Search results

There are many ways to do business. You can try to work together with your partners, or you can be a ****, and push things as far as the legal system will allow. Seymour was a ****. He focused exclusively on being paid as much money as possible. He signed contracts paying him vast quantities...

I hope so. The fact of the matter is that Seymour didn't talk about reporting until the five day letter showed up, and he lost his leverage. If he thinks that he can preserve his leverage by not reporting until Tuesday, he might very well change his mind about reporting.

According to the Globe, the union has filed a grievance against the Oakland Raiders for sending Seymour the five day letter. According to the article: I, for one, would like to know where to rules concerning the five day letter are spelled out. The ability to Toll a player's contract for...

Not exactly. The arbitrator ruled that all bonuses must be considered to be EITHER signing bonuses OR performance bonuses, and that only the former are recoverable. The rules for determining whether or not a Roster or Option bonus should be treated as a signing bonus or a performance bonus...

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.

There is ample precedent of monies, which are guaranteed by two mutually exclusive sections, not being treated as guaranteed under the CBA. The only differences here are: 1. The money is not actually guaranteed (Brady could get cut after 2009). 2. The 30% rule is in play. The CBA says...

The team gets two benefits by exercising the option: 1. It prevents the player from exercising the player option (which, although it is for less money allows him to void the last year of the contract). 2. "The player's salary for the remainder of this contract will be reduced to the league...

But it is NOT an option to extend the term of a player contract (See the text of 8(d)). That means it is not covered by 8(d). That means it is not subject to the 30% restriction.

Is any of the existing 2010 compensation guaranteed? If not, just halve all of the salary numbers and you have a $1M cap hit. If so, further adjustments are required. At I certain point while I was playing around with things, the contract with a $1M 2009 cap hit was much more complicated than...

You could have just written a post explaining that the Haynesworth option is covered by rule 8(d). Instead you changed the title to "Unsubstantiated", without even saying that you had done so. That's not cool. Show me where there is an unremediable problem with my proposed Brady term sheet...

Re: BB on Peppers (Today) There are a few downsides to signing the tender: 1. He has to report to mandatory training camps or he will be subject to fines. 2. He can be traded to a club that is not on his short list (I'm not 100% certain about this). 3. After a certain date, he can...

My original proposal was that we "use huge guaranteed options due in 2010 for each to make them whole". I believe this lacks sufficient specificity to determine CBA compliance. Since I was not aware of 8(d) when I wrote that, I would not then have been able to provide specific terms that...

I'll post my real example later. But it suddenly occurred to me that section 8(c) is uniquely relevant in the case of Tom Brady, so I'll post this slightly silly example now: 1. Brady signs a five year deal 2. He gets 2009 salary of $1M and a $5M signing bonus payable now. 3. Brady gets to...

What is the advantage for the Patriots of doing something like this? If it is an option, what do we get by exercising it? Is there any possibility that Mayo's deal was actually 6 years (once the option is exercised) but his agent wanted to hide his willingness to agree to a six year deal...

Thanks. I do think that protection could be structured such that it is treated as exempt from the CBA. If Miguel responds that I have correctly understood him, I will attempt to draft some mock language this evening as an example to illustrate the point. (Its too bad that the contracts aren't...

I think that my Brady proposal can in fact comply with the CBA. Obviously, it can also be drafted in a way which does not comply with the CBA. I'm debating the utility of drafting mock contractual language so we can get to the specifics. Is it safe to say that we agree on these two points...

I'm not saying that the 30% rule doesn't apply. I'm saying that the 30% rule (i.e. Section 8) contains within it an exclusion that applies. [See my last reply to Miguel] Or are you saying that the protection, and not the option, is what is triggering the 30% problem?

The 30% rule is specified by Section 8(b) of Article XXIV of the CBA and specifically excludes compensation that would normally be prorated with this language: Unless otherwise specified, prorated compensation is not subject to the 30% rule. Section 8(d) does specify an additional class...

"one must remember that unlike signing bonus, the proration of an exercised option bonus is indeed factored into the calculation" This is section Article XXIV Section 8(d), which I have repeatedly cited. The Haynesworth option DOES fit within the language of section 8(d). Specifically...

The Haynesworth option has been widely described in the press as guaranteed, but it doesn't start to count against the cap until it is exercised in 2010, at which point it counts against the cap on a prorated basis. When the Redskins exercise the option, Haynesworth gets over $20M. But if...