OT: Would you ever hold out?

[TruthSeeker]

People make this argument every year, and I'm amazed by it every year. Let me re-write your exact words in a different legal/contract situation:

"Robbery is no more or less allowed than shopping is. There are provisions in the law for what happens in the event of a robbery, just as there are in the event that you make a purchase. The penalties for robbery are pre-established for exactly this reason."

Penalties are established for holdouts because holdouts aren't allowed.

Great analogy.

 

[Wolfpack]

No, a contract is not a one-way obligation. Both sides have to fulfill the terms of that contract. In the NFL, players can try for as much guaranteed money as possible, but if they had held out for completely guaranteed contracts there wouldn't be training camps open right now.

When people get on their high horse and say "I'm good for my word and if I ever sign a contract then I'll honor it completely!" that's fine. I'm just accurately pointing out that the NFL franchise that signs the same contract is under no obligation to honor it (and they frequently don't). All your denial does nothign to change this.

BTW, 90% of the jobs in the world are one-way obligations.

Bullcrap. I'd say the vast majority of employees are free to leave at any time they want. I know I'm certainly under no contractual obligation to any employer and I can go anywhere I want without consequence.

 

[Mogamedogz]

Without question. It's just buisness.

 

[The Scrizz]

When people get on their high horse and say "I'm good for my word and if I ever sign a contract then I'll honor it completely!" that's fine. I'm just accurately pointing out that the NFL franchise that signs the same contract is under no obligation to honor it (and they frequently don't). All your denial does nothign to change this.
Bullcrap. I'd say the vast majority of employees are free to leave at any time they want. I know I'm certainly under no contractual obligation to any employer and I can go anywhere I want without consequence.

Any football player is free to quit football and pursue another career. They can walk away whenever they want. No, they can't go to a competitor because they have a contract. Same as somebody working in high-tech might have a no-compete in their contract.

As for my 'denial', you are the one in denial that a CBA exists which spells out exactly what can happen to a player in his contract. If the team follows the contract which explicitly allows them to cut a player, how have they not honored it. So you are in fact inaccurately pointing out that teams don't honor contracts. Just because you don't like the way the contract is drawn up doesn't make it any less binding. The teams do what is their right under the CBA.

And I am not on any high horse. I said that I wouldn't hold out. I made no moral judgement on anyone who was. I did say that I make no differentiation between a guy already making a lot holding out and a UDFA making min holding out because all that is is a moral equivalency argument.

I either believe in it or I don't, and since I don't, I'm not going to take it on a case by case basis.

 

[Wolfpack]

Any football player is free to quit football and pursue another career. They can walk away whenever they want. No, they can't go to a competitor because they have a contract. Same as somebody working in high-tech might have a no-compete in their contract.

Well they're not slaves despite what Adrian Peterson says so yes they can walk away. But very few of them can walk away without consequence. Many would owe money back to the team like when Ricky Williams tried to leave the Dolphins.

And fact is very few people in the workforce are under contract. The overwhelming majority are free to come and go wherever they want.

As for my 'denial', you are the one in denial that a CBA exists which spells out exactly what can happen to a player in his contract. If the team follows the contract which explicitly allows them to cut a player, how have they not honored it. So you are in fact inaccurately pointing out that teams don't honor contracts. Just because you don't like the way the contract is drawn up doesn't make it any less binding. The teams do what is their right under the CBA.

I like the current structure of the NFL, far moreso than the other sports. I like the fact that contracts aren't guaranteed. I'm just accurately pointing out that teams can cut players whenever they want. Your denial of this fact does nothing to change it.

And for you to get on your high horse and talk about what you would do when it's a situation you've never even remotely been near is silly.

 

[IllegalContact]

Right, but there's no penalty clause for cutting a player. Its not a violation of the contract. There is a penalty clause for holding out.


I still don't think there's anything wrong with it, but it IS violating the contract.

sure.......but there have been enough contracts written out there with the full knowledge that they will never see maturity......and then the 'take a pay cut or else' for an established vet who becomes a cap liability even though he spent the first 5 years of his career outplaying his contract.

you can argue the technical merits of the CBA and the way a contract works under it, but I will never criticize a player for holding out.

 

[eom]

Every player ever cut before the end of his contract.

This argument always comes down to selfishness on the part of fans. We have a reason to root for the team over the player - the team getting a player at a bargain or cutting a player who is underperforming benefits us - the fans. So that, invariably, seems to color how some people view a player.

Meanwhile it is players who are sacrificing their bodies, dying at an early age (averaged out) and doing it all in a league where their career and dreams can come crashing down in a moment's notice and they'll be cast aside like that.

Teams do everything they can to improve their financial situation, players should to.

Thank God none of you are policy makers with regard to labor law.

You are absolutely 100% incorrect.
And this is why these discussions are so pointless, unfortunately.

If you want to inform yourself a little on the subject you need go no farther than to read the thread you are posting in.

While I'm waiting I'll see if I can find the tiny imaginary violin.

 

[BradyFTW!]

People make this argument every year, and I'm amazed by it every year. Let me re-write your exact words in a different legal/contract situation:

"Robbery is no more or less allowed than shopping is. There are provisions in the law for what happens in the event of a robbery, just as there are in the event that you make a purchase. The penalties for robbery are pre-established for exactly this reason."

Penalties are established for holdouts because holdouts aren't allowed.

There are penalties for cutting a player, too. Does that mean that it's not allowed?

The reason why your analogy is completely baseless is that criminal law and contract law are entirely separate. This is exactly why analogies are iffy as a debate tool, since you can always draw false equivalence to make your point seem more correct than it is (or, more accurately, to make the opposing point seem less correct). In this case, you've made the leap over to criminal law for.... well, absolutely no reason. Based on your confusion between criminal and contract law alone, it's pretty clear that you might want to revisit this whole thing from the ground up.

I'm not attacking holdouts, just attacking the idea that the existence of penalties for something means it's "allowed!" The penalties exist to punish what's NOT allowed under the agreement.

A far more apt analogy would be an early termination fee in a service contract, or an under-lifting penalty in a forward contract, or something of that nature. It doesn't really matter that much, as long as you're staying with contracts. These fees are the agreed-upon penalties for violating specific terms of the contracts. Talking about what is and isn't "allowed" is completely beside the point, and once again confuses contract law with something else.

The closest analogy to this that we have all probably experienced is a cell phone service contract. If you cancel your contract before the service term has expired, then you have broken the contract, and as a result you are liable for the early termination fee that both you and the provider agreed to when you signed the contract. By your logic, the customer is not "allowed" to do this, since the presence of agreed-upon penalties does not legitimize the act of cancelling your account. In truth, that's exactly what these penalties are for, and that's why your cell phone provider won't/can't successfully sue you if you break the agreement and pay the fee.

Example (and I'm actually going to stay in the realm of contract law): I sign a contract saying that I am going to perform ongoing services for you for 100 hours per month. If I fail to meet this obligation, then under the contract I am obligated to pay a fine of X. One month, I fail to meet the 100 hour obligation, so I pay you X, as we agreed. What do you think would happen if you then tried to sue me for breach of contract?

 

[eom]

When people get on their high horse and say "I'm good for my word and if I ever sign a contract then I'll honor it completely!" that's fine. I'm just accurately pointing out that the NFL franchise that signs the same contract is under no obligation to honor it (and they frequently don't). All your denial does nothign to change this.
Bullcrap. I'd say the vast majority of employees are free to leave at any time they want. I know I'm certainly under no contractual obligation to any employer and I can go anywhere I want without consequence.

I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure players are free to leave the nfl any time they like.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

But that's the contract as the NFLPA agreed to it. Guaranteed money is just that, guaranteed even if you suck. Unguaranteed salary is just that, not guaranteed. When these guys sign their deal they know up front what is and isn't guaranteed. In many cases they are being paid a % of the total contract value up front as part of the trade off. Trouble is many of them forget that (or have spent that) by the time the backend rolls around. While others aren't holding out for a deal per se so much as holding out for what the team may view as an unrealistic deal.

And the average career of an NFL player is 6 years. The numbers the association trumpeted during the lockout included any cup of coffee guy ever signed who never made a 53 man roster like all the UDFA's teams are trying out this TC season. The average pro bowler has a 9 year career.

And anyone recommending the NFL adopt any MLB rules is nuts...

Let's leave MLB out of this; it's got plenty of problems but they're its own problems

But, if that "6 year" average doesn't include even one player who joined the league and got hurt in his first training camp or early in his first season and had his career impacted by that, then I do believe that the "real" average is the lower one, closer to 3.5 seasons. And, I'm pretty sure that average leaves those guys out.

NFL football is the only sport where there's a reasonable chance (emphasis on "reasonable" as it can happen elsewhere, but does so rarely) that your career can end or be shortened after a few hours on the practice field, let alone in a game. If that point needs any proving, look at the experience of the Lions and the Giants just this week alone!

These guys have the right to get paid every dollar they can while they are still young and healthy and they have every right to "hold out" or whatever else they want to do as long as they don't purposely poison the locker room or help the media make a spectacle of them.

 

[patchick]

A far more apt analogy would be an early termination fee in a service contract, or an under-lifting penalty in a forward contract, or something of that nature. It is the agreed-upon penalty for violating specific terms of the contract. Talking about what is and isn't "allowed" is completely beside the point, and once again confuses contract law with something else.

Example (and I'm actually going to stay in the realm of contract law): I sign a contract saying that I am going to perform ongoing services for you for 100 hours per month. If I fail to meet this obligation, then under the contract I can pay a fine of X amount to make up for it. I fail to meet the 100 hour obligation, and you fine me X, as we agreed. What do you think would happen if you then tried to sue me for breach of contract?

I fully understand that there's a difference between a contract violation and a criminal violation. But that doesn't mean there's no such thing as a contract violation, or that the the contract "permits" behavior that is subject to penalty.

Isn't it utter doublespeak to say that by specifying a penalty for contractually prohibited behavior, you're declaring that behavior to be permitted?

 

[Deus Irae]

I fully understand that there's a difference between a contract violation and a criminal violation. But that doesn't mean there's no such thing as a contract violation, or that the the contract "permits" behavior that is subject to penalty.

Isn't it utter doublespeak to say that by specifying a penalty for contractually prohibited behavior, you're declaring that behavior to be permitted?

No, it's not doublespeak. You're confusing criminal law with civil law.

 

[andrewgarrr]

I think the NFL needs something like salary arbitration and get rid of franchise tags all together.

 

[patchick]

No, it's not doublespeak. You're confusing criminal law with civil law.

No, I'm not. I've signed plenty of contracts, and they all specify obligations on both sides. Often, they specify penalties that apply if one of the parties fails to meet its obligations. They're still obligations.

 

[BradyFTW!]

I fully understand that there's a difference between a contract violation and a criminal violation. But that doesn't mean there's no such thing as a contract violation, or that the the contract "permits" behavior that is subject to penalty.

Isn't it utter doublespeak to say that by specifying a penalty for contractually prohibited behavior, you're declaring that behavior to be permitted?

That's exactly what it means. Under a contract, you are permitted to engage in behavior that is subject to penalty, provided that you pay the penalty. You haven't specified what "permitted" means in this case, but I will: something is permitted if doing it doesn't constitute a breach of contract. Do you have a different definition?

If the penalty for a behavior is specified in the contract, then that behavior is, by definition, contractually permitted provided that the penalty is paid.

 

[Deus Irae]

No, I'm not. I've signed plenty of contracts, and they all specify obligations on both sides. Often, they specify penalties that apply if one of the parties fails to meet its obligations. They're still obligations.

Well, your either/or interpretation is much more in line with criminal law.

When you have something that's written into a contract as a penalty clause, it's generally done to avoid a breach. You don't do that because something is considered absolutely impermissible. You do that because you don't want it to be a deal breaker. Something that's truly impermissible leads to a voiding/cancelling/breach of the contract.

Owners, and the league, are against holdouts. Players want to keep holdouts as a negotiating tool, at least to the degree that they aren't willing to have them completely barred. The penalties and rules are a negotiated compromise.

 

[BradyFTW!]

No, I'm not. I've signed plenty of contracts, and they all specify obligations on both sides. Often, they specify penalties that apply if one of the parties fails to meet its obligations. They're still obligations.

The stipulated penalty is just another obligation, no different than any of the others.

 

[eom]

I'd be curious to see how many people would support a player pocketing a 20m bonus on a 5 yr deal then immediately retiring and keeping the bonus.

 

[eom]

There are penalties for cutting a player, too. Does that mean that it's not allowed?

The reason why your analogy is completely baseless is that criminal law and contract law are entirely separate. This is exactly why analogies are iffy as a debate tool, since you can always draw false equivalence to make your point seem more correct than it is (or, more accurately, to make the opposing point seem less correct). In this case, you've made the leap over to criminal law for.... well, absolutely no reason. Based on your confusion between criminal and contract law alone, it's pretty clear that you might want to revisit this whole thing from the ground up.



A far more apt analogy would be an early termination fee in a service contract, or an under-lifting penalty in a forward contract, or something of that nature. It doesn't really matter that much, as long as you're staying with contracts. These fees are the agreed-upon penalties for violating specific terms of the contracts. Talking about what is and isn't "allowed" is completely beside the point, and once again confuses contract law with something else.

The closest analogy to this that we have all probably experienced is a cell phone service contract. If you cancel your contract before the service term has expired, then you have broken the contract, and as a result you are liable for the early termination fee that both you and the provider agreed to when you signed the contract. By your logic, the customer is not "allowed" to do this, since the presence of agreed-upon penalties does not legitimize the act of cancelling your account. In truth, that's exactly what these penalties are for, and that's why your cell phone provider won't/can't successfully sue you if you break the agreement and pay the fee.

Example (and I'm actually going to stay in the realm of contract law): I sign a contract
saying that I am going to perform ongoing services for you for 100 hours per month. If I fail to meet this obligation, then under the contract I am obligated to pay a fine of X. One month, I fail to meet the 100 hour obligation, so I pay you X, as we agreed. What do you think would happen if you then tried to sue me for breach of contract?

Per the cba ---- what are the penalties imposed on a team for cutting a player.

Maybe I can learn something in this thread.

 

[BradyFTW!]

I'd be curious to see how many people would support a player pocketing a 20m bonus on a 5 yr deal then immediately retiring and keeping the bonus.

Look at the Ricky Williams case if you want precedent. He had provisions written into his contract with the Dolphins stating that, if he did not finish out his deal, the signing bonus could be recouped. When he retired, an arbitrator ruled that he had to pay $8.6 million back to the Dolphins, and this judgment was upheld in a Florida state court. NFL contracts should have these provisions in them. If they don't, then I have no sympathy for a team that's too stupid to protect itself.