Le'Veon Bell Will Sit Out for the Entire 2018 Season

[26CornerBlitz]

 

[Tuco]

12 hours ago, KD in CA said:

 

Do YOU understand what you are saying??

 

Bell has not in fact, completed his contractual obligation to the Steelers.  His contract included the right of the other party to retain his services for this year.  That's part of his contractual obligation.

Mind if I jump in? Well I did.

 

You're wrong.

 

The franchise tag is not, in any way, a contractual agreement unless the player signs it. If the franchise tag was part of his contractual agreement then Bell would be getting fined for every game he misses. When people say he's "forfeiting" $14 million, that's not really true. He's choosing not to work for $14 million. But he is in no way obligated to play for the Steelers in 2018 for $14 million. If the Steelers had the "right to retain his services" for the year for $14 million, there would never be any leverage for the player to negotiate a longer term deal. 

 

Yes, contracts do sometimes contain language that gives the team those kinds of rights. The clause that allows teams to add the 5th year onto their 1st round draft pick's contract if they choose to is a perfect example. That language is specifically included into the player's contract. It's a mandatory clause set forth in the CBA and can't be negotiated out, also per the CBA. When the player signs his name to the contract he's agreeing that the team has the unilateral right to add the 5th year if they want.

 

But the franchise tag is not the same thing. Yes, the franchise tag is part of the CBA, so players are bound to it. But no player automatically agrees to play for the tag amount just by signing his regular contract. The franchise tag isn't an automatic option for the team that says the player has specifically agreed to play for the tag amount. And until Bell signs the tag he is not contractually obligated to play for the Steelers. Nor can he be fined for not playing, nor can he be traded. 

 

Again, the 5th year option mentioned above is a fully binding agreement on the part of the player that he signs as part of his contract, and if the team exercises the option the yes, the team has the right to retain his services for the year. And the player is obligated, by contract, to do so. The player can be fined for not showing up. And the player can be traded.

 

The franchise tag, however, is not the same. The franchise tag doesn't automatically contractually bind the player to playing for the prescribed amount. And no player agrees to play for the tag amount when he signs his original contract. Simply put, the franchise tag itself is not a contract. Per the CBA, the franchise tag gives the team the right to exclusively negotiate with the player, as long as the team extends a binding minimum offer ($14 mil in Bell's case). But that's all it does. 

 

IF the player signs it, then becomes a binding contract. But until he signs it, or a different contract for more than the tag, or a long term deal, the player is under no obligation to play for the team. They have exclusive negotiating rights. They do not have a binding contract.

 

Le'veon Bell has in fact played every bit of football for the Steelers that he agreed to, and was contractually bound to play. He signed a contract, he played it out. The franchise tag doesn't change that. It gives the Steelers exclusive negotiating rights as long as they tender a specific offer. It does not give the Steelers the right to retain his services if Bell chooses not to accept the offer. And if Bell doesn't choose to accept the offer, he is not contractually bound to play.

 

 

[26CornerBlitz]

 

[Dopey]

12 hours ago, KD in CA said:

 

Yet I feel confident that he will try.  Repeatedly.

 

You mean the one (actually it was 3) where you demonstrated that you are too stupid to understand the concept of a contract?   'lol' is right.

Hey KD, I think you're wrong on the contract issue. Bell's contract was up. He signed a 1 yr deal last year. His franchise tender. If he was still contractually obligated to the Steelers, why wasn't he fined for missing games? Losing a paycheck you would have gotten if you had signed the "contract"  is not a fine. You should read Tuco's response. Also,

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/did-leveon-bell-sign-his-franchise-tag-steelers-rb-doesnt-report-is-ineligible-to-play-in-2018/amp/

[26CornerBlitz]

 

The Steelers and Le'Veon Bell both made closing pushes leading up to Tuesday's deadline to iron out a deal that would have brought him back to Pittsburgh this season, but neither side could finalize an agreement, league sources told ESPN.

 

The Steelers were told that if they were willing to not use their franchise or transition tag on Bell after this season, he would consider reporting to the team, according to sources. But the Steelers declined Bell's request because they felt the tag was too important to forego.

 

This sets up a brewing battle between the NFL's management council and the NFL Players Association in a potentially precedent-setting case over Bell's future, a case that likely will be decided by an arbitrator, according to league sources.

 

The management council believes the Steelers will be able to use a $9.5 million transition tag on Bell this offseason that would give Pittsburgh the chance to match any offer sheet that the Pro Bowl running back signs with another team. The council believes the $9.5 million salary should be based on his salary this year, which Bell forfeited by not reporting.

 

But the NFLPA believes that the transition tag must be $14.54 million -- which would be 120 percent of Bell's salary from the last franchise tag that he played under in 2017.

Edited November 18, 2018 by 26CornerBlitz

[BillsMafia13]

19 hours ago, Stank_Nasty said:

How many backups need to come in a tear it up there before people realize it may just be the guys up front and the talent around them that make the rb what they are in PITT

 

deangelo Williams came in during his 30’s and ripped it up in replacement of bell in the past. Now Conner is out producing the guy? 

 

Overrated much??? Have fun with that “patient” running style behind a line of a team that can afford you. He couldn’t have been in a better situation to succeed. Guy is in for a rude awakening.... but at least he’ll have his money. 

Should be end of discussion right here. If the NFL is a business>game he just got outproduced for a fraction of what he wants without all the headache.

[Stank_Nasty]

19 minutes ago, BillsMafia13 said:

Should be end of discussion right here. If the NFL is a business>game he just got outproduced for a fraction of what he wants without all the headache.

not only that, but what a smack in the face to conner and what he's done..... all you hear in the media is "ya but they would be better with bell". at what point in all this, when conner just keeps outproducing him week after week, do people finally say "wow, maybe this conner guy is just REALLY good. The steelers made a great decision"

[BillsMafia13]

11 minutes ago, Stank_Nasty said:

not only that, but what a smack in the face to conner and what he's done..... all you hear in the media is "ya but they would be better with bell". at what point in all this, when conner just keeps outproducing him week after week, do people finally say "wow, maybe this conner guy is just REALLY good. The steelers made a great decision"

Hey I cant knock Bell for going after what he thinks he deserves but he severely overestimated his value in the market. I pray the Jets sign him to a monster contract this offseason

[Stank_Nasty]

1 minute ago, BillsMafia13 said:

Hey I cant knock Bell for going after what he thinks he deserves but he severely overestimated his value in the market. I pray the Jets sign him to a monster contract this offseason

every game conner produces, bells value takes a slight dip IMO. I don't know how front offices wouldn't take notice of that.

[Mr. WEO]

2 hours ago, Tuco said:

Mind if I jump in? Well I did.

 

You're wrong.

 

The franchise tag is not, in any way, a contractual agreement unless the player signs it. If the franchise tag was part of his contractual agreement then Bell would be getting fined for every game he misses. When people say he's "forfeiting" $14 million, that's not really true. He's choosing not to work for $14 million. But he is in no way obligated to play for the Steelers in 2018 for $14 million. If the Steelers had the "right to retain his services" for the year for $14 million, there would never be any leverage for the player to negotiate a longer term deal. 

 

Yes, contracts do sometimes contain language that gives the team those kinds of rights. The clause that allows teams to add the 5th year onto their 1st round draft pick's contract if they choose to is a perfect example. That language is specifically included into the player's contract. It's a mandatory clause set forth in the CBA and can't be negotiated out, also per the CBA. When the player signs his name to the contract he's agreeing that the team has the unilateral right to add the 5th year if they want.

 

But the franchise tag is not the same thing. Yes, the franchise tag is part of the CBA, so players are bound to it. But no player automatically agrees to play for the tag amount just by signing his regular contract. The franchise tag isn't an automatic option for the team that says the player has specifically agreed to play for the tag amount. And until Bell signs the tag he is not contractually obligated to play for the Steelers. Nor can he be fined for not playing, nor can he be traded. 

 

Again, the 5th year option mentioned above is a fully binding agreement on the part of the player that he signs as part of his contract, and if the team exercises the option the yes, the team has the right to retain his services for the year. And the player is obligated, by contract, to do so. The player can be fined for not showing up. And the player can be traded.

 

The franchise tag, however, is not the same. The franchise tag doesn't automatically contractually bind the player to playing for the prescribed amount. And no player agrees to play for the tag amount when he signs his original contract. Simply put, the franchise tag itself is not a contract. Per the CBA, the franchise tag gives the team the right to exclusively negotiate with the player, as long as the team extends a binding minimum offer ($14 mil in Bell's case). But that's all it does. 

 

IF the player signs it, then becomes a binding contract. But until he signs it, or a different contract for more than the tag, or a long term deal, the player is under no obligation to play for the team. They have exclusive negotiating rights. They do not have a binding contract.

 

Le'veon Bell has in fact played every bit of football for the Steelers that he agreed to, and was contractually bound to play. He signed a contract, he played it out. The franchise tag doesn't change that. It gives the Steelers exclusive negotiating rights as long as they tender a specific offer. It does not give the Steelers the right to retain his services if Bell chooses not to accept the offer. And if Bell doesn't choose to accept the offer, he is not contractually bound to play.

 

 

 

 

True but the ratified CBA is a contract, essentially, between the players and the owners.  As you describe, The rights to his services are controlled by ("bound to") the Steelers.  By agreeing to the CBA, players have agreed to the franchise tag/offer which will bind their services to the team tagging them.

 

The discussion above was not whether he was obligated to play for them (obviously, he's not), but whether he was being "screwed over" by his team applying  a bargained for and agreed upon franchise tag to him.  Clearly he's not being screwed, he's exercising his right to refuse the offer and not play.

Edited November 18, 2018 by Mr. WEO

[Tuco]

6 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

True but the ratified CBA is a contract, essentially, between the players and the owners.  As you describe, The rights to his services are controlled by ("bound to") the Steelers.  By agreeing to the CBA, players have agreed to the franchise tag/offer which will bind their services to the team tagging them.

 

The discussion above was not whether he was obligated to play for them (obviously, he's not), but whether he was being "screwed over" by his team applying  a bargained for and agreed upon franchise tag to him.  Clearly he's not being screwed, he's exercising his right to refuse the offer and not play.

 

 

I agree the overall discussion was originally about whether or not he was being screwed over. But if you notice, I bolded the part of KD's post that I was directly referring to. The part that said, "His contract included the right of the other party to retain his services for this year." It was also in reference to a few other comments, but I thought narrowing it down to that one sentence was good enough. But I was actually responding to the following-

 

"Bell has not in fact, completed his contractual obligation to the Steelers.  His contract included the right of the other party to retain his services for this year.  That's part of his contractual obligation."

 

The CBA gives the team the right to retain exclusive negotiating rights. That's all. It is not part of Bell's contractual obligation. If Bell never plays another down of football, nobody can ever say he didn't fulfill his contractual obligations. That makes the above statement untrue.

 

"It's not a narrative you nitwit, it's called contract law. What do you want to 'agree to disagree' on?  That you don't understand the franchise tag is part of his contract?"

 

"No, what you're saying is he has 'completed his contractual obligation' or he has 'finished his contract' which is 100%, flat-out wrong."

 

But it's not flat out wrong. Even under "contractual law." The franchise tag is not part of his contract, it's part of the CBA. Those things are different. So when one is wrong, complaining about someone not understanding, and calling one a nitwit, well, it just seems worthy of a response.

 

This sentence from the CBA clearly points out the player is not bound to accept the tendered offer, and therefore playing for the tag amount is not part of the player's contractual obligation - as was stated by KD, and bolded by me as the exact part of the discussion I was responding to.

 

"If a player subject to a Franchise Player designation accepts the Required Tender, the resulting Player Contract shall be fully guaranteed if the player’s contract is terminated because of lack of comparative skill; as a result of an injury sustained in the performance of his services under his Player Contract; and/or due to a Club’s determination to create Room for Salary Cap purposes."

 

Yes, the CBA ties the player to the team by restricting his negotiating rights.

No, it does not give the team the right to retain his services, and Bell never signed anything that says they do. That is not part of his contractual obligation. 

 

As for the overall subject. Meh, if $14 mil isn't enough, whatever. It's a personal choice. But the NFLPA represents about 2,200 players every year, and only about 3 of them give a crap about the franchise tag. It might get mentioned at negotiations and hyped in the media, but right or wrong, the players union won't strike over it. So it's probably here to stay.

 

And I'm glad he stayed out because I drafted James Conner in the 6th round. Been in first place all season.

 

Peace.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 18, 2018 by Tuco

[Mr. WEO]

1 hour ago, Tuco said:

 

 

I agree the overall discussion was originally about whether or not he was being screwed over. But if you notice, I bolded the part of KD's post that I was directly referring to. The part that said, "His contract included the right of the other party to retain his services for this year." It was also in reference to a few other comments, but I thought narrowing it down to that one sentence was good enough. But I was actually responding to the following-

 

"Bell has not in fact, completed his contractual obligation to the Steelers.  His contract included the right of the other party to retain his services for this year.  That's part of his contractual obligation."

 

The CBA gives the team the right to retain exclusive negotiating rights. That's all. It is not part of Bell's contractual obligation. If Bell never plays another down of football, nobody can ever say he didn't fulfill his contractual obligations. That makes the above statement untrue.

 

"It's not a narrative you nitwit, it's called contract law. What do you want to 'agree to disagree' on?  That you don't understand the franchise tag is part of his contract?"

 

"No, what you're saying is he has 'completed his contractual obligation' or he has 'finished his contract' which is 100%, flat-out wrong."

 

But it's not flat out wrong. Even under "contractual law." The franchise tag is not part of his contract, it's part of the CBA. Those things are different. So when one is wrong, complaining about someone not understanding, and calling one a nitwit, well, it just seems worthy of a response.

 

This sentence from the CBA clearly points out the player is not bound to accept the tendered offer, and therefore playing for the tag amount is not part of the player's contractual obligation - as was stated by KD, and bolded by me as the exact part of the discussion I was responding to.

 

"If a player subject to a Franchise Player designation accepts the Required Tender, the resulting Player Contract shall be fully guaranteed if the player’s contract is terminated because of lack of comparative skill; as a result of an injury sustained in the performance of his services under his Player Contract; and/or due to a Club’s determination to create Room for Salary Cap purposes."

 

Yes, the CBA ties the player to the team by restricting his negotiating rights.

No, it does not give the team the right to retain his services, and Bell never signed anything that says they do. That is not part of his contractual obligation. 

 

As for the overall subject. Meh, if $14 mil isn't enough, whatever. It's a personal choice. But the NFLPA represents about 2,200 players every year, and only about 3 of them give a crap about the franchise tag. It might get mentioned at negotiations and hyped in the media, but right or wrong, the players union won't strike over it. So it's probably here to stay.

 

And I'm glad he stayed out because I drafted James Conner in the 6th round. Been in first place all season.

 

Peace.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By retaining his services I meant they can prevent him from offering his services to any other team.  

 

As i said, the players don't care about the tag because it doesn't have anything to do with them--other than, literally, handful per year.  So we are in agreement. 

[Bing Bong]

On 11/18/2018 at 5:19 PM, Tuco said:

 

 

I agree the overall discussion was originally about whether or not he was being screwed over. But if you notice, I bolded the part of KD's post that I was directly referring to. The part that said, "His contract included the right of the other party to retain his services for this year." It was also in reference to a few other comments, but I thought narrowing it down to that one sentence was good enough. But I was actually responding to the following-

 

"Bell has not in fact, completed his contractual obligation to the Steelers.  His contract included the right of the other party to retain his services for this year.  That's part of his contractual obligation."

 

The CBA gives the team the right to retain exclusive negotiating rights. That's all. It is not part of Bell's contractual obligation. If Bell never plays another down of football, nobody can ever say he didn't fulfill his contractual obligations. That makes the above statement untrue.

 

"It's not a narrative you nitwit, it's called contract law. What do you want to 'agree to disagree' on?  That you don't understand the franchise tag is part of his contract?"

 

"No, what you're saying is he has 'completed his contractual obligation' or he has 'finished his contract' which is 100%, flat-out wrong."

 

But it's not flat out wrong. Even under "contractual law." The franchise tag is not part of his contract, it's part of the CBA. Those things are different. So when one is wrong, complaining about someone not understanding, and calling one a nitwit, well, it just seems worthy of a response.

 

This sentence from the CBA clearly points out the player is not bound to accept the tendered offer, and therefore playing for the tag amount is not part of the player's contractual obligation - as was stated by KD, and bolded by me as the exact part of the discussion I was responding to.

 

"If a player subject to a Franchise Player designation accepts the Required Tender, the resulting Player Contract shall be fully guaranteed if the player’s contract is terminated because of lack of comparative skill; as a result of an injury sustained in the performance of his services under his Player Contract; and/or due to a Club’s determination to create Room for Salary Cap purposes."

 

Yes, the CBA ties the player to the team by restricting his negotiating rights.

No, it does not give the team the right to retain his services, and Bell never signed anything that says they do. That is not part of his contractual obligation. 

 

As for the overall subject. Meh, if $14 mil isn't enough, whatever. It's a personal choice. But the NFLPA represents about 2,200 players every year, and only about 3 of them give a crap about the franchise tag. It might get mentioned at negotiations and hyped in the media, but right or wrong, the players union won't strike over it. So it's probably here to stay.

 

And I'm glad he stayed out because I drafted James Conner in the 6th round. Been in first place all season.

 

Peace.

 

 

 

 

 

Good Lord thank you Tuco. This "nitwit" here was too lazy to look up the exact definition of boring contract minutiae.

 

But I sort of assumed when a player sits out year if under contract he'd be void a year and it wouldn't count. Not simply move to FA after sitting out a year of a simple "we're just gonna hold you back a year cause we can" sort of deal. Idk I'm a nitwit but I could differentiate the 2.

[Bing Bong]

On 11/18/2018 at 7:18 PM, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

By retaining his services I meant they can prevent him from offering his services to any other team.  

 

As i said, the players don't care about the tag because it doesn't have anything to do with them--other than, literally, handful per year.  So we are in agreement. 

Bell's one of the handful ya doofus.

 

Good god that was one of the dumbest posts I've ever read go dust up your 5000 page CBA book to learn more about contracts.

Edited November 22, 2018 by PetermanThrew5Picks

[Mr. WEO]

4 minutes ago, PetermanThrew5Picks said:

Bell's one of the handful ya doofus.

 

Good god that was one of the dumbest posts I've ever read go dust up your 5000 page CBA book to learn more about contracts.

 

 

It took you 3 days to craft this word jumble of a reply?

 

Solid work.

[Bing Bong]

7 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

It took you 3 days to craft this word jumble of a reply?

 

Solid work.

I find that people are compensating for something when they feel the need to insult intelligence over a clearly opinion based argument. (psst I was being in Mr WEO character above "you nitwit")

 

I'm sorry Bell hurt you, but you are very emotional about all this to the point of throwing insults over a thread about an RB who didn't play for the Steelers this year.

Edited November 22, 2018 by PetermanThrew5Picks

[Mr. WEO]

4 minutes ago, PetermanThrew5Picks said:

I find that people are compensating for something when they feel the need to insult intelligence over a clearly opinion based argument. (psst I was being in Mr WEO character above "you nitwit")

 

I'm sorry Bell hurt you, but you are very emotional about all this to the point of throwing insults over a thread about an RB who didn't play for the Steelers this year.

 

As several others have also pointed out, you have expressed your opinion with incorrect statements and inappropriate comparisons based on untruths.

 

I don't care about Bell the man one way or the other of course.  We are discussing whether he misplayed his hand and whether he is being "screwed" but the NFL.  As to the former, I think he has and for the latter, clearly he is not.

[Bing Bong]

1 minute ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

As several others have also pointed out, you have expressed your opinion with incorrect statements and inappropriate comparisons based on untruths.

 

I don't care about Bell the man one way or the other of course.  We are discussing whether he misplayed his hand and whether he is being "screwed" but the NFL.  As to the former, I think he has and for the latter, clearly he is not.

Bell's getting screwed by the NFL

[Mr. WEO]

Just now, PetermanThrew5Picks said:

Bell's getting screwed by the NFL

 

 

Hang in there, man. 

[Bing Bong]

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

Hang in there, man. 

Oh wait I meant the players are getting screwed over. That's right! That was the post you latched onto!

 

You simply have poor reading comprehension. You started off misunderstanding a simple post. You could not wrap your head around a comparison. Hint: any comparison can be "bad" if you spend your time nitpicking why it's incomparable rather than understanding the broader similatities. By that logic we can't compare rookie JA to any other rookie than rookie JA! Lastly you skip over points and jump to points that are not unequivocally incorrect. But again.. your poor reading comprehension can't get past this to a broader point on a different opinion. I say franchise tags suck and  you combat with that's what he signed up for. So what was I implying WEO?? illiteracy leads you to point and yell at other people being "nitwits" "doofuses" "stupid". 

 

Golly you got brains bouncing around in there? Are you compensating for something WEO? because you called other people stupid in various ways if they have a disagreeable opinion with you. It's alright bud, you're still acting like a jackwagon. But not quite so annoying this time.

Edited November 22, 2018 by PetermanThrew5Picks