Is it ‚conflict of interest‘: Player-Owner —TB?

[venecol]

Ill take that as a no, not yet.

That they'll release him before June 1st? That's a definite no.

In fact, he's due to pay back $16M at $4M per year when he retires. They'll probably negotiate that into whatever they're doing to lower his cap hit. He may even sign another contract lowering his base to $1.5M like Brees did to help them out. Who knows.

 

[upstater1]

Right, and Tom didn't have to sign the contract either. This is in no way the same as the other examples.

That makes no sense. If he didn't sign the contract, the Patriots would still have the rights to him

 

[venecol]

That makes no sense. If he didn't sign the contract, the Patriots would still have the rights to him

It would've carried a contract dispute into the season. Listen carefully to what Tom said in August 2019.

 

[upstater1]

It would've carried a contract dispute into the season. Listen carefully to what Tom said in August 2019.

So you think if the Bucs held Brady against his will it's somehow not a dispute?

I'm saying that there is precedent in what the Patriots, Colts, Jets have done in the past. And that it's what the Bucs should do too.

 

[venecol]

So you think if the Bucs held Brady against his will it's somehow not a dispute?

I'm saying that there is precedent in what the Patriots, Colts, Jets have done in the past. And that it's what the Bucs should do too.

You're comparing the Bucs situation after Brady announced his retirement with the Pats situation when Brady announced he wanted to play until 45 and simply wanted a multi-year contract as compatible?

We disagree.

Now if Brady wants to continue playing with another team, Bucs can trade him just like Pats traded Gronk after his retirement.

 

[upstater1]

You're comparing the Bucs situation after Brady announced his retirement with the Pats situation when Brady announced he wanted to play until 45 and simply wanted a multi-year contract as compatible?

We disagree.

Now if Brady wants to continue playing with another team, Bucs can trade him just like Pats traded Gronk after his retirement.

Why are you changing the goalposts?

I'm talking about the fact that the Patriots relinquished their rights to Brady so that he could seek out his own contract.

This is exactly what the Bucs should do. They would have never had him or their Super Bowl if not for the fact that the Patriots respected Brady's right to seek a new contract unencumbered.

The Patriots didn't have to do that. They did it out of respect to Brady.

 

[venecol]

Why are you changing the goalposts?

I'm talking about the fact that the Patriots relinquished their rights to Brady so that he could seek out his own contract.

This is exactly what the Bucs should do. They would have never had him or their Super Bowl if not for the fact that the Patriots respected Brady's right to seek a new contract unencumbered.

The Patriots didn't have to do that. They did it out of respect to Brady.

Are you under the assumption that the Pats controlled Brady's rights beyond the 2019 season, at the beginning of the season, when they agreed to a contract EXTENSION?

 

[Ring 6]

So you think if the Bucs held Brady against his will it's somehow not a dispute?

I'm saying that there is precedent in what the Patriots, Colts, Jets have done in the past. And that it's what the Bucs should do too.

The Patriots did not set a precedent of letting Brady walk, Brady’s contract was up and he walked. There was nothing the Patriots could do.
The Jets traded Favre because they didn’t want him back after the lost 4 of 5 to turn a 8-3 season into 9-7 while Favre put up 98/175 56% 1011 ( 202 a game 5.78/att)
With 2 TD and 9 Ints and his qb rating in each game less than 62 while scoring 16.4 ppg.
They didn’t set a precedent of doing him a favor, they felt he washed up, didn’t want him any more and dumped him to the only team that would give them anything.
Manning had already been replaced, they didn’t do him a favor, they had no spot for him and didn’t want to pay him to sit on the bench.

None of these examples are releasing a retired player so he could go play for a competitor while you eat his cap hit.

 

[Ring 6]

Why are you changing the goalposts?

I'm talking about the fact that the Patriots relinquished their rights to Brady so that he could seek out his own contract.

This is exactly what the Bucs should do. They would have never had him or their Super Bowl if not for the fact that the Patriots respected Brady's right to seek a new contract unencumbered.

The Patriots didn't have to do that. They did it out of respect to Brady.

The patriots did not relinquish their rights. The contract voided Brady was a free agent. The patriots had no way to retain him, or block him in any way, he was a free agent.


Why would Tampa give up their rights to trade compensation?

 

[TBR]

"Forced to sell due to racism"

Lol you mean the ownership had a disagreement with a coach who was black? Ok... "Racism". Sneezing within 25 meters of Brian Flores would result in "racism" accusations, wouldn't it?

 

[venecol]

To Be Racist (abbrev. TBR)

 

[upstater1]

Are you under the assumption that the Pats controlled Brady's rights beyond the 2019 season, at the beginning of the season, when they agreed to a contract EXTENSION?

The contract he signed after the Super Bowl came with removal of the franchise tag rights for the Patriots.

I don't know why this is so difficult to understand.

All teams retain franchise tag rights over their players.

The Patriots relinquished their rights.

 

[Pape]

Right, and Tom didn't have to sign the contract either. This is in no way the same as the other examples.

If he wanted to continue to play the game, he did, in fact, have to sign the contract.

The 2019 deal ceded the right to tag him, which gave him the ability to walk away in free agency. If he did not sign that deal, the Patriots had "squatters rights" on him via the tag. While the third year would have been onerous, the Patriots indeed could have controlled him in both 2019 (tag 1) and 2020 (tag 2).

A third tag would have been extremely expensive considering the current contracts and the cap mechanism escalating the salaries. Wonder what RKK would have done

 

[Pape]

The patriots did not relinquish their rights. The contract voided Brady was a free agent. The patriots had no way to retain him, or block him in any way, he was a free agent.


Why would Tampa give up their rights to trade compensation?

The Patriots agreed to a no tag clause in the 2019 deal, ie they relinquished their rights to tag Tom Brady.

 

[Ring 6]

The Patriots agreed to a no tag clause in the 2019 deal, ie they relinquished their rights to tag Tom Brady.

They agreed to no tag in order to sign him because he wouldn’t sign without it.
That is not relinquishing rights. Brady would not agree to them having rights to him beyond 2019. There was nothing to relinquish.
Today he is under contract to Tampa. People are suggesting Tampa should just release him because that’s what he wants, and relinquish their contractual rights.
As different as night and day.
It’s like saying they relinquished their rights to Ted Karras by signing a contract that expired after 2021.

 

[borg]

The Patriots gave him that right contractually. They agreed to remove and relinquish all rights to him. They didn't have to do that. They still could've kept his rights even without a contract.

 

[Pape]

They agreed to no tag in order to sign him because he wouldn’t sign without it.
That is not relinquishing rights. Brady would not agree to them having rights to him beyond 2019. There was nothing to relinquish.
Today he is under contract to Tampa. People are suggesting Tampa should just release him because that’s what he wants, and relinquish their contractual rights.
As different as night and day.
It’s like saying they relinquished their rights to Ted Karras by signing a contract that expired after 2021.

The Patriots indeed agreed to a no tag clause. They did not have to. Brady couldn't have just walked away though, because until he did sign the 2019 deal, the Pats could have tagged him. They relinquished their rights to do so in the 2019 deal. Parse the words all you want. It is exactly what happened.

If Brady didn't sign, his career was over. The Patriots, as upstater said, agreed not to tag him out of respect for what he accomplished here.

As for the bucks and Brady now, couldn't care less what happens.

 

[Ring 6]

The Patriots indeed agreed to a no tag clause. They did not have to. Brady couldn't have just walked away though, because until he did sign the 2019 deal, the Pats could have tagged him. They relinquished their rights to do so in the 2019 deal. Parse the words all you want. It is exactly what happened.

If Brady didn't sign, his career was over. The Patriots, as upstater said, agreed not to tag him out of respect for what he accomplished here.

As for the bucks and Brady now, couldn't care less what happens.

They agreed to a no tag clause IN ORDER TO SIGN HIM TO A CONTRACT.
That is not relinquishing rights, it’s contract bargaining.
If you don’t care about the bucs situation post in a different thread, this one is talking about whether the patriots set a precedent that the bucs should just let him walk free despite being under contract.

 

[Pape]

They agreed to a no tag clause IN ORDER TO SIGN HIM TO A CONTRACT.
That is not relinquishing rights, it’s contract bargaining.
If you don’t care about the bucs situation post in a different thread, this one is talking about whether the patriots set a precedent that the bucs should just let him walk free despite being under contract.

They wanted him to sign a deal. They gave up their right to tag him after the 2019 deal voided. If he did not sign the deal, they were within their rights to tag him. It's a pretty basic concept. Not sure why you are having a hard time understanding this.

Unless this is just another Andy thing, arguing for arguments sake.

And don't think you have the right or authority to tell me what and where to post anything. You don't. Kick rocks gasbag.

 

[Brandon_Cox]

that Miami could be forced to sell due to racism,

If Ross is forced to sell the team, it will have nothing to do with racism. It would be that credible information substantiates the charge that he offered Flores 100K per game to lose games. Not only would that blatantly violate a host of federal and state laws, it could present an exestential threat to the NFL, now that it's in bed with sports gambling.