gantrules Posted July 22, 2005 Posted July 22, 2005 Why is it OK for the owners to bend and twist the rules when they no longer want a player but it's not for the players when they no longer like their contracts? Why does TO have to kowtow to an the Eagles if he feels he deserves more? Where would the Eagles have landed if they didn't have TO last year and where will they end up without TO last year? What TO is doing may change the NFL pay structure across the board. He's standing up for what he thinks is right and I say he's doing the right thing. Something needs to change in the NFL, the owners shouldn't have as much control over these players contracts as they do. There is no guarantee for these players which is just absolutely ridiculous in a game this violent.
Corp000085 Posted July 22, 2005 Posted July 22, 2005 Why is it OK for the owners to bend and twist the rules when they no longer want a player but it's not for the players when they no longer like their contracts? Why does TO have to kowtow to an the Eagles if he feels he deserves more? Where would the Eagles have landed if they didn't have TO last year and where will they end up without TO last year? What TO is doing may change the NFL pay structure across the board. He's standing up for what he thinks is right and I say he's doing the right thing. Something needs to change in the NFL, the owners shouldn't have as much control over these players contracts as they do. There is no guarantee for these players which is just absolutely ridiculous in a game this violent. 387965[/snapback] you are very right that the system is not right. TO knows this too. My only beef with TO is the way he's handling it. He can hold out, he can make a statement, but he needs to keep his yapper shut, or at least watch what he says
MadBuffaloDisease Posted July 22, 2005 Posted July 22, 2005 Why does TO have to kowtow to an the Eagles if he feels he deserves more? Where would the Eagles have landed if they didn't have TO last year and where will they end up without TO last year? The same place: not winning the SB and probably losing in the NFCCG (then again, the NFC was so bad, they probably still would have made the SB, and lost, without TO).
d_wag Posted July 22, 2005 Posted July 22, 2005 How come....EM knows that no one will pay more than what he isgetting from the bills (BTW he is getting pretty good money from the bills)....TO thinks otherwise...He knows there are the Atlantas and Washingtons who will take him in a heartbeat for the contract that he is demanding. When there is an oppurtunity to make more money whethter it is 100 or 1000 or 1M, people are always going to be looking out for their best interest... 387949[/snapback] neither atlanta nor washington could afford his demands at this point in the off-season.........in fact, very few teams (if any at all) could....... it's simple - he either plays for the eagles or he sits and loses a lot of money.......too bad him and drew aern't bright enough to figure that out.........
gantrules Posted July 22, 2005 Posted July 22, 2005 The same place: not winning the SB and probably losing in the NFCCG (then again, the NFC was so bad, they probably still would have made the SB, and lost, without TO). 387979[/snapback] I think they would have made the playoffs they wouldn't have had HFA without TO. Would they have won in the playoffs without it? I question it only because they would have been facing dome teams in their house. TO brought all the extra revenue to the Eagles throughout the season by giving them homefield. This helped the Eagles get to the Super Bowl which brings in a ton of revenue in merchandise sales.
gantrules Posted July 22, 2005 Posted July 22, 2005 neither atlanta nor washington could afford his demands at this point in the off-season.........in fact, very few teams (if any at all) could....... it's simple - he either plays for the eagles or he sits and loses a lot of money.......too bad him and drew aern't bright enough to figure that out......... 387987[/snapback] So the Eagles lose him for half the season and struggle without him, then he comes back and still makes his normal pay but lose all that revenue if they don't get HFA and risk not making the SB. Bad move by the Eagles in my mind if they don't get this deal done. I mean if they do it they are pretty much guaranteeing themselves playoff money. And it's a hell of a lot more than TO is asking for.
Ramius Posted July 22, 2005 Posted July 22, 2005 There is no guarantee for these players which is just absolutely ridiculous in a game this violent. 387965[/snapback] yes there is, its called a signing bonus, and if i remember correctly, a player usually receives all that money up front!!!! And also if i recall, TO got a damn BIG signing bonus last season when he signed his contract...thats the guaranteed part...
USMCBillsFan Posted July 22, 2005 Posted July 22, 2005 I think it's crap and TO is a moron. So if he plays like dog sh-- this year will he restructure his contract and give money back next year? Let's say he's only the 20th best reciever next season. Will he allow himself to only be paid as the 20th best reciever? Hell no. To all of you who agree with TO, what are you going to say if Willis does the same thing?
KnightRider Posted July 22, 2005 Posted July 22, 2005 Why is it OK for the owners to bend and twist the rules when they no longer want a player but it's not for the players when they no longer like their contracts? Why does TO have to kowtow to an the Eagles if he feels he deserves more? Where would the Eagles have landed if they didn't have TO last year and where will they end up without TO last year? What TO is doing may change the NFL pay structure across the board. He's standing up for what he thinks is right and I say he's doing the right thing. Something needs to change in the NFL, the owners shouldn't have as much control over these players contracts as they do. There is no guarantee for these players which is just absolutely ridiculous in a game this violent. 387965[/snapback] There is no bending or twisting by the owners. The NFLPA ratified the collective bargaining aggreement, which is a legal document. When TO joined the union, he accepted the terms of the CBA. He is violating not only the contract he signed with the Eagles but the CBA. The uncertainty due to the violence and speed a great point and that is why the bonus is so important. They get paid in the first year or two, and the team spreads out the cap hit. But they did get paid. What would be awful would be if a team tried to redeem the bonus money after a player was injured. The only time that I have heard that a team has tried to redeem the bonus money is after a player unexpectedly retires ala Ricky Williams or Barry Sanders. However, if I'm the Eagles GM, and TO holds out, I'd try to get that bonus money back...
d_wag Posted July 22, 2005 Posted July 22, 2005 So the Eagles lose him for half the season and struggle without him, then he comes back and still makes his normal pay but lose all that revenue if they don't get HFA and risk not making the SB. Bad move by the Eagles in my mind if they don't get this deal done. I mean if they do it they are pretty much guaranteeing themselves playoff money. And it's a hell of a lot more than TO is asking for. 387995[/snapback] 1) they got the playoffs (and won in the playoffs) last year without TO........no reason to think they can't do it again..... 2) he would not make his NORMAL PAY if he came back to get his year of service........he would be fined heavily and lose 10 game checks of his 16.....if he wants to sit, fine, but it's going to cost him.......
obie_wan Posted July 22, 2005 Posted July 22, 2005 1) they got the playoffs (and won in the playoffs) last year without TO........no reason to think they can't do it again..... 2) he would not make his NORMAL PAY if he came back to get his year of service........he would be fined heavily and lose 10 game checks of his 16.....if he wants to sit, fine, but it's going to cost him....... 388097[/snapback] The Eagles have got to the NFC final the last 4 years without TO. The NFC still stinks- so they will probably be there again- with or without TO.
Alaska Darin Posted July 22, 2005 Posted July 22, 2005 Owens is going about this the wrong way, and not saying the brightest things, but the bottom line is. He doesn't have to honor the contract, and should be paid accordingly to his talent, which would be the HIGHEST PAID WR IN THE NFL..... 387791[/snapback] So if he has a subpar year this season, he's willingly going to give the money back, correct? He's not underpaid - but he is an assshole.
jester43 Posted July 22, 2005 Posted July 22, 2005 There is no guarantee for these players which is just absolutely ridiculous in a game this violent. 387965[/snapback] you are right about that...if any pro athletes are underpaid, it is nfl guys. the abuse they put themselves through is obscene. but having said that, t.o. is a gaping a-hole and a stupid one to boot. if he wasn't such a jerk he could market himself the way mcnab does and make tons with endorsements. i still marvel at his performance in the superbowl however. he was so much better than mcnab it was hilarious.
Thailog80 Posted July 22, 2005 Posted July 22, 2005 I know a guy who can handle contract disputes. 388147[/snapback] Come up for air did ya?
ganesh Posted July 22, 2005 Posted July 22, 2005 neither atlanta nor washington could afford his demands at this point in the off-season.........in fact, very few teams (if any at all) could....... it's simple - he either plays for the eagles or he sits and loses a lot of money.......too bad him and drew aern't bright enough to figure that out......... 387987[/snapback] Atlanta and Washington have enough cash to pay him if they want to get him.. If he does sit....the eagles lose out too...they are not going to win too many ball games with Todd Pinkston as your go to guy....the window of opprutunity will soon close for the eagles. So it is not as if the eagles are going to let their best player sit and watch them lose football games.
ganesh Posted July 22, 2005 Posted July 22, 2005 . I mean if they do it they are pretty much guaranteeing themselves playoff money. And it's a hell of a lot more than TO is asking for. 387995[/snapback] Sweet point...If any one is thinking TO will be the loser if he sits out is being naive.
ganesh Posted July 22, 2005 Posted July 22, 2005 I think it's crap and TO is a moron. So if he plays like dog sh-- this year will he restructure his contract and give money back next year? Let's say he's only the 20th best reciever next season. Will he allow himself to only be paid as the 20th best reciever? Hell no. To all of you who agree with TO, what are you going to say if Willis does the same thing? 388008[/snapback] The same thing...the bills will have to show him the money, if he has an outstanding season...
ganesh Posted July 22, 2005 Posted July 22, 2005 The Eagles have got to the NFC final the last 4 years without TO. The NFC still stinks- so they will probably be there again- with or without TO. 388122[/snapback] The question is can they win the SB with him....
bdelma Posted July 22, 2005 Posted July 22, 2005 hope they tell him to pound salt . let him sit and not pay the assh#le 387789[/snapback] That's right use Morton's T.O
Recommended Posts