Welcome to PatsFans.com

The 'morals' clause and the 'forfeiture' rules

Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by ctpatsfan77, Jun 23, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ctpatsfan77

    ctpatsfan77 PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2005
    Messages:
    20,555
    Likes Received:
    153
    Ratings:
    +322 / 5 / -5

    FWIW, there's been more than one or two posts on these recently, so I figured I'd post the relevant portions from the CBA.

    First, the morals clause from the standard player contract:

    Second, the bonus forfeiture language that Miguel posted:

    So, that's that, right?

    Not quite.

    There's this paragraph that precedes the one I just quoted above:

    In other words: clauses can be inserted into the player's agreement that allow bonus forfeiture, but they are not mandatory. Moreover, they can be more limited than the ones included in Section 9, but not harsher.

    So it's not at all clear that the Patriots would be able to recapture that money—and they may still have to pay him more over the next two years, even if he is cut, according to Ian Rapoport.
  2. Salva135

    Salva135 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2008
    Messages:
    960
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Yeah, it sounds like the Pats haven't insulated themselves from this circumstance at all. Can't believe this is happening to an organization that supposedly thinks ten steps ahead.

    If Hernandez gets arrested and cut and recoups a dime, then they are total jackasses.
  3. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,318
    Likes Received:
    131
    Ratings:
    +242 / 8 / -26

    We do not know the specifics of Hernandez contract...

    So it is still not clear...
  4. moosekill

    moosekill Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2006
    Messages:
    895
    Likes Received:
    18
    Ratings:
    +41 / 2 / -2

    I don't care, if this goes badly, if the Patriots actually get their money back. I do care, if this goes badly, that the Patriots get salary cap relief from his release.
  5. Miguel

    Miguel Patriots Salary Cap Guru PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    4,151
    Likes Received:
    109
    Ratings:
    +291 / 2 / -0

    #75 Jersey

  6. Rob0729

    Rob0729 PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2006
    Messages:
    29,924
    Likes Received:
    304
    Ratings:
    +711 / 5 / -3

    Rappaort only mentioned the lack of a failure to report clause, not the morals clause. The Pats did not include a failure to report clause in the contract which means if he suspended or any other reason. He never mentioned whether there is a morals clause or not. Personally, I think it is shoddy reporting either way if it is in there or not.

    I did see several reporters tweet earlier in the week (I wish I could find them) saying they spoke with the Patriots and they indicated that the Patriots are well protected contract wise if Hernandez is arrested. That indicates that there is probably a morals clause in the contract (pretty standard today).

    I think Rappaport's story needs to be taken with a grain of salt because he makes no mention of a lack of or inclusion of a morals clause. The clause he focused on is only relevant if Hernadez is not cut by the team.
  7. Rob0729

    Rob0729 PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2006
    Messages:
    29,924
    Likes Received:
    304
    Ratings:
    +711 / 5 / -3

    Thanks Miguel, kinda makes Rappaport's report sensational, but not very meaningful. Unless maybe Hernandez never gets convicted of anything, but serves a long suspension.

    I guess I may be wrong about the morals clause too since the CBA pretty much covers it.

    So it may be in Hernandez's best interest to make a deal. If the police end up charging him with murder and he is denied bail, he would forfeit the remaining part of his signing bonus prior to a trial.
  8. ctpatsfan77

    ctpatsfan77 PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2005
    Messages:
    20,555
    Likes Received:
    153
    Ratings:
    +322 / 5 / -5

    Again, the issue is not the presence of a morals clause; that is standard boilerplate language. The question is if there is a bonus forfeiture clause.
  9. Rob0729

    Rob0729 PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2006
    Messages:
    29,924
    Likes Received:
    304
    Ratings:
    +711 / 5 / -3

    But what Rappaport is talking about wasn't a bonus forfeiture clause either. All the clause he talked about is that he would lose any guaranteed money going forward (and only if he is cut since they would have to pay him that $2.5 million if they keep him on the roster past the payout date unless they renegotiated his contract again). The missing games clause would not have allowed the Pats to go after the signing bonus already paid. It would only turn all guaranteed money going forward to non-guaranteed money.

    We are talking $2.5 million potentially lost in new guaranteed money not already paid. The only way the Pats could get back the unamortized bonus money already paid is through the morals clause even if they had the clause Rappaport said they did not have.

    The $2.5 million guaranteed is nothing to what they already paid him in a bonus. And if they are able to recover the amortized bonus money through the morals clause, they won't have to pay him the $2.5 million in guarantees either.

    And BTW, according to Over the Cap, if the Pats cut Hernandez under the personal contract policy, they would be off the hook for that money too:

    That means Rappaport's article is useless.
  10. PP2

    PP2 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Messages:
    2,800
    Likes Received:
    34
    Ratings:
    +141 / 3 / -3

    #12 Jersey

    Like that article states, I think it more probable that Hernandez will be "suspended," not just to recover his pay, but also to continue to retain his rights (e.g., prevent another team from retaining it) in the rare event that he somehow finds his way back into the NFL after all this is concluded.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>