You must be new here and clearly haven't read this thread or the other AB thread that was moved to the other forum just so we can start a new thread fresh......... or something. Pats are going to pay AB. We're on the hook.
Here's two independent opinions and links. There are others.
Kraft will end up paying money Pats owe AB
League sources told Yahoo Sports this week that Kraft must pay Brown the money he's owed, and here's why.
“[New England] fighting to keep that signing bonus now is either a gross misunderstanding of [the CBA’s] rules on voiding signing bonuses or it’s just out of spite," a source told Yahoo Sports. "I can’t believe they don’t understand the signing bonus voids in the CBA. There’s just no way. This is just spitefulness. They’re fighting [Brown] completely out of the anger and embarrassment in ownership.”
“If they had cut [Brown] as soon as they became aware of the civil suit, then there’s the argument of the [withholding] breach undermining the entire agreement,” another source said. “But they kept him on the roster after that lawsuit was filed. They played him in a game. They even paid him checks for [two weeks of] work. If the civil suit was a true dealbreaker, the Patriots could have shown it by breaking the deal. Their actions speak to their intent and their intent was shown when they continued to pay him after the civil suit.”
Here are the terms lined out by the CBA in which a player's signing bonus can be voided:
Where it concerns Brown’s $9 million signing bonus, the fight appears to be heading to an argument of one clause in the CBA. Specifically, Article 4 and section 9, which lays the foundation of the forfeitable breach of money within a contract. It states:
(a) Forfeitable Breach. Any player who (i) willfully fails to report, practice or play with the result that the player’s ability to fully participate and contribute to the team is substantially undermined (for example, without limitation, holding out or leaving the squad absent a showing of extreme personal hardship); or (ii) is unavailable to the team due to conduct by him that results in his incarceration; or (iii) is unavailable to the team due to a nonfootball injury that resulted from a material breach of Paragraph 3 of his NFL Player Contract; or (iv) voluntarily retires ...
Brown does not fit into any of those qualifications for termination of his $9 million signing bonus, and therefore will end up receiving that money from Kraft. Another source from Yahoo Sports said that if the Patriots had cut him as soon as they found out about the allegations, then maybe they wouldn't have to pay him.
“If they had cut [Brown] as soon as they became aware of the civil suit, then there’s the argument of the [withholding] breach undermining the entire agreement,” the source said. “But they kept him on the roster after that lawsuit was filed. They played him in a game. They even paid him checks for [two weeks of] work. If the civil suit was a true dealbreaker, the Patriots could have shown it by breaking the deal. Their actions speak to their intent and their intent was shown when they continued to pay him after the civil suit.”
It definitely sounds like Brown will be getting paid, and New England will pay the price for not cutting him as soon as the sexual assault and rape allegations came out against him
******************************************
And a second link
Antonio Brown's case for recouping $40 million: Could he really win his grievances?
6. Signing bonus from the Patriots: $9 million
Brown's chances of winning this grievance: Strong
This is where it gets really interesting. The Patriots gave Brown a $9 million signing bonus -- half of which was to be paid on Sept. 23, three days after they ended up cutting him, and the other half in January. They haven't technically paid it yet, and New England will likely argue that it shouldn't have to pay him because of a "representation warranty clause" that claims breach of contract since Brown didn't disclose a situation that would have prevented him from continued availability. That situation would be the
civil suit in which his former trainer accused Brown of rape.
Brown and his attorneys will argue a civil suit is not likely to render a player unavailable to play football, that the Patriots could not reasonably assume said suit would result in a suspension and that they cut him only after it was revealed he
sent intimidating text messages to a different woman whose accusations surfaced after he'd already played a game for the team.
Brown will argue the Patriots' reason for cutting him appears to have been those text messages (since they didn't cut him after learning of the civil suit and, in fact, allowed him to play for them), and that the conduct occurred after the team signed him. Therefore, it wouldn't fall under a representation warranty clause, because it wasn't a pre-existing situation at the time of his signing.
The NFLPA knows it doesn't have a strong case to pursue the voided guaranteed salary money from Oakland and New England because of the way those contracts were written. But a signing bonus is considered money earned at the time of signing (hence its name), and the union will fight hard for Brown on this one, if only to avoid setting a precedent that allows other teams a road map for getting out of signing-bonus money with other players in the future.
