Lions reportedly seek to recoup $10M of signing bonus

[miami_fan]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2231391

IRVING, Texas -- The Detroit Lions filed a grievance against wide receiver Charles Rogers, who played his second game Sunday since returning from a suspension for violating the NFL's substance abuse policy.

League sources told the Detroit Free Press the Lions are trying to recoup more than $10 million because of his violation of the substance abuse policy.

Team spokesman Bill Keenist acknowledged the grievance after the Lions' 20-7 loss at Dallas, but refused to give more details.

"Due to the personal nature of contracts, we will not comment any further," Keenist said.

According to the paper's sources, the grievance seeks $10.184 million of the $14.4 million signing bonus Rogers received in 2003 when he signed a six-year deal with the Lions, who drafted him second overall.

Rogers told the Free Press to "read the fine print."

"It's going to be kind of hard to get 10," Rogers told the paper when asked about the $10.184 million sought in the grievance.

Coach Steve Mariucci refused to talk about the grievance, saying he doesn't comment on contracts, and spoke only about the play of Rogers, who had a season-high four catches for 41 yards.

"I thought he played well," Mariucci said. "I think he made a good statement today."

Rogers was suspended for four games by the NFL on Oct. 5, but missed five games. When he was eligible to return, the Lions didn't take him to Minnesota on Nov. 6, then he had just one catch for 4 yards against Arizona last week.

After pushing his season totals to 10 catches for 122 yards in five games, Rogers said Sunday he wasn't worried about the grievance.

"If it was on my mind, I wouldn't be able to perform," said Rogers, who again wasn't in the starting lineup. "I did what I was supposed to do on the field today. I want my spot back. We'll see what happens."

Asked how he could produce for a team that was trying to take back more than $10 million from him, Rogers told the Free Press: "Because this is football, man. This is the game you love, man. We was playing this game for free when we was born. It ain't all about the bread, you know?"

Rogers' first two receptions his rookie season were touchdowns, and he led Detroit with 22 catches for 243 yards and three scores after five games before breaking his right collarbone in practice and missing the rest of the season. He broke the same collarbone on the first offensive series in 2004 and missed the rest of that season.

Under terms of the NFL's substance abuse policy, a player is suspended for four games without pay because of a second positive test after he enters the program. If Rogers has another positive test, he will be suspended for at least one year.

Am I missing something? They are going after 70% of his signing bonus? Is this only based on the drug uses or are there other discipline problems with Rogers? I have no idea if his contract specifically dealt with drug use but this grievance seems outside of the norm for the league.

[stevew]

Wow.....and people think TO is a jackass. This Rogers guy sounds like a real piece of work.

[jeff061]

Why on Earth would they do this? Do they want to run the guy out of town? I don't follow the Lions to closely, is this guy an asshole or something?

[SackAttack]

Wow.....and people think TO is a jackass. This Rogers guy sounds like a real piece of work.

Not sure where you're getting that.

Those quotes sound pretty reasonable to me. "It's going to be real hard to get 10 back." That's fact. Unless he's got other extenuating circumstances, they aren't getting 80% of his signing bonus back.

The other quote? "Dude, if the money mattered, I couldn't do my job. I do it for the love." (paraphrased, obviously)

That doesn't sound like a "real piece of work" to me.

[jeff061]

I'm thinking Steve was being sarcastic.

[Greyroofoo]

Lions just loved this guy so much that had to go spend 2 more 1st round picks on Receivers

[JeffNights]

I think was Rogers was implying that in saying it was gonna be hard to get ten million back was the taxes he already paid on it.


taxes on 14.40 million is about 40%
that equals roughtly to about 5.6 million
14.4
minus
5.6

equals 8.8 million...Rogers didnt even clear ten million of his SB

HOWEVER, this is all a dog and pony show according to local sportstalkres...the Lions will back off if Rogers agrees to rework his contract....scuttlebut is that they will still pay him big bucks, but the contract will be heavily laden with incentives in order to get the money.

[st.cronin]

I assume this means they're planning to cut him after the season.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Why on Earth would they do this? Do they want to run the guy out of town? I don't follow the Lions to closely, is this guy an asshole or something?
Charles Rogers isn't an asshole. He has some issues, but he's not an asshole. He broke his collar bone early in each of the previous seasons. This season he comes back and has lost has starting spot to Roy Williams. Instead of fighting like hell to get it back, he sort of moped around and did not seem to put forth much efffort.

Then, he got caught by the league's substance abuse program this year and was suspended four games for smoking marijuana. He was originally put in the program when he tested positive for a masking agent during the NFL draft. Because of this test the Lions included this clause in Rogers' rookie contract (which he is still under):

"In the event Player, in any of the years specified above or an option year, fails to report to Club, fails or refuses to practice or play with Club, at any time for any reason including Player's suspension for violating the NFL Policy and Program for Drugs of Abuse and Alcohol, or leaves club without its consent, the Player shall be in default. In the event of the Player's default during any season, only a prorated portion of the Bonus shall be deemed to have been earned by the Player, and upon demand by the Club, Player shall immediately return to Club the proportionate amount of the Bonus not having been earned at the time of his default."

Given the plain language of the contract, the Lions are owed the money back. It's pretty cut and dry and the Lions have every right to make this claim.

And, no, I don't think this means they plan to cut him after the season. I think this is the first step in a longer process. I think the Lions and Rogers will try to workout some sort of arrangement, either Rogers will pay a portion of his salary back or re-structure his contract so that it is heavily incentive based or something along those lines.

This is what happens in the NFL. Where is Ricky Williams playing football this season? Is Kellen Winslow Jr. still a member of the Cleveland Browns?

Certainly this puts strain on the relationship between the Lions and Rogers, but this is by no means the end of it or even an indication that Rogers is an asshole or whatever. He breached his contract and the Lions are enforcing it. It's quite simple and a more eloquent, palatable for both sides, final resolution will happen.

[TLK]

I wonder if we can recoup any of Joey's signing bonus?

[Honolulu_Blue]

I wonder if we can recoup any of Joey's signing bonus?
I would seek some of Mooch's first.

[jeff061]

I don't doubt the Lions can do it. But Ricky had retired and Winslow had cost the Browns a full season, and possibly more. Not sure I see the point in going after Rogers, even if they can.

[Ragone]

pretty classless move to be honest..

we all make mistakes.. I for one would like to see him go somewhere else next season(say.. another nfc team that plays the lions twice) and tear them up

[oliegirl]

pretty classless move to be honest..

we all make mistakes.. I for one would like to see him go somewhere else next season(say.. another nfc team that plays the lions twice) and tear them up


I disagree...yes, we all make mistakes, but players in ALL sports need to learn that they will be held accountable for their mistakes. If by not showing up to camp he defaulted on his bonus - according to the terms of the contract - then he should be held to those terms.

I think ALL sports need to take a very hard line on drugs at this point, it's gotten out of control. Baseball took a big step in the right direction last week, and I think this is a step in the right direction for football, or at least for the Lions.

[Honolulu_Blue]

pretty classless move to be honest..

we all make mistakes.. I for one would like to see him go somewhere else next season(say.. another nfc team that plays the lions twice) and tear them up
While I don't necessarily agree with the Lions move, how is it classless to exercise your contractual rights? That clause was put in there for a reason. Rogers had a history of substance abuse and the Lions wanted to protect their investment in the instance that Rogers continued to smoke the devil's weed. He did, so they exercised their contractual rights. I think it's a pretty severe penalty for someone who smokes the whacky tabacky and gets suspended only four games, but that's how the contract is written. The Potsons (Rogers' agents) should have taken more care.

Harsh? Yes. Classless? Not so much.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I don't doubt the Lions can do it. But Ricky had retired and Winslow had cost the Browns a full season, and possibly more. Not sure I see the point in going after Rogers, even if they can.
Doubt they can? Do you think that the clause in the contract quoted above (assuming it's the true language) will be deemed illegal? That's pretty unlikely. As mentioned above, the clause is very harsh, but it's the only contractual right the Lions have against Rogers. Under the contract this is the Lions only legal action they could take against Rogers for his suspension. So they exercise this right. This gets them and Rogers "into the game" if you will. They now can go and "settle" the issue in any fashion they both agree on (paying back a portion of the bonus, restructuring his contract, etc.).

[jeff061]

Read that quote of me again ;).

[Ragone]

While I don't necessarily agree with the Lions move, how is it classless to exercise your contractual rights? That clause was put in there for a reason. Rogers had a history of substance abuse and the Lions wanted to protect their investment in the instance that Rogers continued to smoke the devil's weed. He did, so they exercised their contractual rights. I think it's a pretty severe penalty for someone who smokes the whacky tabacky and gets suspended only four games, but that's how the contract is written. The Potsons (Rogers' agents) should have taken more care.

Harsh? Yes. Classless? Not so much.


Its not like he has a track record like say.... Rickey williams or anything..

Not to mention the timing of that is TERRIBLE, hope they aren't expecting any sort of worth ethic outta him now

[Honolulu_Blue]

I don't doubt the Lions can do it. But Ricky had retired and Winslow had cost the Browns a full season, and possibly more. Not sure I see the point in going after Rogers, even if they can.
Double dola.

As for the point of this. I think the Lions want to send a message to players current and future that drug abuse (which oliegirl mentioned is a serious and pervasive poblem in the NFL) will not be tolerated. There are no free passes. If you fuck up, smoke the maryjane, and there is a clause in your contract that penalzies you for it, we will exercise our rights. Is it a tough love policy? Yes. But this kind of conduct is not only detrimental to the team's performance on the field, but tarnishes the team's image.

I think the Lions have two routes:

1. Come to some agreement with Rogers, a settlement if you will, as I have said a few times.

2. Stick to their guns and force Rogers to payback the whole amount due. In which case, I agree, that'd be the end of the relationship.

I still think the Lions will with option "1" and things will be salvaged between them and Rogers (for at least a little bit).

[Honolulu_Blue]

Its not like he has a track record like say.... Rickey williams or anything..

Not to mention the timing of that is TERRIBLE, hope they aren't expecting any sort of worth ethic outta him now
He did have track record. He tested positive for a masking agent during the NFL combine (before he was drafted). That was his first offense. That got him into the NFL Substance Abuse Program. So the Lions knew he had a history prior to drafting him and signing him. His latest suspension was "strike three." The Lions knew what they were getting and took precautions to protect their investment.

I agree. The timing is terrible, but the Lions only had 45 days from the infraction in which to file their greivance. If they had waited until the end of the season they would not have been able to take any legal action. So, it was either do something now or suck it up and let this one slide.

[jeff061]

That's what the 4 game suspension is for though and if he does it again a year. I'm not sure it's worth going after a portion of a guys bonus unless you are about to trade/cut him. Rogers thus far seems to have a good attitude about it, so maybe they are counting on that.

[Honolulu_Blue]

That's what the 4 game suspension is for though and if he does it again a year. I'm not sure it's worth going after a portion of a guys bonus unless you are about to trade/cut him. Rogers thus far seems to have a good attitude about it, so maybe they are counting on that.
The 4 game suspension was a league suspension. That was the NFL enforcing its substance abuse policy. The Lions had no part in that.

[jeff061]

The 4 game suspension was a league suspension. That was the NFL enforcing its substance abuse policy. The Lions had no part in that.

I'm aware of that.

[Ragone]

That's what the 4 game suspension is for though and if he does it again a year. I'm not sure it's worth going after a portion of a guys bonus unless you are about to trade/cut him. Rogers thus far seems to have a good attitude about it, so maybe they are counting on that.


If you messed up at work.. and was allowed to come back.. and 2 weeks later they asked for the last half years salary back.. could you keep a good attitude? :)

And i'm aware of the previous masking agent, but if i recall he admitted to it being a total mistake.. people make mistakes.. people get depressed(as i'm almost positive he did) I still think they should have just let this slide

[Honolulu_Blue]

That's what the 4 game suspension is for though and if he does it again a year. I'm not sure it's worth going after a portion of a guys bonus unless you are about to trade/cut him. Rogers thus far seems to have a good attitude about it, so maybe they are counting on that.
It will be interesting to see how it all shakes out. It's possible the Lions do want to sever ties with Rogers. It certainly is an expensive lesson to teach other players, cutting ties with your former #2 pick over all.

Maybe they are counting on Rogers being a good guy, admitting he fucked up, will be willing to pay some price for doing so, and then go about his business. A risky play for certain.

The Lions organization is such a mess that it's hard to see reason in almost anything they do. Still, in this case, I think there is some merit in enforcing that clause if you are concerned about drug abuse and want to send a clear message that such nonsense will not be tolerated. I guess what better way to send that message than to demand the bonus back and then cut him. Is that cutting off their nose to spite their face? Probably will be...

[Honolulu_Blue]

If you messed up at work.. and was allowed to come back.. and 2 weeks later they asked for the last half years salary back.. could you keep a good attitude? :)

And i'm aware of the previous masking agent, but if i recall he admitted to it being a total mistake.. people make mistakes.. people get depressed(as i'm almost positive he did) I still think they should have just let this slide
It might have been a "total mistake", but given that since then he has twice tested positive to smoking the devil's weed and has even admitted to such, I think it's a bit of a stretch to buy the "total mistake" thing.

I would find it very hard to work for an employer who did that. But maybe not so hard for an employer who had the right to take half years salary back because I violated my employment contract, but ended up working something out with me in which I could keep a vast portion of that money despite my wrongdoing.

[jeff061]

If you messed up at work.. and was allowed to come back.. and 2 weeks later they asked for the last half years salary back.. could you keep a good attitude? :)


Not a chance in hell, and short of a TO like tantrum, I wouldn't hold it against Rogers if he got a little pissy.

[Ragone]

Should he be subject to team discipline for his actions.. sure, but this is way to.. harsh

Fine him 100k or so.. and give it all to drug rehab facilities in detroit

[stevew]

I thought the only way rogers could run a slant pattern was if he stopped at the white lines first.

[Koryo]

If you messed up at work.. and was allowed to come back.. and 2 weeks later they asked for the last half years salary back.. could you keep a good attitude? :)

And i'm aware of the previous masking agent, but if i recall he admitted to it being a total mistake.. people make mistakes.. people get depressed(as i'm almost positive he did) I still think they should have just let this slide


Many jobs have signing bonuses that could very well correlate to this situation with Mr. Rogers. I didn't sign any agreement at my current job that would allow them to get already paid salary back, but my company can (and would) fire me for doing something like using a controlled substance. Other jobs pay signing bonuses up front that ask you to meet certain criteria (months of employment, non-disclosure of company goods/services, no substance abuse) to not be forced to repay that bonus later. Why should the Lions be different?

[albionmoonlight]

It looks like the Lions are in their rights to ask for the money back.

I wonder, however, if the NFL is shooting itself in the foot with these increased attempts by teams to recoup signing bonuses (boni?). As we all know, the NFL is the only major sports league with no guaranteed contracts. That is a big concession that the league got from the union.

The players accepted this condition, in part, on the idea of signing bonuses. Teams and players would be able to negotiate for a portion of compensation to be guaranteed. The more that signing bonuses are taken back from players, the more ammunition that the union will have when the next CBA comes up for renegotiation to argue that full guaranteed contracts are needed.

I don't think that it (guaranteed contracts in the NFL) will happen, but it cannot make the rank and file players happy when they see guys like Allen Houston and Vin Baker as some of the highest paid players in the NBA while they are having their signing bonuses taken back.

[Honolulu_Blue]

If you want to talk about stupid Lions' moves, how about deciding to sit a presumably healthy Mike Williams and, in his place, start Troy Freaking Edwards. Mike Williams has struggled this year, for sure, but he's their first round draft pick. #10 overall. You drafted the guy, play him. He'll only get more experience by playing him. What the hell do you gain by playing Troy Edwards? He's not any good!

If the Lions lose Thursday, it could be the end for Mooch. My thinking, originally, was that Mooch would last the season and then get canned. But if the Lions get booed off the field on national television it could be enough for the Lions to give Mooch the early boot. I think this would be especially true if they end up starting Garcia (Mooch's boy) and the offense is still poop.

[stevew]

If you want to talk about stupid Lions' moves, how about deciding to sit a presumably healthy Mike Williams and, in his place, start Troy Freaking Edwards. Mike Williams has struggled this year, for sure, but he's their first round draft pick. #10 overall. You drafted the guy, play him. He'll only get more experience by playing him. What the hell do you gain by playing Troy Edwards? He's not any good!

If the Lions lose Thursday, it could be the end for Mooch. My thinking, originally, was that Mooch would last the season and then get canned. But if the Lions get booed off the field on national television it could be enough for the Lions to give Mooch the early boot. I think this would be especially true if they end up starting Garcia (Mooch's boy) and the offense is still poop.
I'll vouch for that Edwards sucking part.

[QuikSand]

It looks like the Lions are in their rights to ask for the money back.

I wonder, however, if the NFL is shooting itself in the foot with these increased attempts by teams to recoup signing bonuses (boni?). As we all know, the NFL is the only major sports league with no guaranteed contracts. That is a big concession that the league got from the union.

The players accepted this condition, in part, on the idea of signing bonuses. Teams and players would be able to negotiate for a portion of compensation to be guaranteed. The more that signing bonuses are taken back from players, the more ammunition that the union will have when the next CBA comes up for renegotiation to argue that full guaranteed contracts are needed.

I don't think that it (guaranteed contracts in the NFL) will happen, but it cannot make the rank and file players happy when they see guys like Allen Houston and Vin Baker as some of the highest paid players in the NBA while they are having their signing bonuses taken back.


This, to me, is the biggest issue. What if it turns out that the Lions prevail here, and Rogers's violation of the drug policy is deemed (in a precedent-setting way) to merit voiding his contract, or (most importantly) the guaranteed parts of it? This has the potential to be a very big deal -- if every player with "guaranteed" money can lose it for any sort of infraction (even ones with previously-stated penalties in place) then that money looks a whole lot less guaranteed... and the players may indeed start feeling that security if a higher priority than the balance of the current system.

The only real reason things woirk so well in football is that the NFLPA basically has decided that a thriving league is worth some trade-offs, including a shift in the type of prevailing contracts polayers get offered (unlike other major sports). That may be a delicate balance.

[Honolulu_Blue]

This, to me, is the biggest issue. What if it turns out that the Lions prevail here, and Rogers's violation of the drug policy is deemed (in a precedent-setting way) to merit voiding his contract, or (most importantly) the guaranteed parts of it? This has the potential to be a very big deal -- if every player with "guaranteed" money can lose it for any sort of infraction (even ones with previously-stated penalties in place) then that money looks a whole lot less guaranteed... and the players may indeed start feeling that security if a higher priority than the balance of the current system.

The only real reason things woirk so well in football is that the NFLPA basically has decided that a thriving league is worth some trade-offs, including a shift in the type of prevailing contracts polayers get offered (unlike other major sports). That may be a delicate balance.
I don't see this as a big issue to be honest. This doesn't seem to me to be a systemic problem, but more of a problem for certain players who have these types of clauses in their contracts.

If the Lions prevail here then what the NFLPA should do is instruct all of its members never to include a clause in their contract that allows a team to revoke the guaranteed money for a violation of the league's substance abuse program. I am not expert on NFL contracts, but I don't believe such a clause exists in every players' contract. This was put in there specifically because of Rogers' past. Players and agents will have to take precautions to ensure that the bonus money is basically "untouchable" contractually.

Apparently the NFLPA, not surprisingly, is taking the stance that the Lions asking for Rogers' bonus money back amounts to double jeopardy. Rogers was already punished once for his drug violation by the league (which cost him his salary for those four games) and so any further penalty would be punishing him again for the same action. Not sure how well that will hold, but it may have some legs.

[QuikSand]

Most, if not all, NFL contracts include a standard "conduct unbecoming" clause (or "conduct detrimental to the team" or something of that sort). Generally viewed as a sort of nuclear option, this sort of thing might make that seem like a much bigger ploy.

Again, just hypothetical -- I don't necessarily see all the dominoes already lined up -- but to me, that's a much bigger issue than what happens to this particular guy.

[Honolulu_Blue]

A little more insight on the Charles Rogers issue:

http://www.mlive.com/lions/stories/index.ssf?/base/sports-1/113274421791650.xml&coll=1

The Lions filed a grievance against Rogers and want $10.1 million of his $14.4 million signing bonus returned. Rogers was in default of his contract when he was suspended for violating the league's substance abuse policy. A clause in Rogers' seven-year contract clearly states that a pro-rated portion of his signing (and option) bonus can be retrieved by the Lions if Rogers is suspended.

Due to the guidelines of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, the Lions had 45 days in which to ask for a return of the money and, when the money was not returned, to file a grievance. The matter will now be turned over to an arbitrator and that might take months before it's settled.

And that's fine with the Lions because they really don't want the money back, they want Rogers back. The Lions want to see the return of the highly gifted player they drafted second overall in the 2003 draft, not the guy who showed up in training camp this season.

Look, the Lions have money, they have lots of money. What they don't have is enough talented playmakers who can get them over the top. Not just in terms of making the playoffs, but becoming a legitimate Super Bowl contender. And Rogers has that ability.

The feeling here is that Rogers is still the most gifted wide receiver on the Lions team, even better than Roy Williams because Rogers has the speed to throw true fear into a cornerback's heart. Rogers showed that ability in his first five games, in 2003, when he had 22 catches and three touchdowns and he sent the media scrambling to look up Detroit's rookie receiving records.

The twice-broken collarbone, though, sent him off that track and might have dampened his spirit to play the game. With the exception of three plays in Chicago, Rogers was away from the field for almost two full years.

He didn't return with the same intensity in this training camp, but the Lions still believe the fire burns within him. The team also understands that only Rogers can bring it out.

By filing the grievance against Rogers, the Lions are protecting themselves. What they really want is to sit down with Rogers after the season is over and work out an agreement where, if Rogers does what he's supposed to, then he still stands to make a heckuva lot of money in his career.

However, if for any reason Rogers bails out and doesn't live up to expectations, the Lions still have the legal resources to go back and squeeze Rogers for that $10.1 million. And Rogers doesn't have to look far to see where he stands. Ricky Williams of the Miami Dolphins exhausted every legal resource possible to avoid paying back his bonus money (also for a drug suspension) and lost his case. He's back to playing football after a season of "retirement."

Rogers has two ways to attack this: He can sulk and mope and continue down his self-destructive path or he can embrace the second (third? fourth?) chance he's been given. So far, he's played his cards foolishly and he's down to his last chips.

There's an old saying in poker that as long as you have a chair and a chip, you're still in the game. Rogers is still sitting at the table, but unlike most card players, his fortunes aren't tied to luck or fate.

Rogers has to realize that he has the ability to call his own hand and Thursday's game against the Atlanta Falcons will be the first indication of whether he truly understands that.

[Surtt]

"In the event Player, in any of the years specified above or an option year, fails to report to Club, fails or refuses to practice or play with Club, at any time for any reason including Player's suspension for violating the NFL Policy and Program for Drugs of Abuse and Alcohol, or leaves club without its consent, the Player shall be in default. In the event of the Player's default during any season, only a prorated portion of the Bonus shall be deemed to have been earned by the Player, and upon demand by the Club, Player shall immediately return to Club the proportionate amount of the Bonus not having been earned at the time of his default."




I still don't get this.
It clearly states he needs to return the portion of the bonus he didn't earn while suspended.
roughly 5% not 80%, or around $600,000.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I still don't get this.
It clearly states he needs to return the portion of the bonus he didn't earn while suspended.
roughly 5% not 80%, or around $600,000.
No. You're reading it wrong. I tstates that he needs to return "the proportionate amount of the Bonus not having been earned at the time of his default," not the portion earned "while suspended" but at the very moment of his suspension.

At the time he was suspended Rogers had earned about $4.3 million of his $14.4 million signing bonus (as all of us FOF players know, the signing bonus is spread out evenly across the length of the contract, which, in this case, is 7 years). So, at the time of Rogers suspension he had not earned about $10.1 million worth of that bonus.

[DanGarion]

So lets see.

- player signs contract with stipulations that he has to stay clean.
- player doesn't stay clean
- team wants money back
- people think team doesn't deserve to get back part of the signing bonus

I don't know sounds pretty cut and dry to me. I fortunately don't have to sign a contract where my employer could do this. But if I was caught drunk or under the influence or fail a drug test after an accident I would lose my job immediately.

[albionmoonlight]

So lets see.

- player signs contract with stipulations that he has to stay clean.
- player doesn't stay clean
- team wants money back
- people think team doesn't deserve to get back part of the signing bonus

I don't know sounds pretty cut and dry to me. I fortunately don't have to sign a contract where my employer could do this. But if I was caught drunk or under the influence or fail a drug test after an accident I would lose my job immediately.
I don't know to whom you are referring. If, however, you are looking at what I posted (and QS explained better than I could), that is not quite right.

It looks to me like the Lions have the right to get the money back. All I am saying is that if teams start making a habit of exercising these contractual rights against players, then the players will be less likely to bargain to allow such contractual rights in the future.

The league has a very sweet deal with its union. If the teams try to press every advantage that they can, the union will be less likely to agree to such a sweet deal when it comes time to renegotiate.

[DanGarion]

I don't know to whom you are referring. If, however, you are looking at what I posted (and QS explained better than I could), that is not quite right.

It looks to me like the Lions have the right to get the money back. All I am saying is that if teams start making a habit of exercising these contractual rights against players, then the players will be less likely to bargain to allow such contractual rights in the future.

The league has a very sweet deal with its union. If the teams try to press every advantage that they can, the union will be less likely to agree to such a sweet deal when it comes time to renegotiate.
Well if he was such a great guy he would admit that he was wrong and give the money back himself.

It's just like players that take advantage of contracts, when they suck.

[jeff061]

I don't care how great of a guy someone is, no one is just going to give back 10mil they've already been paid.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I don't care how great of a guy someone is, no one is just going to give back 10mil they've already been paid.
Hence the binding nature of a contract and the enforcement thereof...

[Surtt]

No. You're reading it wrong. I tstates that he needs to return "the proportionate amount of the Bonus not having been earned at the time of his default," not the portion earned "while suspended" but at the very moment of his suspension.




Ok,
I didn't catch that part of it.

[DanGarion]

I don't care how great of a guy someone is, no one is just going to give back 10mil they've already been paid.
Oh really? Even if the contract the person signed says they are to do so? I disagree. I've seen it happen in the past.