Greed knows no bounds.

[Mr. WEO]

Bolded above: Step out of football and into the real world for just a minute. If I signed a contract with you to perform some service for 5 years and after 2 years I said that I needed more money or I would not continue to provide the service. What would you do?

 

A) Give me the additional money.

B) Forget about the contract and find someone else to provide the service.

C) Hold me to the contract and sue my ass off if I do not comply.

 

I believe any rational businessperson picks C. That is the whole point of having a contract.

 

As to the rest of your post, I do not think the entire situation is all the players fault. As you point out, the owners can cut a player without paying out the contract as well. This is equally as wrong as the players holding out while under contract. If neither side wants to live up to the terms of a proposed contract, then do not sign it. It really should be as simple as that and is how the rest of the business world operates. Why does the NFL feel that they are special?

I think, depending on the size of the company and the contract, any rational business will dump you and find someone else. If they had not paid you yet, they would pay you nothing (and you could sue them!). If they had paid you for what you you had done to that point, they would pay you no more---and then dump you.

 

They would likely sue you only if they paid you in full before you were done with the job (but who does that?), but they need the job finished. See? Easy.

 

As for the bolded part, the answer to your question should be obvious--all parties are in agreement when the contract is signed. The contract is explicit acknowledgement of this. However, parties change their minds (as in your own example) in the course of the lifetime of the contract and want it changed---that's also "how the business world operates". This happens all the time everywhere--it's hard for me to believe you or anyone can truly think that this situation is unique to the NFL.

[CodeMonkey]

As for the bolded part, the answer to your question should be obvious--all parties are in agreement when the contract is signed. The contract is explicit acknowledgement of this. However, parties change their minds (as in your own example) in the course of the lifetime of the contract and want it changed---that's also "how the business world operates". This happens all the time everywhere--it's hard for me to believe you or anyone can truly think that this situation is unique to the NFL.

You actually think that signing a contract is a almost meaningless exercise then. A person who signs a contract can "change their mind" and the contract becomes null and void? I hope you are not responsible for third party contracts for whatever company you work for.

[Mr. WEO]

You actually think that signing a contract is a almost meaningless exercise then. A person who signs a contract can "change their mind" and the contract becomes null and void? I hope you are not responsible for third party contracts for whatever company you work for.

Actually, no, I don't--you fabricated that conclusion to make sense of your own argument.

 

Simply put, I don't agree with your position that since contracts may be broken in some cases at some point, then they shouldn't be signed. Nor do I agree with your claim that this scenario is unique to the NFL.

 

I am a signee to many third party contracts in my "business". I don't plan on breaking any of them. It is not illegal and I am free to try to do so, if I am willing to pay the consequence. That's pretty much the point of this entire discussion.

[CodeMonkey]

I am a signee to many third party contracts in my "business". I don't plan on breaking any of them. It is not illegal and I am free to try to do so, if I am willing to pay the consequence. That's pretty much the point of this entire discussion.

I agree with you here. Except that in the NFL I see no real consequence. And to me, a player who holds out simply not getting the rest of the money spelled in in the contract is not a consequence for breach of contract.

 

I guess we aren't that far apart, just arguing semantics now.

[Mr. WEO]

I agree with you here. Except that in the NFL I see no real consequence. And to me, a player who holds out simply not getting the rest of the money spelled in in the contract is not a consequence for breach of contract.

 

I guess we aren't that far apart, just arguing semantics now.

Ok.

[MyHorseAteTheKid]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/...een-jets-revis/

 

He is the best corner in football but come on!

 

Idiot Al Davis screwed up the market value for top-tier CBs. But Asomougha's deal isn't long term.

 

Holding out for 10 years/$150/160mil is retarded.

 

He's not even on my team and I'm annoyed by it and want it over with. Take the 10 years/$120mil. I wonder how much guaranteed he'll get.

 

 

A contract means nothing to NFL Owners, why should it mean anything to NFL Players?... We live in a world controled by the super rich.. Common people are used as nothing more than a way to make a profit... I have a hard time feeling sorry for anyone that makes a million dollars a year..

[Mr. WEO]

A contract means nothing to NFL Owners, why should it mean anything to NFL Players?... We live in a world controled by the super rich.. Common people are used as nothing more than a way to make a profit... I have a hard time feeling sorry for anyone that makes a million dollars a year..

When was that not the case, Sr. Guevara?

[PDaDdy]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/...een-jets-revis/

 

He is the best corner in football but come on!

 

Idiot Al Davis screwed up the market value for top-tier CBs. But Asomougha's deal isn't long term.

 

Holding out for 10 years/$150/160mil is retarded.

 

He's not even on my team and I'm annoyed by it and want it over with. Take the 10 years/$120mil. I wonder how much guaranteed he'll get.

 

As far as I'm concerned the guy can sit too. Maybe we can do something against the Jets and not rely on a boat load of interceptions to compete.

 

That being said. I agree greed does know no bounds. That bastard owner has had the best CB and possibly the best football player in the NFL playing for peanuts as the lowest paid CB on his team much less the entire NFL. The owner is pinching pennies and doesn't want to reward an exceptional employee with the compensation he is due. The owner looks at it like a business and sees he is getting an incredible deal paying this guy nothing and wants to keep miking him but not as badly as he was milking him before. Reevis is probably looking at a new contract to try to make up for playing for so cheap but the past is the past and he should only look at getting paid for his value going forward.

[Mr. WEO]

As far as I'm concerned the guy can sit too. Maybe we can do something against the Jets and not rely on a boat load of interceptions to compete.

 

That being said. I agree greed does know no bounds. That bastard owner has had the best CB and possibly the best football player in the NFL playing for peanuts as the lowest paid CB on his team much less the entire NFL. The owner is pinching pennies and doesn't want to reward an exceptional employee with the compensation he is due. The owner looks at it like a business and sees he is getting an incredible deal paying this guy nothing and wants to keep miking him but not as badly as he was milking him before. Reevis is probably looking at a new contract to try to make up for playing for so cheap but the past is the past and he should only look at getting paid for his value going forward.

The owner offered 120 million dollars over 10 years.

 

But hey, keep with the crazy, PDaDdy.

[PDaDdy]

The owner offered 120 million dollars over 10 years.

 

But hey, keep with the crazy, PDaDdy.

 

I think I'll offer Bills Gates 120 million for Microsoft since that is apparently a lot of money and must surely be fair compensation for anything. Let's also ignore the actual details like bonuses and other provisions that you and I have no clue about in contracts.

 

Keep up with the one sided players are evil belief though. Sorry you weren't good enough to play in the NFL and consider it an honor and be happy to make nothing doing it.

[Rob's House]

I think I'll offer Bills Gates 120 million for Microsoft since that is apparently a lot of money and must surely be fair compensation for anything. Let's also ignore the actual details like bonuses and other provisions that you and I have no clue about in contracts.

 

Keep up with the one sided players are evil belief though. Sorry you weren't good enough to play in the NFL and consider it an honor and be happy to make nothing doing it.

 

Are you Latrell Spreewell?

[PDaDdy]

Are you Latrell Spreewell?

 

LOL. No. I'm not in the habit of choking out coaches. That was pretty random though.

[Mr. WEO]

I think I'll offer Bills Gates 120 million for Microsoft since that is apparently a lot of money and must surely be fair compensation for anything. Let's also ignore the actual details like bonuses and other provisions that you and I have no clue about in contracts.

 

Keep up with the one sided players are evil belief though. Sorry you weren't good enough to play in the NFL and consider it an honor and be happy to make nothing doing it.

I really have come to enjoy your posts---so much to see!!

 

Bill Gates? Holy non sequitor! And it completely ignores what you just posted immediately prior!

 

 

Keep it coming.

[macaroni]

I've been avoiding this thread because just the thought of millionaire players trying to squeeze more millions out of billionaire owners depressed me .... but I'm wasting time at work so I thought I'd give it a read, which has started me thinking (always a bad thing).

 

What exactly are the contracts for the football players for anyway?

 

We can safely say the contract for a first round draft pick is a contract for that player to contribute to the team.

 

But isn't the contract for a .... oh say .... a seveenth round draft pick really a contract to eventually work his way into the line up.

 

And a contract given to an UDFA only a contract to try and make the team.

 

Lets take my point to the extreme for discussion purposes ....

 

A UDFA signs with team "A" and no one expects him to be more than "camp fodder". The UDFA not only makes the team but because of his stellar play ends up as the starter. At the end of the season he is statistically the best player in the league at his position.

 

Could it then be said that the original contract that he signed is now considered "out of scope" and he therefore deserves a new big buck contract?

[Mr. WEO]

I've been avoiding this thread because just the thought of millionaire players trying to squeeze more millions out of billionaire owners depressed me .... but I'm wasting time at work so I thought I'd give it a read, which has started me thinking (always a bad thing).

 

What exactly are the contracts for the football players for anyway?

 

We can safely say the contract for a first round draft pick is a contract for that player to contribute to the team.

 

But isn't the contract for a .... oh say .... a seveenth round draft pick really a contract to eventually work his way into the line up.

 

And a contract given to an UDFA only a contract to try and make the team.

 

Lets take my point to the extreme for discussion purposes ....

 

A UDFA signs with team "A" and no one expects him to be more than "camp fodder". The UDFA not only makes the team but because of his stellar play ends up as the starter. At the end of the season he is statistically the best player in the league at his position.

 

Could it then be said that the original contract that he signed is now considered "out of scope" and he therefore deserves a new big buck contract?

He can certainly try for one. But the market determines whether he deserves one.

[CodeMonkey]

He can certainly try for one. But the market determines whether he deserves one.

Fighting to not respond ... but ...

 

That is exactly where we disagree. The market has no (OK, it is the NFL so should not have any) say. The two parties are in (what should be, but apparently is not) a legally binding contract.

 

But, if owners can opt out with no monies paid then why shouldn't the players ignore a contract as well.

 

The market should determine a players value when, and only when, said player is not already under contract.

 

The NFL concept of a contract is confusing to my small brain

[dib]

What else is he suited for where he could make that much money?

 

 

 

Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, nothing.

[macaroni]

He can certainly try for one. But the market determines whether he deserves one.

 

If the league was constrained to one year contracts then the market would determine if he deserves one ... in a league of multi year contracts .... only the team and his agent can argue if the player deserves it or not.

 

and I guess that is my point ..... exactly what does a UDFA contract "pay for" as far as player performance .... that would be the determining factor in if the existing contract was out of scope or not.

[PDaDdy]

I really have come to enjoy your posts---so much to see!!

 

Bill Gates? Holy non sequitor! And it completely ignores what you just posted immediately prior!

 

 

Keep it coming.

 

Apparently you have a problem making associations. I would imagine to most it was self explanatory but I will elaborate. Claiming that 120 million over 10 years is sufficient for Reevis' contract is ignorant of his actual worth and the value of NFL players who have hit the genetic lottery and are quite literally often 1 in a million who are able to accomplish the feats they do on the field. I made the Bill Gates reference as an illustration of the absurd concept of claiming that a number just because it is high for people like you and I is sufficient compensation for what is being obtained for that amount of money. Simply put, 120 million over 10 years may be a big number but it may not be sufficient compensation. Get it?

 

It doesn't ignore anything I posted earlier. It was just a response to your comments about a number being enough without knowing any of the other details of the contract proposals and the fact that the number may not be enough. Hope this helps.

[Doc]

The guaranteed money is the issue.