Unfortunately for the NFL and its teams, these cases have largely gone in favor of the players. The Special Master in this case ruled similarly to previous bonus forfeiture cases involving Ashley Lelie and Michael Vick in deciding that even unlawful activities by the player do not trigger the loss Andrew Brandt
Why did Plaxico Burress and Larry Johnson win their grievances against the New York Giants and Kansas City Chiefs and maintain their ability to keep their bonus money? Unfortunately for the NFL and its teams, these cases have largely gone in favor of the players. The Special Master in this case ruled similarly to previous bonus forfeiture cases involving Ashley Lelie and Michael Vick in deciding that even unlawful activities by the player do not trigger the loss of bonus payments, whether they have already been received or are still due.
The 2006 Collective Bargaining Agreement outlined restrictions on bonus recovery, limiting the forfeiture to percentages of prorated amounts in the contract. These grievance precedents, however, have taken the limitations to new levels. It’s now hard to fathom situations – outside of blatant holdouts or retirements – in which clubs can recover previously paid bonus money to players as a result of bad behavior or immoral conduct.
This appears to be a problem that’s not going away any time soon.
Why did Larry Johnson lose the other part of his grievance – regarding future guaranteed salary – against the Chiefs?
Special Master Stephen Burbank distinguished future salary from “bonus” money, although both were guaranteed. Due to the fact that the future salary guaranteed amounts were not “earned” as the bonus monies were, the Chiefs would not be liable for such guarantees in the event they terminate the contract prior to the operation of these guarantees.
Guaranteeing future Paragraph 5 (salary) has become a popular trend with NFL clubs, made necessary by the operation of rules that limit Cap spending in the pending uncapped year. In light of these decisions on bonus recovery, or the lack thereof, future guarantees may become even more widely utilized in the future.
Why does Johnson, after publicly stating he wanted out of Kansas City, now want to stay with the Chiefs?
Well, because of the above, the stakes have changed. Now the Chiefs, if they choose, can release Johnson without the specter of $3.5M of guaranteed money, so Johnson is being a bit more contrite about his future there.
As stated many times in this space, the NFL offseason is the longest of the major sports leagues; things have a way of changing direction one or more times over the course of the seven months that games are not being played. The Larry Johnson-Chiefs drama has yet to fully play out.
Why would the Lions, or any team at the top of the draft, let their allotted time expire and pass on the pick?
Theoretically, a team at the top of the draft would let the time pass to move to a lower “slot” and pay less in guaranteed money and overall contract value as per the Rookie Pool allocations.
However, the theory ignores the reality of the top agents and top players in the draft demanding that the player be compensated where the team should have picked the player rather than where they did pick the player. Agents stake their reputations and recruiting efforts on the contracts of these high-profile top picks in the draft.
Cap and cash ramifications of...
Thoughts on Indy, Eli, Wes, Mario...
The numbers behind the game
Real action is week before the...
Signs point to the end of an era
Jul 23, 2010
09:41 AM
uncomfortable hours in the green room. Mercifully, however, Commissioner Roger Goodell – in his first year presiding over the draft – learned from the Rodgers fiasco and moved Quinn and his group into a private room away from the constant glare of the cameras.