.
he was paid that bonus on the life of the contract --- not one year.

do you understand?

if not, there is a sequence of numbers below vv -- click on " 1 ".

 

[BradyFTW!]

That is ridiculous, and its not what you are arguing either.
First, you are trying to tell me that an employment contract could exist that would tipulated exactly what penalties could be assessed for failure to attend, and not inckude that if you never showed up you could be fired? Thats just silly.
Second, your argument is the existence of a fine voids the possibility of breach, and the example I gave shows that is totally incorrect.

What are the consequences (or remedies available to the team) beyond fine, of a protracted holdout?

According to the CBA, they're clearly spelled out: fines and, if the holdout lasts long enough, failure to accrue a year towards free agency (this happened to Chris Johnson just today). An NFL player who quits (retires) can be sued, and it's happened before, because he has breached his contract. That's exactly the grounds on which an arbitrator ruled that Ricky Williams owed the Dolphins $8.6 million, and that's exactly why a Florida court upheld the decision: http://www.cbc.ca/sports/story/2005/02/16/williams050215.html#ixzz1Uaef8fux

The Dolphins filed a grievance against Williams after he retired just prior to training camp this past season, claiming a breach of contract, and on Sept. 25 of last year arbitrator Richard Bloch ruled that the former league rushing champion had to give back the bonus money he received.

The National Football League Players' Association asked the court in a hearing last Friday to vacate the arbitrator's ruling, but on Tuesday U.S. District Court Judge James Cohn disagreed.

Holding out, however, is not the same as retiring. If it was, the Titans would be suing Chris Johnson right now, just to set a precedent against future holdouts. My argument is, and all along has been, that the existence of limited, specified penalties within the contract, and the player's acceptance of those penalties, precludes suing a player for breach of contract. If you wish to say that the contract has been breached despite the fact that a successful breach of contract lawsuit would be impossible, then that's your call.

 

[Ring 6]

As someone who is basically in position to hold out at a job, I say "absolutely."

I work in a profession that is highly unionized with a very clearly slotted salary schedule. I recently found myself in a position where 3 different employers are interested in my services and my current employer has stepped forward and offered to negotiate with me.

I've paid my dues, started at the bottom, taken some extreme $h!t from a lot of unqualified and incompetent people, and earned my successes. I alot of people depend on me, but the same is true no matter where I work. After giving up so many years of my life, and sacraficing my time and my mental energies, I cannot pass up an opportunity to use my success as leverage, and to reward myself for the success that I have earned.

Why should an NFL player feel any different? These people are risking their long term physical health to entertain us. Why do we, as fans, treat a holdout as a disloyalty? Is out fandom any less valuable than the fandom of the people of another geographical region?

Sure you are right.
But you also don't have a collectively bargainned contract with one of the members of a league where you accepted the rules of employee movement.
You said 'highly unionized' profession. That makes me think you aren't unionized. I could be wrong, but aren't unionized employees paid a 'scale' that makes the pay at one union shop or another the same?

I don't think you doing what is best for your family is wrong on any level.
I also don't think holding out is 'wrong' either. I have always only worked for myself or someone I had two way loyalty to, so I can't really say what I would do it I had a contract and no longer felt my employer was dealing honestly with me. "Honoring the contract" and them not honoring the commitment I felt they made to me would certainly conflict.

 

[eom]

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

gone off a cliff??

this is from my first post in the thread

which is why these discussions are always entirely pointless.

 

[Ring 6]

According to the CBA, they're clearly spelled out: fines and, if the holdout lasts long enough, failure to accrue a year towards free agency. An NFL player who quits (retires) can be sued, and it's happened before, because he has breached his contract. That's exactly the grounds on which an arbitrator ruled that Ricky Williams owed the Dolphins $8.6 million, and that's exactly why a Florida court upheld the decision. Holding out, however, is not equal to quitting.

My argument is, and all along has been, that the existence of limited, specified penalties within the contract, and the player's acceptance of those penalties, precludes suing a player for breach of contract. If you wish to say that the contract has been breached despite the fact that a successful breach of contract lawsuit would be impossible, then that's your call.

Ricky Williams WAS sued, as was Michael Vick. And as you pointed out Williams was found in violation of his contract.

But you also left out many of the consequences. The team can send a 7(?) day letter. That means that if the player does not report, they can put him the list (Did not report?) and he is ineligible for the season. How can they do that if he has not breached his contract?
The 7 day letter is specifically a notification of breach of the contract.

You started a semantic battle here, and you are twisting around trying to fit an argument into your poor assumption.

You can't really believe that if a contract specifies the fine for a manner of breach of the contract then it cant be breached.
The fine certainly does not state that it is a full completion of the duties contracted. You agree with that right?

 

[eom]

Holding out, however, is not the same as retiring. If it was, the Titans would be suing Chris Johnson right now, just to set a precedent against future holdouts.

holding out and retiring only differ in that retiring is a promise not to return, while holding out leaves room for negotiation, which is always preferable to a lawsuit.
suing chris johnson after a week of a hold out would be entirely counterproductive.

if he told them he wouldn't budge off a 50m/yr demand, and if they had just given him a fat signing bonus, I'd imagine they would be suing him at some point down the road to recover that bonus for breach of contract.

edit: btw, what amount would they possibly be suing chris johnson for???
800k??
do you have any idea what you're talking about?

 

[Ring 6]

Holding out, however, is not the same as retiring. If it was, the Titans would be suing Chris Johnson right now, just to set a precedent against future holdouts. My argument is, and all along has been, that the existence of limited, specified penalties within the contract, and the player's acceptance of those penalties, precludes suing a player for breach of contract. If you wish to say that the contract has been breached despite the fact that a successful breach of contract lawsuit would be impossible, then that's your call.

Why would the Titans sue Chris Johnson now? They want to set a precedent by alienating their best player?
The contract is breached by Johnson not being there. The fine is a partial compensation. If Johnson should never play again, the Titans would have a clearcut claim to breach of contract.

Another example.
I hire a contractor and include penalities for him finishing late. If he never finishes I haven't waived breach of contract because he can argue he is just 'holding out' an accepting the penalties for finishing late.

 

[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 a very uniformed opinion.
A penalty paid for an action does not endorse the action, and the continuance of the action is of course grounds for breach. I will send you back to the failure to show up for work example.
You can dock my pay as a predfined penalty, yet you can still fire me for continued failure to show up. Ultimately, I could also be sued for any aspects of that contract that my firing would create a liability to my employer.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Ricky Williams WAS sued, as was Michael Vick. And as you pointed out Williams was found in violation of his contract.

But you also left out many of the consequences. The team can send a 7(?) day letter. That means that if the player does not report, they can put him the list (Did not report?) and he is ineligible for the season. How can they do that if he has not breached his contract?
The 7 day letter is specifically a notification of breach of the contract.

By that definition, isn't a player who is IRed in breach of contract? That is also a list that makes him ineligible for the season. The Reserve/Did Not Report list is just like any other reserve list. I'm not too familiar with the seven day letter, but I believe that it is necessary because it must be issued before a team can seek remedy for breach of contract. Could be off on that one, though; they're issued so rarely, and so infrequently reported on, that I haven't become particularly familiar with them.

And I've actually spelled out my terminology very clearly throughout. I've said that I am using the term 'permitted' to mean "does not expose you to breach of contract liability". If you're claiming that it's possible to breach a contract within this definition, then so be it. It's a semantic point, and I'm not going to waste time debating it. How courts handle contract law is good enough for me.

You can't really believe that if a contract specifies the fine for a manner of breach of the contract then it cant be breached.

I believe that, if a contract lays out precisely what penalty can be assessed for failure to perform certain obligations laid out within it, and that penalty is paid as required, then the offending party has in that instance satisfied the terms of the contract. Functionally, this means that s/he would not be found to be in breach of the contract in the event of a lawsuit.

(Analogy below. Take it FWIW, I won't begrudge anyone choosing to ignore it entirely)
=====
Example: oilheat dealers frequently hedge against the potential for rising oil prices by purchasing forward contracts from oil suppliers. This allows them to lock in a certain (hopefully lower) price by promising to purchase a certain volume of oil at predetermined prices and predetermined dates. In the event of a warm winter month, end consumers frequently consume less than was projected, and as a result the dealer is not able to meet the purchasing obligation set forth in the contract. In of itself, this would constitute breach of contract, and the dealer would be exposed to a potential lawsuit. Luckily, there is a predetermined, agreed-upon penalty for under-lifting that's written right into the contract .

Why does the dealer agree to pay this penalty? Because it is an alternative means of satisfying the purchasing obligation. Both parties recognize that there is likely to be a scenario in which one party chooses not to fulfill its obligations on the contract, and as a result they agree upon a predetermined fee that is acceptable to both of them. The result is that the contract has not been breached and they can both stay out of court and maintain a productive business relationship.
======

By the same token, why do you think the NFLPA agreed to the fines and loss of free agency accrual that results from holdouts? The entire reason why these penalties exist is to shield holdouts from breach of contract liability so that every holdout doesn't end up in court. Since you seem to disagree that this is the case, I'm curious to hear what your explanation for them is.

The fine certainly does not state that it is a full completion of the duties contracted. You agree with that right?

The fine is an alternative method for fulfilling the contractual obligation. As a result, an attempt to sue someone who has paid the penalty for breach of contract will be unsuccessful.

 

[BradyFTW!]

This is a very uniformed opinion.
A penalty paid for an action does not endorse the action, and the continuance of the action is of course grounds for breach. I will send you back to the failure to show up for work example.
You can dock my pay as a predfined penalty, yet you can still fire me for continued failure to show up. Ultimately, I could also be sued for any aspects of that contract that my firing would create a liability to my employer.

Once again, it depends on what the contract says. I said that if your contract states exactly what penalties that can be assessed for failing to show up, and firing isn't one of them, then your employer would not be able to fire you for failing to show up.

Whether or not such a contract actually exists (I kinda doubt it) is another question entirely. Just about every employment contract that I've ever heard of was either at-will (rendering the issue irrelevant) or laid out the conditions under which failure to attend could lead to firing. The NFL appears to fall into the latter group, as there are rules in place for termination of contracts.

 

[Ring 6]

By that definition, isn't a player who is IRed in breach of contract?

Come on. Now you are being foolish

That is also a list that makes him ineligible for the season. The Reserve/Did Not Report list is just like any other reserve list.

No it isnt. Just because its a reserve list doenst make it the same as every other one.

I'm not too familiar with the seven day letter, but I believe that it is necessary because it must be issued before a team can seek remedy for breach of contract. Could be off on that one, though; they're issued so rarely, and so infrequently reported on, that I haven't become particularly familiar with them.

Wait. You have been arguing that they cannot seek remedy for breach of contract.
Are you accepting you have been wrong all along?

And I've actually spelled out my terminology very clearly throughout. I've said that I am using the term 'permitted' to mean "does not expose you to breach of contract liability". If you're claiming that it's possible to breach a contract within this definition, then so be it. It's a semantic point, and I'm not going to waste time debating it. How courts handle contract law is good enough for me.

Agreed, and I am sure that the courts don't rule based on you defining a term for them. Perhaps thats the confusion of the thread. You are creating a definition and expecting everyone to abandon facts and accept your definition.

I believe that, if a contract lays out precisely what penalty can be assessed for failure to perform certain obligations laid out within it, and that penalty is paid as required, then the offending party has in that instance satisfied the terms of the contract. Functionally, this means that s/he would not be found to be in breach of the contract in the event of a lawsuit.

That is much too narrow a description to fit any real situation.
There would never be cause for a breach of contract if all terms were met or dealt with.
You would be correct under the following circumstances.
If a player holds out, is fined, and shows up accepting the fine without issue, then completes the terms of his contract, the team cannot sue him for additional damages due to his holdout.
That by no means addresses the topic of the thread.

The fine is an alternative method for fulfilling the contractual obligation.

Totally,. totally wrong. The fine is a penalty for failing to fulfill the contractual obligation.

As a result, an attempt to sue someone who has paid the penalty for breach of contract will be unsuccessful.

Again, in the narrowest of views, which may be what you have now defaulted to, where the player returns, the team accepts him back, fines him and everyone moves forward, and the dispute is resolved, no he wouldn't be sued for additional damages for the days he held out.
Correcting the breach does not mean the breach never happened though.

 

[Ring 6]

Once again, it depends on what the contract says. I said that if your contract states exactly what penalties that can be assessed for failing to show up, and firing isn't one of them, then your employer would not be able to fire you for failing to show up.

Thats the same as saying if my contract states that if I wear a blue shirt on the first Tuesday of March I shall be allowed to never have to report to work again. Its ridiculous. You cannot tell me that a contract has ever been given to an employee that stated full, complete consequences of not coming to work, and that it didnt include termination.

[qupte]Whether or not such a contract actually exists (I kinda doubt it) is another question entirely. [/quote]
No its not, because yuo have to create an impossible scenario to make your point.
You have no idea what the NFL player contract says about the consequences of not showing up for work, so now you arguing from the fantasy world viewpoint that it says the only thing that could make your argument work, that there are no other consequences than fines. That's wrong, your analogy is wrong, your argument fails.

Just about every employment contract that I've ever heard of was either at-will (rendering the issue irrelevant) or laid out the conditions under which failure to attend could lead to firing. The NFL appears to fall into the latter group, as there are rules in place for termination of contracts.

I think you should check into what at will employment means and what legal protections at will employees have from termination without cause. As you said above such a contract doesn't exist, which was correct. Saying the issue is irrelevant directly contradicts the correct statement you made above.
All contracts have 'rules for termination'.
What you are confusing is there are CONSEQUENCES of violating a contract, and those consequences do not negate that the violation existed. Otherwise an employee docked pay for not showing up, sleeping at their desk, doing personal business on company time, etc, etc, could never be fired for repeated violations because you exonerated the act by fining it.

 

[JoeSixPat]

In Mankins situation last year I would have done exactly what he did.

With such a low tender it made little sense to risk injury for so little. Best to show up in week 10 and get credit for the full season, getting franchised the next for a cool $10 million.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Wait. You have been arguing that they cannot seek remedy for breach of contract.

Are you accepting you have been wrong all along?

Not at all. The seven day letter hasn't been a part of this debate up to this point. If the CBA says that a player who fails to respond to his seven day letter can be sued for breach of contract, then so be it. In that case, the player has breached his contract. This is obviously a totally different scenario from your standard holdout.

Agreed, and I am sure that the courts don't rule based on you defining a term for them. Perhaps thats the confusion of the thread. You are creating a definition and expecting everyone to abandon facts and accept your definition.

The only term that I've defined is that "permitted", as I'm using it, means "doesn't expose you to liability for breach of contract". Other people are free to define the terms however they want- I've made it abundantly clear that I'm not here to have a semantics debate.

That is much too narrow a description to fit any real situation.
There would never be cause for a breach of contract if all terms were met or dealt with.
You would be correct under the following circumstances.
If a player holds out, is fined, and shows up accepting the fine without issue, then completes the terms of his contract, the team cannot sue him for additional damages due to his holdout.
That by no means addresses the topic of the thread.

Sure it does. It means that a player who holds out in accordance with CBA regulations and accepts the due penalties cannot be sued for damages. Why? Because he has acted within the rules set forth in the contract, aka he has not violated the contract. That pretty much is the topic of the thread.

Totally,. totally wrong. The fine is a penalty for failing to fulfill the contractual obligation.

If the contractual obligation is unmet, then by definition the offending party is exposed to legal action for breach of contract. The fact that the team cannot sue the player for further damages is a clear indication that the damages assessed constitute meeting the obligations set forth in the contract.

Again, in the narrowest of views, which may be what you have now defaulted to, where the player returns, the team accepts him back, fines him and everyone moves forward, and the dispute is resolved, no he wouldn't be sued for additional damages for the days he held out.
Correcting the breach does not mean the breach never happened though.

It means that the player cannot be successfully sued for breach of contract, because, by definition, the terms of the contract are fulfilled. If that wasn't the case, then the player would have no incentive whatsoever to accept the penalty in the first place, which means that the PA would have no reason at all to agree to it, since it would be going to court either way. If you want to call that a breach, then, then once again, I'm not here to debate that with you. Call it what you want.

I've defined my terms, you've defined yours, and we both seem to agree how a court would interpret the contract/holdout/fines.