OT: Would you ever hold out?

[eom]

To be more precise, the labor rules that the players and teams agreed to allow the teams to cut players and not pay the non-guaranteed portion of the contract.

Just like the labor rules that the players and teams agreed to allow players to hold out without being taken to court, or expelled from the NFL for life. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, you 'the players are so selfish' people seem to conveniently forget this.

Also, whose life is thrown into more turmoil? The bubble guy who gets cut after having banked maybe 100k or the team who has a player hold out?

That anyone is siding with the billionaires on this topic is mind-boggling to me unless I chalk it up to self-interest.

I think itms telling that you disparage people for 'siding with billionaires' when most just refer to them as 'owners'.
What does their bank account relative to yours have to do with the discussion?

I guess in your world if you have more money than I do then I'm right and you're wrong.
Go make your own billion, then maybe you'll change your tune.

 

[eom]

That actually is a breach of contract (see: Ricky Williams). A holdout is not.

And if the holdout refuses to return?

 

[patchick]

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.

OK, we're in a complicated area here...I thought the individual player contracts required attendance/participation, and the collective bargaining agreement dictated how the team could seek redress in the case that a player was in breach. But I have to admit, the status of individual employment contracts under a cba is confusing to me.

 

[BradyFTW!]

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

Maybe I can learn something in this thread.

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

 

[BradyFTW!]

And if the holdout refuses to return?

Once again, see Ricky Williams for precedent. Provided that the team has adequately protected itself within the contract, the player will be required to return all or part of his signing bonus. If you're asking how I feel about that, I'm fine with it. It's in the contract.

 

[patchick]

I think itms telling that you disparage people for 'siding with billionaires' when most just refer to them as 'owners'.
What does their bank account relative to yours have to do with the discussion?

And the mirror image is the people saying that players have no business holding out, or even complaining, because they make so much money even on minimum salary.

I wonder what the cutoff is, the income level where you cede your right to defend your own interests?

 

[Wolfpack]

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

Like I said in my other post (and contrary to what Adrian Peterson thinks) the players are not slaves and they are free to leave.

However, the key words in my sentence is that few NFL players are free to leave WITHOUT ANY CONSEQUENCES. Most players would find themselves sued pretty quickly for a return of their signing bonus if they ever decided to up and quit. Ricky Williams is a perfect example of this. It was originally going to cost him about $8 million to leave the NFL before other deals and compromises were reached.

Legally, Williams was free to leave. He wasn't going to be arrested or sent to jail. But there are definite financial consequences to walking away from a contract midterm.

 

[NovaScotiaPatsFan]

Ok, I've started the bar fight, now I'm slipping out the back door...

 

[Deus Irae]

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.

You might wish to look back at examples like Barry Sanders to gain some insight here.

 

[The Scrizz]

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.
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.

I'm sorry, I believe the question posed by the original poster was "Would you ever hold out?"

Are only people who say yes allowed to comment, or is believing you should honor a contract "being on my high horse"? I've never murdered anyone but if someone put up a poll asking if you would murder someone, I would climb upon my horse once again and say no. What a moralist prude I am.

I don't think you know what accurate means, btw. I never said a team can't cut a player. I said that their right to do so is in fact part of the contract. It isn't a difficult distinction to grasp.

 

[The Scrizz]

Like I said in my other post (and contrary to what Adrian Peterson thinks) the players are not slaves and they are free to leave.

However, the key words in my sentence is that few NFL players are free to leave WITHOUT ANY CONSEQUENCES. Most players would find themselves sued pretty quickly for a return of their signing bonus if they ever decided to up and quit. Ricky Williams is a perfect example of this. It was originally going to cost him about $8 million to leave the NFL before other deals and compromises were reached.

Legally, Williams was free to leave. He wasn't going to be arrested or sent to jail. But there are definite financial consequences to walking away from a contract midterm.

Yes because they took money upfront! If you went to your company and they gave you an advance on your salary they could come back and sue you for it if you quit tomorrow. Or suppose they send you to school on the condition that you stay with them for 'x' years afterward. They could come after you for the tuition if you reneged.

Why? Because all of these things are written into the contract! If they weren't the teams would be SOL. The players are in no different spot than anybody else who breaches their contract in any field of work.

 

[The Scrizz]

And the mirror image is the people saying that players have no business holding out, or even complaining, because they make so much money even on minimum salary.

I wonder what the cutoff is, the income level where you cede your right to defend your own interests?

That is not a mirror image. I don't care how much money you make, you should honor your contract. Income level has nothing to do with it, all it does is introduce moral relativity into the argument.

As for complaining, be my guest. They could join the board and fit right in.

 

[The Scrizz]

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.

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.

 

[eom]

Like I said in my other post (and contrary to what Adrian Peterson thinks) the players are not slaves and they are free to leave.

However, the key words in my sentence is that few NFL players are free to leave WITHOUT ANY CONSEQUENCES. Most players would find themselves sued pretty quickly for a return of their signing bonus if they ever decided to up and quit. Ricky Williams is a perfect example of this. It was originally going to cost him about $8 million to leave the NFL before other deals and compromises were reached.

Legally, Williams was free to leave. He wasn't going to be arrested or sent to jail. But there are definite financial consequences to walking away from a contract midterm.

Lolz so these financial implications that handicap nfl players are that they got paid millions up front and if they don't want to perform the job they gotta pay the money back??

Rofl I'd give you some more lol smilies but I'm on my phone

 

[eom]

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

.rofl:

Most often players are cut for a salary cap BENEFIT --- which is certainly a ramification, but hardly what I'd call a penalty.
Even if there's guaranteed money and signing bonuses involved, the team may have the cap space to make that irrelevant and THE PLAYER GETS TO POCKET THAT MONEY.



Dude, just admit you're trolling the thread or talking out your ass.
You've been desperately trying to draw some weak equivalency between 2 distinctly different situations, so you are now claiming that the contractual penalty for cutting a guy is cap relief?
Oh yeah, they also miss out on the pleasure of his company, so that's nearly identical to the player be fined per the cba for failing to show up to a job he already took money for. Looooool

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Yeah, if the 2 #ituations are so equal why aren't there fines spelled out in the cba for owners when players are cut?

Patchick has been dead on right in this thread.
When you give a player the option on a 5 yr deal of getting paid 5m in salary each year or 20m up front as a bonus and 1m salary each year and he chooses the latter so he can pocket the bonus and hold out in year 2 ---- that's robbery.

Although, I'm not stupid enough to expect any 'pro hold out' or 'anti owner' crowd to acknowledge anything contrary to what they already have convinced themselves of.

i was going to respond to you until your final paragraph. why, what's the point in branding me or anyone as part of a "crowd" one way or the other? you don't know me and we're just discussing a particular issue. i got my MBA from the same place as the Krafts, so I'm hardly "anti owner," BTW.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

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.

Got it. On that narrow point, I do agree with you. People are indeed "violating" the agreement by holding out, but the penalties are not excessive, so it remains a reasonable, if "illegitimate" recourse for players. .

Thanks for your rational tone. Why can't more people out here just disagree civilly instead of resorting to name calling and branding?

 

[eom]

i was going to respond to you until your final paragraph. why, what's the point in branding me or anyone as part of a "crowd" one way or the other? you don't know me and we're just discussing a particular issue. i got my MBA from the same place as the Krafts, so I'm hardly "anti owner," BTW.

Uhm.....I don't remember branding you as anything, or even addressing you, but maybe because I'm referring to a particular group of people?
I'd think an mba would pick up on that ---- especially one with such close ties to the krafts.

In the future, if you don't want to respond to something you don't actually have to typpe anything at all.
In fact, I'd strongly encourage it.

Maybe just link your myface

 

[BradyFTW!]

.rofl:

Most often players are cut for a salary cap BENEFIT --- which is certainly a ramification, but hardly what I'd call a penalty.
Even if there's guaranteed money and signing bonuses involved, the team may have the cap space to make that irrelevant and THE PLAYER GETS TO POCKET THAT MONEY.



Dude, just admit you're trolling the thread or talking out your ass.
You've been desperately trying to draw some weak equivalency between 2 distinctly different situations, so you are now claiming that the contractual penalty for cutting a guy is cap relief?
Oh yeah, they also miss out on the pleasure of his company, so that's nearly identical to the player be fined per the cba for failing to show up to a job he already took money for. Looooool

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.

 

[BradyFTW!]

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.

That's a great analogy: NFL contracts work pretty much the same way. A player is "allowed" to hold out to exactly the same extent that you were "allowed" to leave before your two years were up. In both cases, the penalty was paid, so therefore the contract was not breached. In your case, you had to pay back your tuition; in the players' case, they're fined $30,000 per day.

A more debatable topic would be whether the holdout penalties are harsh enough. That's what I think will get really interesting, since this latest CBA upped the daily fine for failing to report from $14,000 to $30,000. For guys on rookie contracts, that could be their entire annual salary in about two weeks. It'll be interesting to see whether that actually reduces the number of holdouts across the league.

Frankly, we could settle this whole debate just by looking at how the league itself has attacked this issue. The owners tried to get a provision passed stating that a player who held out could not have his contract renegotiated that season. That would have pretty much killed the players' leverage. Instead, they had to settle for something less.

If holding out was actually in breach of a player's contract, and the owners wanted to discourage holdouts as badly as they seem to want to, they could just sue players who hold out. The only reason why they can't is because the players would never give up the right to hold out within the CBA.