- Joined
- May 18, 2015
- Messages
- 14,069
- Reaction score
- 19,581
I don't entirely understand what you mean here, so just let me say this: If a contract has a clause which directly contradicts the CBA, then if such a clause were appealed, the CBA would be enforced and the clause in the contract would be ignored.So the CBA tells the teams how to negotiate the terms of all their players contracts?
Yes, I know that the CBA is a "higher power" than an individual contract. If any team could overrule the CBA, then what's the point of having a CBA in the first place?Maybe they do, but I doubt it. To be honest with you, I don't know facts like that.
Do you?
Well my "point" is that while I think AB has the stronger case, I admit I am not sure what will happen, so I am not entirely sure how I am supposed to prove that. However, Michael McCann has a very persuasive article on the situation, so here is a link:If that's the way it is, it's pretty stupid. And I certainly don't know the CBA rules. I was hoping you had some kind of link to prove your point.
https://sports.yahoo.com/antonio-brown-likely-labor-grievance-011301923.html
Really? When have they ever cut a player who was owed money in the form of a deferred signing bonus and then not paid it? Aaron Hernandez' situation does not apply here because it is important to note we are talking about a deferred signing bonus, not a salary guarantee (or guaranteed bonus). There's a difference between those and signing bonuses (not to mention Hernandez went to jail so it's not like he was fulfilling his obligations).With Antonio Brown's history, I'm sure they had some considerations in there for that. They've been down this road before