An analogy....to get to LA?
SITE MENU
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.An analogy....to get to LA?
1. This contract replaces the previous contract and lasts through the end of the 2014 League Year
2. Tom Brady will receive the following amounts as salary:
2009: $2M
2010: $2.6M
2011: $3.2M
2012: $3.8M
2013: $4.4M
2014: $5.0M
3. The salary in 2009 through 2012 shall be guaranteed for skill, injury and salary cap terminations except as specified below
4. Team Option: At the beginning of the 2010 League year, the team may exercise the following option:
a. The team will pay the player an option bonus of $100M
b. The player's salary for the remainder of this contract will be reduced to the league minimum and will no longer be guaranteed.
This option will expire one month after the beginning of the 2010 league year.
5. Player Option: If the team option expires unexercised, the player shall receive the following option, which may be exercised at any time prior to the start of the 2010 season:
a. The player shall receive a bonus payment of $80M
b. The player's salary for the remainder of this contract will be reduced to the league minimum and no longer be guaranteed.
c. The final year of this contract (2014) shall be voided.
So what is the option for???
Yes it is. And it's protected by the alternate player option language just the same as it would be protected if it simply guaranteed future salary in the event the team failed to exercise the option.
The answer would appear to be it's just a number to allow solman's Brady term sheet to fly, nothing more...certainly the Executive Committee would see that...and therefore allow it... since it's obvious Brady would walk away from the $80M cash and void the remainder of the deal after agreeing to a deal that lowered his already comparatively paltry 2009 compensation by $2.5M.
You know, the sad part is over and above his inability to let this go over his belief he can manipulate language to circumvent the expiring cap rules, he has no clue what the implications of Bob Kraft handing Tom Brady $80-100M in March 2010 would be. Nor does he care because the object of his exercise has always been just to prove he was right when he boldly stated a deal could be done to free up cap space. Not that doing so would make any sense...
That contract would not be approved (a fact that I have verified through an agent) because of the bonus payment in the player's option.
However, there IS a loophole in the 30 percent rule that one team has used to a very small degree this offseason. I'm working on a writeup about it that I might post on my comp picks blog.
Thank you for that AdamJT13.
Could you elaborate on the first part? (The bonus payment in the player's option being the basis for non approval?)
Thanks.
I'm guessing it's because any option in the contract must give considerations to both parties in the contract. In other words, in exchange for X, which benefits the party exercising the option, that party grants Y, which benefits the other party. For example, a team pays a bonus (which benefits the player) to extend the contract (which benefits the team). In your proposal for Brady, his "option" grants nothing of benefit to the team -- he gets more money AND gets to void a year of his contract. Simply reducing his base salaries isn't enough to be a benefit for the team, since he gets more money overall.
The loophole that CAN be used to get around the 30 Percent Rule uses what is called a "completion bonus." The Saints have used it three times this offseason and are the only team known to have used a completion bonus in the past 10 years. I posted a full explanation on my comp picks blog (adamjt13.blogspot.com).
Edit for anyone who doesn't think Florio spends a lot of time lurking here...his take on completion bonuses posted at 11:01PM...
ProFootballTalk.com - Latest News and Rumors
something is up!! i think somethings going down that we dont know about!
Just stop. You're like a kid on a sugar high over Peppers.
I was just reading that. Intriguing to say the least.
Certainly makes a good motivator and in the upcoming year could make way for some safe one-time big spending.
Will revenue sharing still be intact in 2010 if there isn't a new CBA?
Let's not, I'd like more consistency and less prima donna.I was wondering about that, too.
Either way, I'm over the Peppers thing. Let's find the NEXT Julius Peppers in the draft.
Let's not, I'd like more consistency and less prima donna.