NFL Forum :: - who dat gonna pay...?

Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

FAQ Register Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

FootballsFuture.com Home

who dat gonna pay...?
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 13, 14, 15 ... 26, 27, 28 Next

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Minnesota Vikings

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

vike daddy

Joined: 12 Mar 2005
Posts: 66638

Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2012 1:15 am Post subject:

Purplexing wrote:

vike daddy wrote:

Brees, who has so much lately been in the right place at the right time, is now very much out of it.

his franchise tender salary is based on the average of the top five players at his position, but... Eli Manning just re-worked his salary from 17 million down to 9+ million, to save cap space for the NYG. and Peyton Manning isn't even under contract at all any more, so he drops off the top five list.

oh Drew, how the mighty are falling.

The formula is set to avoid manipulations that you are implying.

i'm not implying any manipulation at all, don't know why you see it that way.

i'm just going off this article by Florio (a contracts attorney before making it as a sports journalist.) argue with him, if you like:

"Saints quarterback Drew Brees received last week the franchise tag. Specifically, the Saints gave him the exclusive version of the tag, which makes him eligible for a one-year salary equal to the average of the five highest 2012 cap numbers for quarterback, as of April 20.

The non-exclusive version of the quarterback franchise tender is expected to be in the range of $14.4 million (we don’t know the real number because the league has yet to finalize the 2012 cap number, which is critical to determining the non-exclusive franchise tenders). It’s unclear what the exclusive version will be, but in the past two days the contracts of Peyton and Eli Manning have taken a chunk out of the eventual calculation.

On Wednesday, Peyton’s cap number for 2012 plunged from $17 million to (for now) zero. As Alper pointed out earlier, Eli’s 2012 cap number has dropped from $16.35 million to $9.6 million."

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/08/mannings-take-money-out-of-drew-brees-pocket/
_________________

Webmaster wrote:

Can we knock off all the nonsense and stick to football?

Kellerman

Joined: 16 May 2010
Posts: 3190
Location: Amsterdam

Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2012 6:59 am Post subject:

Lol

_________________

sig by Jamison
#97 Everson Griffin: 0 tackles : 0 sacks : 0 FF

Vikefan79

Joined: 05 Apr 2005
Posts: 25112
Location: Atlanta

Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2012 8:42 am Post subject:

Purple Faithful wrote:

vike daddy wrote:

here's what i think is appropriate for punishment:

DC Gregg Williams receives a five year ban, which in effect would be a lifetime one, and a $1,000,000 fine.

GM Loomis receives a two year ban and a $500,000 fine.

HC Sean Payton receives a one year ban and a $1,000,000 fine.

LB Coach Joe Vitt receives a six month ban and a $250,000 fine

players who contributed to bounty pool are fined $50,000 each.

players who received bounty payments (those that can be proven) are fined $50,000 each.

Saints organization is fined $1,000,000.

Saints organization loses its 2013 first round pick.

CB Tracy Porter is banned from ever doing Jared Allen's calf roping celebration again.

I think all teams with a bounty program proven against them should lose a #1 pick for every year they participated. So, they need to hit Washington, as well, I think. Sort of a mini-death penalty, plus some of the fines & suspensions you have. See, if someone gets causght with a bounty next year & it only ran that year, it should cost them a #1. Saints ran it 3 years, why do they get a free two years?

I agree. I think the Saints should and will lose multiple first round picks.
_________________

Purplexing

Joined: 13 Jan 2008
Posts: 3619
Location: Outside Valhalla, looking in.

Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2012 10:18 am Post subject:

vike daddy wrote:

Purplexing wrote:

vike daddy wrote:

The formula is set to avoid manipulations that you are implying.

Yes, you didn't explicitly imply that manipulations occurred.

I simply didn't finish my thought, which should have been stated:

"...manipulations that you are implying impact the franchise tag salary for Brees".

mea culpa for an incomplete sentence.

[FTR; manipulations can be favorable, or unfavorable, devious or well-intentioned. They can be done by NO, or other teams.]

However, the point remains, that the article you quoted conflicts with another, which uses the term 'previous 5 years'. But assuming Florio is correct, Brees could hire an attorney to fight the ambiguity of the provisions that you quoted, per Florio.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7660738/nfl-drop-franchise-tag-numbers-help-teams

Quote:

In the final stages of putting the collective bargaining agreement together, league negotiators slipped in a slight adjustment in the calculation of the franchise number. The league turned the franchise number into the average of a five-year period instead of the previous year. That change has had major consequences.

The franchise tag protection was given so a team would have the ability to keep its most valuable player. Until this year, the franchise number was determined by taking the five top salaries at a position and coming up with an average. The numbers had been based on the salaries from the previous year. Under the new rule, the number is based on the top salary in each of the five previous years.

As Florio interprets this clause, the April 20 date would result in a violation of legal principles, because of ambiguity due to the timing of the contract periods used in the formula. To clarify that last point, the tag period BEGINS BEFORE the end of the period used in the formula. That enables manipulation up until the April 20 date. Whether or not Florio interpreted the clause correctly is moot to the discussion of a legal challenge of that interpretation...

I'm not a contract lawyer, nor do I play one on the internet, but I firmly believe a legal challenge to that clause would likely prevail. However, it may be moot and not worth pursuing legally because the impacts you are implying will be fairly insignificant, for reasons provided below...

But, please post the ACTUAL contract terms for further discussion.

John Clayton quotes franchise tag number impacts in his article:

Quote:

Franchise wide receivers dropped from $11.3 million to $9.4 million. Quarterbacks went from $16 million to $14.4 million. Running backs fell from $9.5 million to $7.7 million. Cornerbacks fell from $14 million to $10.4 million.

If the April 20 date withstands, why would Clayton publish that ^ list without a proviso - that the numbers could change?

Consider the GB Packers situation, assuming Rodgers were the highest paid QB in 2012, under Florio's interpretation.

The manipulation of Eli's contract by the Giants, and the contract termination by the Colts have little impact on the formula results because 5 different years salary numbers go into the formula; i.e. top salary over the previous 5 years. Eli Mannings' salary might represent 20% of the formula IF his salary were the highest that year. (Tom Brady? Aaron Rodgers? Peyton Manning?) So only one of Eli's or Peyton's salary decreases in 2012 might impact the formula.

But whoever is highest paid, the impact is 20% of the difference between the original highest salary number before it was reduced and that of the next highest paid QB.

Consider also the contract year definition. It doesn't run from Jan. 1 to Dec. 31 because the season runs at least thru the date of the Super Bowl following each regular season. This defines 'previous years'.

IMO, the term 2012 is used to represent the 2012 franchise tag value in the article by Florio, and not the years used in its determination.

I don't know if salary or salary cap is used, and if bonuses are included.

Let me be the first to say it...

until we have the actual clauses' wording....

no significant schismonetary impact of Manning monetary manipulations!

But a Breeschism has resulted from the tagging.
_________________

When we stop to think about it, most folks behavior isn't perplexing after all.

Kellerman

Joined: 16 May 2010
Posts: 3190
Location: Amsterdam

Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2012 10:21 am Post subject:

Brees said he won't sign the tag, so why hire a lawyer to fight the $$$ amount?
_________________

sig by Jamison
#97 Everson Griffin: 0 tackles : 0 sacks : 0 FF

Purplexing

Joined: 13 Jan 2008
Posts: 3619
Location: Outside Valhalla, looking in.

Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2012 10:33 am Post subject:

Kellerman wrote:

Brees said he won't sign the tag, so why hire a lawyer to fight the $$$ amount?

I agree.... mainly due to the trivial impacts that vike daddy was implying via the implied manipulations ( whether for adverse or favorable intentions ).

But not signing the contract is moot to the discussion of the legality of the clause as Florio interprets it. And the adverse impacts vike daddy referred to are also moot due to Brees' refusal to sign the tag contract.

Important points to clarify:

The Clayton article uses the SINGULAR term 'salary' (over five 'previous' years), not salaries.

We have two articles on the topic and NO ONE has YET posted the actual clause in the new CBA. Maybe it's not a publicly available document?

So, I am unsure of the formula, per the two articles' conflicting details; i.e. whether 5 salaries over 5 'previous' years are averaged ( 25 numbers ) per Florio, or 5 salaries of the TOP paid player in each of the 5 'previous' years are averaged ( 5 numbers ) per Clayton.
_________________

When we stop to think about it, most folks behavior isn't perplexing after all.

Virginia Viking

Joined: 27 Dec 2007
Posts: 2452
Location: Unemployed in VA

Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2012 11:06 am Post subject:

How did this thread get diverted to a conversation of Brees contract issues? I thought this was about potential consequences of the "Bountygate" controversy??? Think

disaacs

Joined: 13 Dec 2005
Posts: 19982
Location: Brownbackistan

Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2012 11:16 am Post subject:

Virginia Viking wrote:

How did this thread get diverted to a conversation of Brees contract issues? I thought this was about potential consequences of the "Bountygate" controversy??? Think

I agree with Dan Barreiro (I listed to the KFAN podcasts) that I'm tired of the controversies being called "what-ever"-gate, so it needs to be changed. Plus, Bountygate doesn't really work...Bounty on the Bayou is much better. Wink

_________________

Thx to Uncle Buck!

vike daddy

Joined: 12 Mar 2005
Posts: 66638

Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2012 11:57 am Post subject:

Virginia Viking wrote:

How did this thread get diverted to a conversation of Brees contract issues? I thought this was about potential consequences of the "Bountygate" controversy??? Think

all i did was mention that Brees has obvious dissatisfaction with the NO management right now over his contract, further showing the team's problems. someone else took it waaaay further.

as to the proper term to name this mess...?

how about Mutiny over the Bounties?

Very Happy

_________________

Webmaster wrote:

Can we knock off all the nonsense and stick to football?

PurpleProwess

Joined: 22 Jun 2008
Posts: 9828
Location: just in range...

Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2012 12:08 pm Post subject:

Any "gate" is ridiculous. People who term it as such are morons.

This obviously comes from the Watergate scandal. Watergate is the name of the hotel, so some sheeple took the gate part and ran with it.

Call it the bounty scandal, that's what it is, why try and add a term to it that changes peoples perspective of it before they even know what it is.

To add a moniker to try and make fun of a serious situation is stupid.
_________________

Some gave all, All gave some.

All posting to be done henceforth via Phone. I apologize for the errors.

milanb

Joined: 04 Jan 2008
Posts: 5174
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2012 12:17 pm Post subject:

disaacs wrote:

Virginia Viking wrote:

How did this thread get diverted to a conversation of Brees contract issues? I thought this was about potential consequences of the "Bountygate" controversy??? Think

Yeah, well, H.R. Haldeman was famous for saying that once the toothpaste is out of the tube it's awfully difficult to put it back. And that's sort of where we're at with this thing.

This is a huge black mark on the NFL, and it's going to taint forever the Saints' lone Super Bowl victory and the 2009 NFL season.
_________________

The race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong. — Ecclesiastes 9:11

But that’s the way to bet. — Jimmy The Greek

El Raymundo

Joined: 02 Mar 2005
Posts: 5045
Location: Northern Virginia

Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2012 2:45 pm Post subject:

Purple Faithful wrote:

Bermuda Viking wrote:

El Raymundo wrote:

The reaction coming from many NFL players makes me think of the way some guys I've talked to think about cheating on their wives. "It's no big deal...everyone does it."

NO. Every one does not do it. There are people with ethics and morals who act and behave with integrity and honor and fair play, even if it means the best of all possible rewards won't be coming their way. Brett Favre, whom I admire as a football player, is hardly the man I would hold up as a moral compass and his reaction to this affair aligns well with the way he's lived his private life. "Do what you want, that's what everyone does. Consequences be damned."

And yes, I think the Vikings should be allotted a Saints draft pick, as should every other team where its proven that the Saints' bounty systems adversely affected them. And the compensatory draft pick should be commensurate with the severity of the impact caused by the Saints dirty play. Compensation and damages are awarded in civil cases - and yes, I understand this is not an identical situation, but I do believe the spirit is the same - and compensation and damages should be awarded here as well.

I don't think the Saints should be stripped of their championship. It sounds nice and I admit that the vengeful side of me likes the idea, but it's not the right solution.

As far as coaches, I don't know. Gregg Williams probably should be banned for life. Pete Rose is out of baseball for life for doing what I believe had far less real damage (I'm not talking about perceived potential damage) than what Gregg Williams did in the NFL. Payton and Loomis are perhaps not equally culpable but are culpable nonetheless. Although circumstances are vastly different, how are the inactions of Sean Payton and Mickey Loomis, when faced with a known act of corruption, any different than that of the coaching assistant and Joe Paterno at PSU who essentially turned the other way when they learned about the actions of Jerry Sandusky? Knowledge and permissiveness are the same as compliance and should be punished in accordance with the infraction. And this is a major infraction in the NFL.

Those are my thoughts on the matter, such as they are. Selah.

Great post. I'm with ya.

I was there & then got confused at the end:

"Selah (Hebrew: סֶלָה‎, also transliterated as selāh) is a word used frequently in the Hebrew Bible, often in the Psalms, and is a difficult concept to translate. (It should not be confused with the Hebrew word sela‘ (Hebrew: סֶלַע‎) which means "rock.") It is probably either a liturgico-musical mark or an instruction on the reading of the text, something like "stop and listen". "Selah" can also be used to indicate that there is to be a musical interlude at that point in the Psalm.[1] The Amplified Bible states Selah as "pause, and think of that".
The Psalms were sung accompanied by musical instruments and there are references to this in many chapters. Thirty-one of the thirty-nine psalms with the caption "To the choir-master" include the word "Selah". Selah notes a break in the song and as such is similar in purpose to Amen in that it stresses the importance of the preceding passage. Alternatively, Selah may mean "forever", as it does in some places in the liturgy (notably the second to last blessing of the Amidah). Another interpretation claims that Selah comes from the primary Hebrew root word salah (Hebrew: סָלָה‎) which means "to hang", and by implication to measure (weigh).[2] Also "Selah" is the name of a city from the time of David and Solomon.[3]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selah

Excellent research! I bolded the definition I intended. Smile

_________________

"Live as brave men; and if Fortune is adverse, front its blows with brave hearts." -- Cicero

Gordon Bombay

Joined: 17 May 2010
Posts: 1738

Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2012 3:15 pm Post subject:

El Raymundo wrote:

Although circumstances are vastly different, how are the inactions of Sean Payton and Mickey Loomis, when faced with a known act of corruption, any different than that of the coaching assistant and Joe Paterno at PSU who essentially turned the other way when they learned about the actions of Jerry Sandusky? Knowledge and permissiveness are the same as compliance and should be punished in accordance with the infraction. And this is a major infraction in the NFL.

I made this exact correlation the other day in the NFL news forum. Glad someone else was thinking along those lines, too. But I'll stay away from that topic to keep on forum rules.

Great series of posts between you guys, though and I wish I could have put my thoughts as eloquently as El Ray and PF.
_________________

^jgoldiscool has great work!

Finnerception wrote:

If LeBron James starred in Space Jam 2, he would leave the Toon Squad for the Monstars in the middle of the movie.

Frank Costello

Joined: 01 Mar 2009
Posts: 8815
Location: in 2009, Vikings>Saints

Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2012 5:28 pm Post subject:

Can't wait for the hammer to come down.
_________________
Welcome to Minnesota, Greg Jennings.
President of the Sammy Watkins fan club.

Purplexing

Joined: 13 Jan 2008
Posts: 3619
Location: Outside Valhalla, looking in.

Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2012 8:34 pm Post subject:

disaacs wrote:

Virginia Viking wrote:

How did this thread get diverted to a conversation of Brees contract issues? I thought this was about potential consequences of the "Bountygate" controversy??? Think

Bayounty?

_________________

When we stop to think about it, most folks behavior isn't perplexing after all.

Display posts from previous:

       FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Minnesota Vikings All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 13, 14, 15 ... 26, 27, 28  Next

Page 14 of 28

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum