- Joined
- Dec 22, 2008
- Messages
- 15,689
- Reaction score
- 17,163
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.after he committed suicide, a judge in Mass voided (not sure that is the proper legal term) his conviction because he hadn't exhausted all appeals ... after that bone headed decision, the law suits over his "guaranteed" pay were re-filed by his estate ... guess they have been lingering in the Mass court system since 2017Wait what? How is this Aaron Hernandez grievance still pending lol?
Huh, bizarre. Who is that money even owed to? I wouldn't mind if his daughter got to keep it (he has a kid, doesn't he?).after he committed suicide, a judge in Mass voided (not sure that is the proper legal term) his conviction because he hadn't exhausted all appeals ... after that bone headed decision, the law suits over his "guaranteed" pay were re-filed by his estate ... guess they have been lingering in the Mass court system since 2017
Iirc, it is filed by the trust portion of his estate, so his wife and daughter would be the most likely beneficiariesHuh, bizarre. Who is that money even owed to? I wouldn't mind if his daughter got to keep it (he has a kid, doesn't he?).
I think it's more of a crazy Mass. law than a crazy Mass. Judge.after he committed suicide, a judge in Mass voided (not sure that is the proper legal term) his conviction because he hadn't exhausted all appeals ... after that bone headed decision, the law suits over his "guaranteed" pay were re-filed by his estate ... guess they have been lingering in the Mass court system since 2017
I think it's more of a crazy Mass. law than a crazy Mass. Judge.
I think we lost the AB cap space....the NFLPA will fight that one tooth and nail....
As for the Hernandez one...not sure...
But it is interesting that the CBA renewal looms large over these....might work out in our favor (fingers crossed). Side note: I'd rather Kraft write a check to the Hernandez estate to have the lawsuit dropped to keep that money off the cap....
If memory serves he was engaged but not married. As such, and assuming there was no will, his children would split the estate after all debts are paid. Of course, this is the sort of situation where if the Hernandez estate did get the money, his lawyer would all of a sudden find $3 million in unpaid legal fees.....Huh, bizarre. Who is that money even owed to? I wouldn't mind if his daughter got to keep it (he has a kid, doesn't he?).
The timing of when they cut him makes it a very interesting situation. Fact is Hernandez hadn't missed a single practice, game, or any sort of mandatory team event when they cut him. Can you cut a player (and withhold payment) based on things that are yet to happen? I guess we'll find out.Hernandez should be pretty straight forward. Forget the murders, the gun possession alone was a 4-5 year sentence and was being committed prior to his extension.
If you want to give someone an inducement to behave, you give roster bonuses, not signing bonuses. I can see this decision going either way because I think each side has a strong case, but my prediction is AB wins.I think the Pats have a pretty good argument for 4 of the 9 million of the signing bonus ... the signing bonus was structured for two payments, september and january ... like an inducement for good behavior while on the team... if an arbitrator buys that argument, maybe the AB hit won't be that bad. Maybe... but when has that ever worked out for the Pats
i wouldn't argue with you over that conclusion ... just trying to be op-toe-mist-ickIf you want to give someone an inducement to behave, you give roster bonuses, not signing bonuses. I can see this decision going either way because I think each side has a strong case, but my prediction is AB wins.
If you want to give someone an inducement to behave, you give roster bonuses, not signing bonuses. I can see this decision going either way because I think each side has a strong case, but my prediction is AB wins.
IIRC Hernandez's latest contract had a condition where he represented to the team he hadn't done various negative things while an employee of the Patriots. Turned out that at least one of his crimes happened while he was an employee of the Patriots, so that's the hook NE is using to try to avoid paying the money.The timing of when they cut him makes it a very interesting situation. Fact is Hernandez hadn't missed a single practice, game, or any sort of mandatory team event when they cut him. Can you cut a player (and withhold payment) based on things that are yet to happen? I guess we'll find out.
If the contract has a clause that says "this contract self-destructs if Brown A does X while under contract or falsely represented at the time of signing that he hadn't previously done X" and it turns out Brown did in fact do X, perhaps both before and after signing, I don't see that as remotely "have my cake and eat it, too". If anyone is trying to have their cake and eat it too it is Brown, not NE.Pretty much this. It seems like some ****ed up corporate "have my cake and eat it too" logic to think there's any condition upon which guaranteed compensation doesn't have to be paid out. Maybe don't promise a crazy guy a ton of money up front?
If the contract has a clause that says "this contract self-destructs if Brown A does X while under contract or falsely represented at the time of signing that he hadn't previously done X" and it turns out Brown did in fact do X, perhaps both before and after signing, I don't see that as remotely "have my cake and eat it, too". If anyone is trying to have their cake and eat it too it is Brown, not NE.
The question is if the CBA allows the self-destruct clause to be enforced which is of course what the grievance is about.
Pats stand to gain 9 million in cap from AB & 3.25 from the prisoner. Anyone have more info or thinks they win them?