The truth about NFL contracts.
AllYou!
policies are unfair because there are few, if any, guaranteed salaries as there
are in baseball and some other sports. Many claim that a player has been done
wrong if he's cut before the term of the contract is ended, and that it's wrong
that he didn't get his scheduled salary. The fallacy of that position is as
follows:
FACTS:
1) There's nothing in the CBA which prevents a player from negotiating a
guaranteed contract. Even free agents are free to demand such a contract, yet
hardly anyone has ever signed one. Therefore, the player sees it in his best
interest not to, and I'll get to the reason why below.
2) The typical NFL contract includes a bonus, which is better than a guarantee
because it's money up front.
3) The NFLPA and the owners have negotiated a salary cap, and that cap will
stand or fall regardless of the contract structures in place. Therefore, no
matter how contracts are structured (i.e., guarantees or not), all the money
which is due to go to players will go to the players. IOW, total team spending
to players will not change. Cheap teams who want to spend to the floor will
continue to do so, and all other teams will spend to the ceiling. Total money
received by the total of the players will not change.
4) Cutting players with huge salaries due to be paid them does not save a team
any money. Almost always, the money saved is for cap reasons which means that
it's spent on other players. The players, as a whole, lose nothing, and the
teams gain nothing. It's a zero sum game.
5) A player who's cut keeps all of his bonus money, and is then free to
negotiate a new bonus/salary with another team. That means that his average
annual pay from that team was actually higher than first advertised because
instead of dividing the money over the original length of the contract, it's
actually divided over the actual length of the contract. And if the player can't
get as much from another team in salary and bonus as just the salary portion he
was scheduled to earn from his original team, then that should say much about
the real value of the player. And if he is able to get more, than from a
financial perspective, he's got no complaint.
RATIONALE:
When someone claims that it's unfair that a player got cut just as he enters his
final season and is due to make big bucks, what they forget is that the contract
in question was negotiated with both sides knowing that was possibly, and in
many cases, probably going to happen. IOW, the contract was negotiated with the
full knowledge that the player could be cut or get injured, and so to believe
that the same contract would exist if there were some CBA provision in place
that all contracts must be guaranteed is just silly.
Let's say there is such a rule and that all contracts must be guaranteed. Well,
given the cap, the owners would never agree to the same kinds of contracts.
First of all, there'd be few signing bonuses. Why give a bonus when the money
will be paid anyway. The player wants a guarantee that all the money be paid,
then the team wants a guarantee that the player shows up to play.
Second, the sales would be entirely different. Don't forget about the cap. If
these huge salaries for less or little or no value are actually paid, then more
money would be going to those players, and less money would be left over for the
other players. Teams are simply not going to put themselves in a situation of
having even more dead cap space than they do now. They'll never offer the types
of contracts in a situation where they must guarantee the salary which they do
now when they, and the player, know they may not have to pay it. Simply put,
contractual salaries will be totally different.
ScottLK
news:Q6WdnSuaFsC...@conversent.net...
Nice post.
Scott
jstrazz
ray o'hara
and
> policies are unfair because there are few, if any, guaranteed salaries as
there
> are in baseball and some other sports. Many claim that a player has been
done
> wrong if he's cut before the term of the contract is ended, and that it's
wrong
> that he didn't get his scheduled salary. The fallacy of that position is
as
> follows:
i see nothing wrong with the way the nfl does business nor do i see
anything wrong with strikes. you use what ever tools you have.
AllYou!
"ray o'hara" <r...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:efOdnbJwe_I...@comcast.com...
The issue isn't *strikes*, the issue is *holdouts*. In a holdout situation, the
player is going back on his word. He's breaking a promise. Now, I have little
doubt that there are many like you that have no sense of ethics when it comes to
money and would use any tool at your disposal, even if it means breaking your
word, to get more. However, I'm glad that's not the prevailing sentiment in
society, at least not yet.
Besides, your post totally misses the point of mine.
All Patriots
Are you saying that a player who gets cut with one year left on his contract
will get paid for the entire contract but the team isn't responsible for the
final years cap hit?
A player who signs a 5 year 10 million deal and gets cut at the end of his
4th year will get paid the full 10 million but the cap hit will only be a
total of 8 million. Is this right or am I misunderstanding you.
AllYou!
"All Patriots" <NoS...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:oj7Ie.23961$Kx6...@fe12.lga...
No. I said that the players *as a whole* which means that players as a group
don't lose money under the current system because when a player gets cut *to
save money*, it means that it's to save money on *his* contract in order to
spend that money on other players. So if $1M is saved by cutting a player, that
$1M is almost always spent on other player(s).
> A player who signs a 5 year 10 million deal and gets cut at the end of his 4th
> year will get paid the full 10 million but the cap hit will only be a total of
> 8 million. Is this right or am I misunderstanding you.
You misunderstand. See the above.
ray o'hara
holdout is just another word for strike.
AllYou!
No. A strike is when all of the members of a union refuse to work until they
get a union contract to their satisfaction. A wildcat strike is when all, or at
least many of the members of a union stop working even though a union contract
is in place.
A holdout, in the NFL, is someone who unilaterally, doesn't work even though
he's got a contract to do so.
So if your comment was actually meant WRT a holdout situation, then it doesn't
surprise me that you see nothing wrong with breaking a promise, or breaching a
contract. BY almost any standard, it's unethical, but it doesn't surprise me
that you don't see that.
McDuck
quacked:
>Too often, we hear players and pundits and fans claim that NFL contracts and
>policies are unfair because there are few, if any, guaranteed salaries as there
>are in baseball and some other sports. Many claim that a player has been done
>wrong if he's cut before the term of the contract is ended, and that it's wrong
>that he didn't get his scheduled salary.
Almost all of what you said is correct but largely beside the point,
assuming your point was to discuss the fairness of the current system
to players. If the Jets have promised to pay Mr. X $10 million and
then cut him, it is no consolation to Mr. X that the Jets intend to
pay that $10 million to Mr. J and Mr. K. There may be some solidarity
among players, but not to THAT degree <g>.
Also, I wonder why you think it is fine and dandy for mangement to
break its promise to pay its players because they are no longer worth
the contract price and not fine for the players to refuse to perform
when their contract is below market. Can't be the typical NFL fan's
pro management bias can it? Well, yes, perhaps that is exactly the
reason <grin>.
Nevertheless, I do agree with you that we have a system where players
get cut, and players need to understand that when they sign a
contract. Now, one might ask, why does management enter into contracts
it has no intention of honoring? The answer is far more complex then
your post suggests. Obviously, there are serious problems with the
contract situation in football when most contracts are not honored and
no one really expects them to be honored.
And remember, management enters into contracts with players knowing
that the player can refuse to perform (basic constitutional right,
actually) and is likely to do so if the contract proves to be way
below market. That "fact" is part of the fabric out of which football
agreements are fashioned. Management could negotiate for heavier
fines, recapture of bonuses, etc., but it does not do it. You really
have to understand why they don't if you are going to preach to us
about the ethics and logic of football contracts.
In sum, I do not think it is "unethical" for management to refuse to
honor its contract and cut a player, and I do not think it is
"unethical" for a player to act similarly. They are both acting within
the accepted system. I put "unethical" in quotation marks because I
think one has to address the ethics of the entire system before
pronouncing on the ethics of one aspect of that system. I do think,
overall, that the system is unfair to and exploitive of young players.
--McDuck
AllYou!
"McDuck" <wallymcdu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:0822f192gkrjqji18...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 11:13:53 -0400, "AllYou!" <Ida...@conversent.net>
> quacked:
>
>>Too often, we hear players and pundits and fans claim that NFL contracts and
>>policies are unfair because there are few, if any, guaranteed salaries as
>>there
>>are in baseball and some other sports. Many claim that a player has been done
>>wrong if he's cut before the term of the contract is ended, and that it's
>>wrong
>>that he didn't get his scheduled salary.
>
> Almost all of what you said is correct but largely beside the point,
> assuming your point was to discuss the fairness of the current system
> to players. If the Jets have promised to pay Mr. X $10 million and
> then cut him, it is no consolation to Mr. X that the Jets intend to
> pay that $10 million to Mr. J and Mr. K. There may be some solidarity
> among players, but not to THAT degree <g>.
The premise of your statement is clearly wrong. If the Jets had promised to pay
him, then they'd have no choice but to pay him, and that would mean a guarenteed
contract. But the Jets have not promised to pay him. They promised that if
they choose to avail themselves of his services, they'll pay him the
predetermined amount, and if the choose not to, they'll let him go find another
team for which to play.
As to the fact that the money goes to other players, I simply included that not
to show that any one player can't complain, but to show that the teams have
nothing to gain financially in cutting a player, as well as to show one reason
why the union has never made this a major bone of contention in negotiations.
> Also, I wonder why you think it is fine and dandy for mangement to
> break its promise to pay its players because they are no longer worth
> the contract price and not fine for the players to refuse to perform
> when their contract is below market. Can't be the typical NFL fan's
> pro management bias can it? Well, yes, perhaps that is exactly the
> reason <grin>.
And that's another reason why I made the point I did. Management has nothing
financially to gain by cutting players and so it's not a matter of taking their
side. To side with such a player is really to side against another player.
It's a zero sum game.
Also, the team never promised the to pay the player that amount, whether or not
he played, and so your premise is simply invalid. If the player wanted such a
promise, he could get one. But the fact is that under the understanding that
the team would be making such a promise, the salary to which they'd commit would
be so much less, and would not include a signing bonus.
> Nevertheless, I do agree with you that we have a system where players
> get cut, and players need to understand that when they sign a
> contract.
I didn't say they need to, I said that they do. It's naive to think that with
the help of their agants, they don't. They'd have to be mentally challenged not
to.
> Now, one might ask, why does management enter into contracts
> it has no intention of honoring?
They do not. I'll bet you can find hardly an instance where an NFL team has not
honored a contract with a player.
> The answer is far more complex then
> your post suggests. Obviously, there are serious problems with the
> contract situation in football when most contracts are not honored and
> no one really expects them to be honored.
If that were true, you'd be right. But it's not true, and so what you said is
moot.
> And remember, management enters into contracts with players knowing
> that the player can refuse to perform (basic constitutional right,
> actually) and is likely to do so if the contract proves to be way
> below market.
Nonsense. The constitution has nothing to do with contractual rights, and
although management knows it'll probably happen along the way, it neither makes
it ethical, nor does that have anything to do with the basic equity of the
current system.
> That "fact" is part of the fabric out of which football
> agreements are fashioned. Management could negotiate for heavier
> fines, recapture of bonuses, etc., but it does not do it. You really
> have to understand why they don't if you are going to preach to us
> about the ethics and logic of football contracts.
I do understand. The CBA is born of a complex negotiation, and the penalties
for holdouts is the best accommodation available. But that still has nothing to
do with the point of my post. Breaking a promise is breaking a promise, and
when the player agrees to play for the team for the term of the contract, or for
as long as the team chooses, which ever comes first, and the player accepts a
bonus in return for such an agreement, then the refusal of the player to honor
that contract is a broken promise.
And as the R Williams case shows, there's nothing in the CBA which prevents a
team from recapturing a bonus.
> In sum, I do not think it is "unethical" for management to refuse to
> honor its contract and cut a player, and I do not think it is
> "unethical" for a player to act similarly.
That's because your understanding of a non-guranteed NFL contract is terribly
flawed.
> They are both acting within
> the accepted system. I put "unethical" in quotation marks because I
> think one has to address the ethics of the entire system before
> pronouncing on the ethics of one aspect of that system. I do think,
> overall, that the system is unfair to and exploitive of young players.
I'm sure you do.
D-word
> > anything wrong with strikes. you use what ever tools you have.
>
> The issue isn't *strikes*, the issue is *holdouts*.
> In a holdout situation, the player is going back on his word.
> He's breaking a promise.
There is a non-strike/suit/lockout clause in the CBA which
theoretically "prohibits" players from striking (although it is
nonsense, and arguably anti-trust). A strike is a way that,
historically, the individual gains leverage to negotiate better working
conditions through collective action. I see nothing wrong with it. (A
holdout, as Ray pointed out, is just an individual work stoppage).
Employment contracts, generally speaking, in the US are "at will,"
meaning either party can terminate the arrangement at any time.
However, in the NFL, the player cannot terminate his contract without
retiring. If the employer can terminate the contract, the player
should have such rights and reciprocity. How is the employer's action
not "breaking their word"? Your logic is inconsistent, as is the
League's.
The difference between the player who holds out, and an individual
quitting their job to take a better paying job, is that most people's
don't belong to a closed employment market. Relatively speaking the
NFLPA is a very weak union, and a very management friendly one
(compared to MLB for instance). Until a player is released from their
contract they can't seek other League employment. (This borders on
anti-trust behavior. Then again, so did the League merger.) Holdouts
are the only logical, available option for a disgruntled player -- that
or retirement.
AllYou!
"D-word" <yank_e...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1123097261....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> AllYou! wrote:
>> "ray o'hara" <r...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> > i see nothing wrong with the way the nfl does business nor do i see
>> > anything wrong with strikes. you use what ever tools you have.
>>
>> The issue isn't *strikes*, the issue is *holdouts*.
>> In a holdout situation, the player is going back on his word.
>> He's breaking a promise.
>
>
> There is a non-strike/suit/lockout clause in the CBA which
> theoretically "prohibits" players from striking (although it is
> nonsense, and arguably anti-trust). A strike is a way that,
> historically, the individual gains leverage to negotiate better working
> conditions through collective action. I see nothing wrong with it. (A
> holdout, as Ray pointed out, is just an individual work stoppage).
>
> Employment contracts, generally speaking, in the US are "at will,"
> meaning either party can terminate the arrangement at any time.
> However, in the NFL, the player cannot terminate his contract without
> retiring. If the employer can terminate the contract, the player
> should have such rights and reciprocity. How is the employer's action
> not "breaking their word"? Your logic is inconsistent, as is the
> League's.
I've explained that. The way an NFL contract is written is that in exchange for
a bonus (if any), the player agrees to play for the team at pre-determined
salaries for the term of the contract or until the team decides otherwise,
whichever comes first. IOW, the player and the team agreed that the team has
the right to cancel the contract, and not the player. That's the promise each
side makes, and by paying the bonus upfront, and then weekly payments of the
salary on an as-you-go basis, the owners promise is virtually assured, whereas
the team must take it on faith that the payer will live up to his end of the
bargain.
If the player then reneges on the promise, then he breaches that contract, and
breaks the promise.
Now, the common misconception is that the player can't demand a guaranteed
contract. There's nothing in the CBA to prevent it. However, the contract the
player will be offered should he choose to demand that provision will be
woefully less than what he'll have the potential to make in a non-guaranteed
one, which is why those kinds of contracts are almost never seen in the NFL.
>
> The difference between the player who holds out, and an individual
> quitting their job to take a better paying job, is that most people's
> don't belong to a closed employment market.
Well, the other difference is that most people didn't get million to agree not
to quit.
D-word
> "ray o'hara" <r...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > holdout is just another word for strike.
>
> No. A strike is when all of the members of a union refuse to work until they
> get a union contract to their satisfaction. A wildcat strike is when all, or at
> least many of the members of a union stop working even though a union contract
> is in place.
And a holdout is when one player, in a league that prohibits both
strikes and free employment, seeks a better contract...."even though
[an individual] contract is in place."
> A holdout, in the NFL, is someone who unilaterally, doesn't work even though
> he's got a contract to do so.
See above.
> So if your comment was actually meant WRT a holdout situation, then it doesn't
> surprise me that you see nothing wrong with breaking a promise, or breaching a
> contract. BY almost any standard, it's unethical, but it doesn't surprise me
> that you don't see that.
Given your black and white view on things, it doesn't surprise me that
you can't see that a holdout and a strike are the same thing, and only
differ by *scale*.
AllYou!
I don't see them as the same, and made that quite clear. I do see a strike as
perfectly legitimate, whereas a holdout is not. That's why I drew the
distinction.
D-word
> I don't see them as the same, and made that quite clear. I do see a strike as
> perfectly legitimate, whereas a holdout is not. That's why I drew the
> distinction.
It is entirely clear that you don't see them that way. How would an
individual stopping work to gain a better contract be different when
the same thing is done collectively?
john.va...@gmail.com
McDuck wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 11:13:53 -0400, "AllYou!" <Ida...@conversent.net>
> quacked:
>
> >Too often, we hear players and pundits and fans claim that NFL contracts and
> >policies are unfair because there are few, if any, guaranteed salaries as there
> >are in baseball and some other sports. Many claim that a player has been done
> >wrong if he's cut before the term of the contract is ended, and that it's wrong
> >that he didn't get his scheduled salary.
>
> Almost all of what you said is correct but largely beside the point,
> assuming your point was to discuss the fairness of the current system
> to players. If the Jets have promised to pay Mr. X $10 million and
> then cut him, it is no consolation to Mr. X that the Jets intend to
> pay that $10 million to Mr. J and Mr. K. There may be some solidarity
> among players, but not to THAT degree <g>.
Maybe so. But I bet Mr. X didn't mind that he was only offered the $10
million contract in the first place because Mr. P and Mr. Q had to get
cut first. Every guy who complains about getting cut so that the team
can pay other players needs to remember that in fact he was the
recipient of his contract because some poor soul got cut ahead of him.
The proverbial NFL circle of life.
John
jstrazz
> Also, I wonder why you think it is fine and dandy for mangement to
> break its promise to pay its players because they are no longer worth
> the contract price
Management DOESN'T promise to pay it's players.
Otherwise, it would be a guaranteed contract.
What the contract says is "If you are on the team, then we'll pay you
$X".
The players and their agents know this when the contract is signed.
It's not like this is a surprise.
> and not fine for the players to refuse to perform
> when their contract is below market.
Their contract doesn't allow them to decide that they aren't getting
paid enough.
The contract says "If I play in the NFL, then I'll play for $X".
> Nevertheless, I do agree with you that we have a system where players
> get cut, and players need to understand that when they sign a
> contract.
They understand it. They may not like it, but they understand.
> In sum, I do not think it is "unethical" for management to refuse to
> honor its contract and cut a player, and I do not think it is
> "unethical" for a player to act similarly.
Agreed. It's not a matter of ethics.
> I do think,
> overall, that the system is unfair to and exploitive of young players.
Unfair and exploitative?
If enough players really think that, then they can negotiate for a
different deal in the next CBA.
testy
McDuck
True enough, John. I was arguing against the apparent claim (now
denied, perhaps properly) that a player should not complain about
being cut because the money goes to another player, not to management.
Whether players are better or worse off with guaranteed contracts or
non-guaranteed contracts is a difficult issue. Currently, the teams
have the upper hand. They want to shift as much risk as possible to
the players, whereas the players want to shift the risk to the owners,
all else equal. In this contest, the owners are stronger, and they
win.
Now, if we had a free market instead of the pro-management rigged
market, the equation would change. In that setting, both sides would
want to have most of the risk born by the side that can best bear it,
which obviously is the owners. The effect is more money in the pot, so
to speak (actually, more money, discounted for risk). The players can
protect themselves against the risk only through very expensive
insurance, whereas the owners can spread the risk internally. So, from
an economic perspective, you would expect most of the risk to be born
by the owners, with some relative minor portion borne by the players
to prevent moral hazards --- players intentionally not taking care to
avoid or minimize risks by working out properly, etc.
What do we actually see? We see risk sharing, but the sharing is
uneven. We see the young players bearing a large part of the risk, and
the proven stars bearing less of it. That pattern reflects their
relative bargaining powers --- and the fact that the union is willing
to "sell out" the younger players (not members of the union before
they sign) for the benefit of the older players.
Now, a fuller analysis would require some discussion of the different
sets of risks --- risk of injury has been my focus, but there is also
the risk of under-performing, being on the same team as an even better
player, etc.
In any event, it is incorrect to note that players do not opt for
guaranteed contracts because they can make more with non-guaranteed
contracts. Players clearly are risk adverse. So, you should expect
that they would discount any non-guaranteed contract rather heavily
and would compare the discounted value of the non-guaranteed contract
with the guaranteed contract. I think they do that. And they find that
the best deal available to them is the non-guaranteed contract ---
well, the contract with some guaranteed and most not guaranteed. Why?
It is hard to see that outcome making economic sense unless the market
is messed up.
Well, I strongly suspect the market is messed up. That is, the owners
are using their monopoly power to restrict the use of guaranteed
contracts. I really can't say what the mechanism might be --- a secret
deal or some features of the salary cap (I suspect the latter). But
I've not studied the issue. In any event, it is very clear that the
young players in particular are getting bad deals due to the lack of a
true market for their services. Those who turn out to be stars
minimize that loss to a very limited degree by renegotiating through
the threat of a holdout.
--McDuck
McDuck
quacked:
>McDuck wrote:
>
>> Also, I wonder why you think it is fine and dandy for mangement to
>> break its promise to pay its players because they are no longer worth
>> the contract price
>
>Management DOESN'T promise to pay it's players.
>Otherwise, it would be a guaranteed contract.
>What the contract says is "If you are on the team, then we'll pay you
>$X".
To tell the truth, I've never actually read a player contract. Is
there one on line some where?
In substance, however, Team A promises to pay Player B $xxx, and the
team reserves the right to cut the player and the player promises to
perform services and reserves the right not to play at all (but then
to lose the right to play for any other NFL team). The bonus money and
guarantee are really penalty provisions that come into play if the
team elects not to honor the contract. Similarly, the fines, etc., for
missing games or training camp are penalty provisions. They are just
forms of liquidated damages for breach.
If you look at the contract any other way, you really don't have a
genuine contract --- just a contract ast will. Team A promises to pay
Player B $xxx unless it does not want to pay Player B. That is not
much of a contract --- no mutual exchange of promises. The real
exchange of promises is Team A agrees to pay the agreed amount and
Player B agrees to play for that amount over the agreed term. And they
both have "out clauses" that let them not perform if they pay the
agreed liquidated damages.
<snip>
>
>> In sum, I do not think it is "unethical" for management to refuse to
>> honor its contract and cut a player, and I do not think it is
>> "unethical" for a player to act similarly.
>
>Agreed. It's not a matter of ethics.
Okay, we are agreed on my central point.
>
>> I do think,
>> overall, that the system is unfair to and exploitive of young players.
>
>Unfair and exploitative?
>If enough players really think that, then they can negotiate for a
>different deal in the next CBA.
It is not a free market. Do you think the people stitching baseballs
in central america are getting a fair wage? Let's assume you think
that a dollar a day or whatever is not enough. You can say that they
can negotiate for more, but they have no leverage to do so. Perhaps
they could form a union, but that is not easy, and the union might be
as weak as the NFL players union <g>. The basic reason is that the
business owners have a monopoly position relative to the workers
because of the shortage of jobs. By your formulation, workers are
never exploited. But surely that is not your view.
Of course, "exploitation" of football players is not an appealing
claim, since they are doing pretty well financially. But the young
players are making a lot less than the market wage, so, in that sense,
there is exploitation. To say that they can regotiate better terms
when the owners have a monopoly position is incorrect. Well, they do
have increased leverage from the last CBA, so I expect they will do a
lot better. But they are still dealing with a monopoly and will get a
below market wage.
Anyway, my point about younger players is mostly about the initial
deal. The union has not been strong for the young players because they
are not in the union when the deals are made with management. The
union basically is trading off the economic benefits of the incoming
players to increase the benefits of the union members. The result is
that the young players are almost guaranteed to get a bad deal.
As an aside, we saw this in baseball, where the new players had far
fewer rights to a market wage than the established players (this, with
a v. strong union). The result was an inflation of signing bonuses to
young players because the signing bonuses were done outside the CBA.
The bubble just moved backwards. (Bad for baseball, by the way, but
that is a dfferent issue.)
--McDuck
ray o'hara
because he doesn't see it that way. and he is the arbiter of what a
situation is.
MZ
Does this NG have a FAQ?
jupiter49
>
>
> The issue isn't *strikes*, the issue is *holdouts*. In a holdout
situation, the
> player is going back on his word. He's breaking a promise.
Christ, you talk about contracts as if they are some Holy Grail to which we
should all bow down. Contracts are rewritten all the time, and it's because
they are not infallible, they don't do justice all the time, and they need
to change at times. This is not about being static. You cannot be static
and expect life to proceed. The contract is the rule of law, but the rule
of men says that you can walk away from any contract any time you are
willing to deal with the consequences. You are also free to rework it to
your benefit, as long as the other party agrees, and this happens fifty
thousand times a day.
So what about a promise? The promise is to make good on this contract
until, and if, and it's a BIG IF, you sense that the original contract is no
longer doing you justice. Then you either rework it, or you decide to
either remain, or blow it off and take the consequences.
What you can't do is blow it off and not take the consequences. So this
does imply that you have to understand the consequences, which guys like
Ricky Williams obviously did not.
None of it is written in stone, which is why guys like TO feel they have a
case, and why a lot of fans feel otherwise. You may want to make all this
turn into silliness and have everybody honor contracts like robots, but that
is like wishing for a fairy to come take your tooth away at night. It can't
happen because it's a static version of how life works, and it doesn't allow
for change. To you, change must seem evil or wrong, because it complicates
matters. Fine, get used to it because all contracts change, especially the
longer ones that involve high profile, future HOF players.
What did we really expect? If we're correct, Richard is going to go down as
one of the more dominating DLs to ever play the game. Would you suggest
paying him the minimum if he had been stupid enough to sign something like
that? Even if we had him in such a bad contract, we'd have to let him out
because it's not JUST to keep him in it.
Miguel
> Too often, we hear players and pundits and fans claim that NFL contracts
> and policies are unfair because there are few, if any, guaranteed salaries
> as there are in baseball and some other sports. Many claim that a player
> has been done wrong if he's cut before the term of the contract is ended,
> and that it's wrong that he didn't get his scheduled salary. The fallacy
> of that position is as follows:
>
> FACTS:
>
> 1) There's nothing in the CBA which prevents a player from negotiating a
> guaranteed contract. Even free agents are free to demand such a contract,
> yet hardly anyone has ever signed one. Therefore, the player sees it in
> his best interest not to, and I'll get to the reason why below.
I am not sure about this since teams may be reluctant to guarantee future
salaries since "any portion of Salary fully guaranteed for any period after
a player is released shall be immediately included in Team Salary at the
time of his release at the present value rate determined in accordance with
the Treasury Bill rate published in The Wall Street Journal of March 1 of
the League Year of the player's release". This is why your rationale is so
dead on.
> 2) The typical NFL contract includes a bonus, which is better than a
> guarantee because it's money up front.
True.
> 3) The NFLPA and the owners have negotiated a salary cap, and that cap
> will stand or fall regardless of the contract structures in place.
> Therefore, no matter how contracts are structured (i.e., guarantees or
> not), all the money which is due to go to players will go to the players.
> IOW, total team spending to players will not change. Cheap teams who want
> to spend to the floor will continue to do so, and all other teams will
> spend to the ceiling. Total money received by the total of the players
> will not change.
>
> 4) Cutting players with huge salaries due to be paid them does not save a
> team any money. Almost always, the money saved is for cap reasons which
> means that it's spent on other players. The players, as a whole, lose
> nothing, and the teams gain nothing. It's a zero sum game.
This is not always true. If a team is over the cap before the cap deadline,
they will typically release players with high salaries. That money is not
spent on other players. See Ty Law and Troy Brown this year.
jstrazz
> In substance, however, Team A promises to pay Player B $xxx, and the
> team reserves the right to cut the player and the player promises to
> perform services and reserves the right not to play at all (but then
> to lose the right to play for any other NFL team).
So far, it sounds right.
>The bonus money and
> guarantee are really penalty provisions that come into play if the
> team elects not to honor the contract.
Nonsense.
Guarantees have nothing to do with penalties.
They are upfront money.
Some bonuses are upfront money, too.
Others are incentive money, paid upon achieving certain milestones.
Nothing to do with penalties.
> Similarly, the fines, etc., for
> missing games or training camp are penalty provisions. They are just
> forms of liquidated damages for breach.
Sounds right.
>
> If you look at the contract any other way, you really don't have a
> genuine contract --- just a contract ast will. Team A promises to pay
> Player B $xxx unless it does not want to pay Player B. That is not
> much of a contract --- no mutual exchange of promises. The real
> exchange of promises is Team A agrees to pay the agreed amount and
> Player B agrees to play for that amount over the agreed term.
Unless the player is cut by the team.
Or, unless the player decides to retire.
>And they
> both have "out clauses" that let them not perform if they pay the
> agreed liquidated damages.
Certainly they both have out clauses.
Unless a season is guaranteed, the team can cut the player and not pay
the contracted salary.
At that point, the player is not longer bound by the contract and is a
free agent.
> It is not a free market.
I don't think I ever said it's a free market.
It's a collectively-bargained market.
> Of course, "exploitation" of football players is not an appealing
> claim, since they are doing pretty well financially. But the young
> players are making a lot less than the market wage, so, in that sense,
> there is exploitation. To say that they can regotiate better terms
> when the owners have a monopoly position is incorrect.
Their union can renegotiate better terms for the next CBA.
Which will happen - without regard to the owners' monopoly position.
> Well, they do
> have increased leverage from the last CBA, so I expect they will do a
> lot better. But they are still dealing with a monopoly and will get a
> below market wage.
You seem to have some strange sense of what "market wage" means.
Apparently you equate it to "what salary a top player could get if
there were no such thing as a salary cap, and everyone was a free agent
every day".
I guess a professional sports league could exist where every player was
free to negotiate a new, different contract for every game. But, I'm
not sure it could be financially stable.
AllYou!
Well, it's obvious you didn't read the post wherein I first stated my opinion,
so I guess I'll have to do it again. Either that, or you just didn't understand
it.
Whenever contracts are signed under the umbrella of a CBA, it's understood, if
not expressly stated, that nothing in the contract shall detract in any way from
that CBA. So when a CBA expires, and the union is trying to get a better deal,
the individual contracts take a back seat to the CBA and any attempts to get a
new one. And so in that case, whereas both sides fully understand that the
contracts will, in effect, be suspended if the CBA expires and if there's either
a strike or a lock-out, then there's no breach of ethics or of the contract.
Both sides were well aware of the consequences of allowing the \CBA to expire.
However, in the case of a holdout, there is still a CBA in effect, and still a
valid contract.
That's the difference.
AllYou!
Translation, your hopelessly lost in any one-on-one debate with me, so you have
to resort to these second hand snide remarks. Got it. Why not just do the best
you can to make your case, and I'll do the same. Is that too much for you?
AllYou!
"jupiter49" <jupiter4...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:65adndkEmZP...@comcast.com...
>
> "AllYou!" <Ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message
> news:o-idndKEhcU...@conversent.net...
>>
>>
>> The issue isn't *strikes*, the issue is *holdouts*. In a holdout
> situation, the
>> player is going back on his word. He's breaking a promise.
>
> Christ, you talk about contracts as if they are some Holy Grail to which we
> should all bow down.
Easy moron, you're making a fool of yourself. All I'm claiming is that a player
does not have the ethical right to renege on a contract. Anything more you're
reading into that is as a result of your personal issues and phobias, and not as
a result of anything I've ever said.
> Contracts are rewritten all the time, and it's because
> they are not infallible, they don't do justice all the time, and they need
> to change at times.
I never claimed that a rewriting a contract isn't perfectly acceptable, and your
attempt to imply that I have is transparent.
AllYou!
I never made that claim, and so a denial is not required, and your attempt to
paint me with that aregument is transparent. Don't blame me because you're
incapable of getting the point.
AllYou!
"jstrazz" <stra...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1123102029.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> McDuck wrote:
>
>> Also, I wonder why you think it is fine and dandy for mangement to
>> break its promise to pay its players because they are no longer worth
>> the contract price
>
> Management DOESN'T promise to pay it's players.
> Otherwise, it would be a guaranteed contract.
> What the contract says is "If you are on the team, then we'll pay you
> $X".
He'll never get it, and what's more, he;;l never respond to that argument
directly. He's much happier just claiming that such a promise was made, and
going from there.
AllYou!
"Miguel" <migueli...@patsfans.com> wrote in message
news:ScfIe.13667$MO.1355@lakeread04...
you missed the point. The point is that teams that cutting players with huge
salaries doesn't save the team money (in virtually all cases). The fact that
they have to get under the cap is a given, and so cutting players with huge
salaries is what allows them to sign other players or to keep other current
players. IOW, one way or another, the team will spend what they spend, and most
spend up to the cap. You're splitting hairs here that have nothing to do with
the point being made.
AllYou!
"Captain Charisma" <Why...@WannaKnow.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96A84ECDB2506...@129.250.170.81...
> "AllYou!" <Ida...@conversent.net> wrote in
> news:Q6WdnSuaFsC...@conversent.net:
>>
>> 3) The NFLPA and the owners have negotiated a salary cap, and that
>> cap will stand or fall regardless of the contract structures in place.
>> Therefore, no matter how contracts are structured (i.e., guarantees
>> or not), all the money which is due to go to players will go to the
>> players. IOW, total team spending to players will not change. Cheap
>> teams who want to spend to the floor will continue to do so, and all
>> other teams will spend to the ceiling. Total money received by the
>> total of the players will not change.
>
>
> to the floor" and then in the same breath you mention that the total money
> received by the total of the players will not change. Which is it,
> numbskull?
Easy moron, all you had to do was ask nicely. Was there something in there you
didn't understand and that's got you mad? Here, I'll go more slowly of the
intellectually challenged, like you.
I'm saying that if a team (e.g., Arizona) is hell bent of spending the least
they can (i.e., the floor of the cap), then they will do that under any
structure, but that most teams will always spend to the cap limit. Therefore,
because of the cap, teams will spend what they spend on players regardless of
whether or not there are guaranteed contracts. Therefore, the total amount of
money spent on players (i.e., all the money which all 32 teams spend on all the
players) will not change. Some players will get more, and others less, but the
total will not change appreciably.
OK, silly?
> Are you aware that there is no rule stating that any given team HAS to
> spend up to the cap. I believe the cutoff point is around 56% of the
> salary cap. (Actually, it's 56% of the generated revenues for the
> preceding year, but for simplicity's sake, we'll assume that it's the
> salary cap).
IIRC, it's 90% of the cap. But that's besides the point. There's no reason to
believe that if a team won't spend up to the cap in this structure, that they
will if the structure changes, and also, very few teams consistently spend
substantially less than the cap.
> In other words, owner x of team A can decide to only spend
> 56% of the salary cap on his team, *for as long as he pleases*. He'll be
> putting his team at a significant disadvantage, but that's his choice to
> make. Taking that into consideration, your last statement is just plain
> ridiculous.
LOL! I'm sure you feel that way.
Captain Charisma
news:atydnaxJtoe...@conversent.net:
> Easy moron, all you had to do was ask nicely. Was there something in
> there you didn't understand and that's got you mad? Here, I'll go
> more slowly of the intellectually challenged, like you.
>
> I'm saying that if a team (e.g., Arizona) is hell bent of spending the
> least they can (i.e., the floor of the cap), then they will do that
> under any structure, but that most teams will always spend to the cap
> limit. Therefore, because of the cap, teams will spend what they
> spend on players regardless of whether or not there are guaranteed
> contracts. Therefore, the total amount of money spent on players
> (i.e., all the money which all 32 teams spend on all the players) will
> not change. Some players will get more, and others less, but the
> total will not change appreciably.
I didn't know your original statement came with all these qualifiers,
dumbass. First it was "the total will not change". Now, it's "will not
change appreciably". Even that statement is false in itself. If a team
is spending the minimum required amount of the salary cap, the rest is
obviously being "pocketed" by the owner. According to your pure idiocy,
the difference between 56% (the minimum) and 100% of the salary cap is not
"appreciable" enough. Whats to stop the owner from spending the rest of
the money on a dynamic free agent.
.
>
> IIRC, it's 90% of the cap. But that's besides the point. There's no
Nope, it's 56% or 57%. Google it up.
> reason to believe that if a team won't spend up to the cap in this
> structure, that they will if the structure changes, and also, very few
> teams consistently spend substantially less than the cap.
>
>> In other words, owner x of team A can decide to only spend
>> 56% of the salary cap on his team, *for as long as he pleases*.
>> He'll be putting his team at a significant disadvantage, but that's
>> his choice to make. Taking that into consideration, your last
>> statement is just plain ridiculous.
>
> LOL! I'm sure you feel that way.
You betcha, moron.
McDuck
quacked:
>
>"jupiter49" <jupiter4...@msn.com> wrote in message
>news:65adndkEmZP...@comcast.com...
>>
>> "AllYou!" <Ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message
>> news:o-idndKEhcU...@conversent.net...
>>>
>>>
>>> The issue isn't *strikes*, the issue is *holdouts*. In a holdout
>> situation, the
>>> player is going back on his word. He's breaking a promise.
>>
>> Christ, you talk about contracts as if they are some Holy Grail to which we
>> should all bow down.
>
>Easy moron, you're making a fool of yourself. All I'm claiming is that a player
>does not have the ethical right to renege on a contract. Anything more you're
>reading into that is as a result of your personal issues and phobias, and not as
>a result of anything I've ever said.
>
Are you the person who claimed that resorting to insults was a sure
sign that the person resorting to insults was losing the debate and
knew it? No insult intended, but I really think that was you.
--McDuck
AllYou!
"Captain Charisma" <Why...@WannaKnow.com> wrote in message
> "AllYou!" <Ida...@conversent.net> wrote in
> news:atydnaxJtoe...@conversent.net:
>
>> Easy moron, all you had to do was ask nicely. Was there something in
>> there you didn't understand and that's got you mad? Here, I'll go
>> more slowly of the intellectually challenged, like you.
>>
>> I'm saying that if a team (e.g., Arizona) is hell bent of spending the
>> least they can (i.e., the floor of the cap), then they will do that
>> under any structure, but that most teams will always spend to the cap
>> limit. Therefore, because of the cap, teams will spend what they
>> spend on players regardless of whether or not there are guaranteed
>> contracts. Therefore, the total amount of money spent on players
>> (i.e., all the money which all 32 teams spend on all the players) will
>> not change. Some players will get more, and others less, but the
>> total will not change appreciably.
>
> I didn't know your original statement came with all these qualifiers,
> dumbass.
Don't blame me because you're so stupid that I had to spell it all out for you,
cumbrain.
> First it was "the total will not change". Now, it's "will not
> change appreciably".
Well, it goes without saying to most people of at least marginal intelligence
that the term *will not change* does not mean any change whatsoever, even down
to the penny. But in having to spell it out for a dimwit like you, I had to add
that qualifier so that you'd not say that I was claiming that everything, right
down to that last penny, would be the same. See, shithead, I had to add that
clarification just for you.
> Even that statement is false in itself. If a team
> is spending the minimum required amount of the salary cap, the rest is
> obviously being "pocketed" by the owner. According to your pure idiocy,
> the difference between 56% (the minimum) and 100% of the salary cap is not
> "appreciable" enough. Whats to stop the owner from spending the rest of
> the money on a dynamic free agent.
No, fuckhead, that's not what I'm saying, and my idiot's guide to what I am
saying was clear enough even for you. I'm saying that if a team is hell-bent on
not spending up to the cap, there's no reason the believe that any change in the
structure of player contracts will cause them to spend any more money. Do you
see it now, cumbrain?
>> IIRC, it's 90% of the cap. But that's besides the point. There's no
>
> Nope, it's 56% or 57%. Google it up.
>
>> reason to believe that if a team won't spend up to the cap in this
>> structure, that they will if the structure changes, and also, very few
>> teams consistently spend substantially less than the cap.
>>
>>> In other words, owner x of team A can decide to only spend
>>> 56% of the salary cap on his team, *for as long as he pleases*.
>>> He'll be putting his team at a significant disadvantage, but that's
>>> his choice to make. Taking that into consideration, your last
>>> statement is just plain ridiculous.
>>
>> LOL! I'm sure you feel that way.
>
> You betcha, moron.
ROTFLMAOWPIMP
AllYou!
It was me, to you. However, my history with the moron in question transcends
this particular thread and so for you to interject yourself with this off-topic
post is really very silly. No offense.
McDuck
quacked:
>McDuck wrote:
>
>> In substance, however, Team A promises to pay Player B $xxx, and the
>> team reserves the right to cut the player and the player promises to
>> perform services and reserves the right not to play at all (but then
>> to lose the right to play for any other NFL team).
>
>So far, it sounds right.
>
>>The bonus money and
>> guarantee are really penalty provisions that come into play if the
>> team elects not to honor the contract.
>
>Nonsense.
>Guarantees have nothing to do with penalties.
>They are upfront money.
You can assert that, but asserting it does not make it true. However
guarantees and bonus get described, they function as penalties (or
damages) for not continuing the contract to term. That is, the bonuses
and guarantees have no practical effect if the contract runs to term
--- the bonus is just an advance payment of a portion of the contract
price, and the guarantee is meaningless. It is only if the contract is
cut short that the bonuses and guarantees come into play. In that
sense, they are the same as the penalties on the players for not
reporting, etc. (which also do not come into play if the contract is
followed).
You seem to give some special significant to the term "upfront money."
But I am talking about functional equivalence, not about terms and
semantics. I agree that "upfront money" is descriptive, but it is not
helpful in ascertaining the function a bonus plays in a contract. That
is, the underlying question is: What function does upfront money play
in protecting a player from early termination of a contract? My
suggested answer is that it serves as a penalty or as damages to the
player for the failure of the team to fulfull the term of the contract
(plus serving as an interest-free loan).
I do not claim that my way of describing the contracts is the only
coherent way. There is some risk sharing involved with bonuses and
guarantees that my model does not fully capture (I discussed risk
sharing in some detail in a different post). But my description is
coherent, and it is better (more complete) than the alternatives I've
seen.
Still, I'd like to actually read the contracts, which I've never done.
It is possible that there are some features of an actual contract that
might upset my functional analysis. But it is not helpful to respond
to a functional analysis by using labels --- you have to show that the
functions are not as described. It certainly is clear in the abstract
that a bonus or guarantee can function as a penalty.
<snip>
>
>> It is not a free market.
>
>I don't think I ever said it's a free market.
>It's a collectively-bargained market.
Okay, if we have no dispute there, fine. But others have been arguing
to the contrary, and I guess I was responding to the wrong person.
Sorry.
>
>> Of course, "exploitation" of football players is not an appealing
>> claim, since they are doing pretty well financially. But the young
>> players are making a lot less than the market wage, so, in that sense,
>> there is exploitation. To say that they can regotiate better terms
>> when the owners have a monopoly position is incorrect.
>
>Their union can renegotiate better terms for the next CBA.
>Which will happen - without regard to the owners' monopoly position.
Yes, I agree. I simply meant that that even with better terms, it will
not be market terms. For entry-level players, it will certainly be
below market by quite a bit. As indicated in other posts, the rookies
do not get well treated either by management or the union because
their rights get bargained away even before they are members of the
union. That is why I have focused on the bad deal for the young
players.
>
>> Well, they do
>> have increased leverage from the last CBA, so I expect they will do a
>> lot better. But they are still dealing with a monopoly and will get a
>> below market wage.
>
>You seem to have some strange sense of what "market wage" means.
>Apparently you equate it to "what salary a top player could get if
>there were no such thing as a salary cap, and everyone was a free agent
>every day".
>
>I guess a professional sports league could exist where every player was
>free to negotiate a new, different contract for every game. But, I'm
>not sure it could be financially stable.
No, I don't know where this "every day" idea came from. Not from me.
One can have a longterm contract and still have a free market. The
price for the longterm contract may differ from what the current
market price might be, but that is not evidence of a lack of a free
market.
You are correct, however, that by free market I do mean that the
players are free to negotiate a deal without a salary cap and without
other restrictions on their right to bargain.
The classical free market (here I'm referring to Econ 101, so I
understand it is unrealistic to some degree) is a market in which
neither the seller or the buyer can have any appreciable effect either
or supply or demand and the price is set by supply and demand. For
example, assume a million wheat farmers and a hundred thousand bread
makers. No farmer affects the price because his contribution to supply
is too small to really matter. And no bread maker can affect the price
because his contribution to demand is too small to matter. The result
is a "free" market where price is set only by supply and demand. That
is, the market price is free to float with changes in supply and
demand.
Now, this model does not fit professional football very well because
the supply of really skilled players is severely limited and the
supply of NFL teams is severely limited and both the owners and the
players conspire to limit supply and demand to some degree. But the
market is relatively free to the extent that the suppliers (the
players) do not control supply and the buyers (the teams) do not
control demand. You get that result with a weak union (which we have)
and a strong anti-trust rule (which we do not have) that prevents
owners from limiting player options.
Or you can simulate the free market result if the player control of
supply is balanced about right with the owners control of demand (that
is, strong union and strong owners or weak union and weak owners).
Anyway, that is, in brief, what I am referring to when I speak of a
free market or a simulated free market. Pretty standard stuff.
One final note --- I do not think a totally free market is desirable
for football or even possible. I was not suggesting that the teams
should have no rules affecting supply and demand. So, we do not have a
disagreement on that point.
But when football salary rules are designed in a way that is
inconsistent with market forces, you will get pressures on the system
--- holdouts, for example, by "underpaid" players. And there are ways
to reduce those pressures, but first one has to understand where they
are coming from. Baseball and hockey, for example, have tried
arbitration as a way to reduce those pressures, although that approach
has had its own set of problems (mostly from flawed application, not
from the general scheme IMHO).
In my view, a salary cap is nuts without strong revenue sharing based
on a realistic measure of revenue. The point should be to give the
players (as a group) a reasonable estimate of their market share (e.g.
55% of revenues, properly calculated) and then improve the competitive
balance of the league (well, equalize initial opportunities for
winning) by having all the teams even at the starting gate. There are
problems with this ideal and some compromises may be needed (e.g., to
prevent teams from sitting on their duffs), but that is the basic
model to shoot for IMHO.
In hockey, we saw the owners lock out the players to get a hard salary
cap, even though the owners did not even have a plan for ANY revenue
sharing. Needless to say, it is a lot easier for owners to agree to
take money from the players than to take money from some of their own
members. The ultimate agreement (which included revenue sharing and a
hard cap and a rollback of existing contracts) obviously was a kick in
the head to the players, but it was a lot better arrangement for
hockey than the deal proposed by the owners. It is no great surprise
that the sticking point for the next CBA in football is about revenue
sharing.
--McDuck
McDuck
quacked:
>
Wrong. I responded in great detail. In brief, you do not have a
contract (an exchange of promises) if one side simply promises to pay
a certain amount over a certain term unless it decided not to do it.
What makes the contract an exchange of promises is that the owners
also agree to pay a penalty (the bonus or guarantee amount) if they do
not keep their promise to pay the agreed amount over the agreed term.
You seem to resist this obvious characterization of the deal because
you do not want to admit that the owners routinely break their promise
to pay a certain amout over a certain term. You see some ethical
component to the promise to pay aside from the contract. But there is
no such ethical component. The owners are not acting badly when they
act, in accordance with the contract, to void the contract and pay the
damages. Nor are the players acting badly when they do the same. In
other words, you want to bifurcate the player's promise from the
agreed penalty but not do the same with the owner's promise. You do
not seem to realize that your approach makes hash of contract law.
Let me add that you did make one correct point, and that is that
people who resort to insults instead of argumentation often do so
because they realize they have lost the argument. That may be why I've
refrained from insulting you, despite severe provocation, whereas you
have resorted to sarcasm and insults as soon as it was clear that your
arguments were not compelling.
--McDuck
McDuck
quacked:
>
>I'm saying that if a team (e.g., Arizona) is hell bent of spending the least
>they can (i.e., the floor of the cap), then they will do that under any
>structure, but that most teams will always spend to the cap limit. Therefore,
>because of the cap, teams will spend what they spend on players regardless of
>whether or not there are guaranteed contracts. Therefore, the total amount of
>money spent on players (i.e., all the money which all 32 teams spend on all the
>players) will not change. Some players will get more, and others less, but the
>total will not change appreciably.
>
The above has to be wrong, at least in practice. Asume a team (AZ)
wants to spend at 60% of the cap. It signs Player X, and, under the
contract with Player X, the contract price in year 3 will put AZ over
60% of the cap. So now it is year 3 and AZ wants to cut Player X. But
to do so will really, really hurt the team. With a hard cap, AZ has no
real choice but to cut Player X (or make some equivalent harmful
move), but this 60% rule is a "soft" cap that AZ can exceed if needed
to keep fans in the seats. So, if the incentive to win is strong, it
will break its soft cap, In practice, it can be expected to do so
routinely.
Now you can assert that I've not accepted you hypo --- that AZ will
treat the soft cap as a hard cap. Bingo --- your hypo is unrealistic.
No one is a "moron" for being unwilling to accept a totally
unrealistic hypo as fact IMHO, and you are at fault for calling
someone a moron for that unwillingness. The simple fact, as I'm sure
you now understand, is that a soft cap is not the same as a hard cap.
--McDuck
AllYou!
> On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 09:08:20 -0400, "AllYou!" <Ida...@conversent.net>
> quacked:
>
>>
>>"jstrazz" <stra...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>>news:1123102029.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>> McDuck wrote:
>>>
>>>> Also, I wonder why you think it is fine and dandy for mangement to
>>>> break its promise to pay its players because they are no longer worth
>>>> the contract price
>>>
>>> Management DOESN'T promise to pay it's players.
>>> Otherwise, it would be a guaranteed contract.
>>> What the contract says is "If you are on the team, then we'll pay you
>>> $X".
>>
>>
>>He'll never get it, and what's more, he;;l never respond to that argument
>>directly. He's much happier just claiming that such a promise was made, and
>>going from there.
>
> Wrong. I responded in great detail. In brief, you do not have a
> contract (an exchange of promises) if one side simply promises to pay
> a certain amount over a certain term unless it decided not to do it.
That's not the contract. The contract is that the team has the right to utilize
the services of the player if it chooses, and if it does, if will pay the player
a pre-determined amount of money, and if it doesn't, it will relinquish it's
rights. And most often, in return for securing those rights, the player is paid
a bonus.
Those two things, the bonus, and the predetermination of the salary if the team
chooses to exercise it's rights are exactly what makes it a valid contract, and
the most recent court case with R. Williams, plus the fact that no player has
ever had a contract voided in the courts, no matter how dissatisfied he is,
proves that your position that it's not a valid contract is simply not the case.
> What makes the contract an exchange of promises is that the owners
> also agree to pay a penalty (the bonus or guarantee amount) if they do
> not keep their promise to pay the agreed amount over the agreed term.
The bonus is a penalty? That's rich! The bonus is what the player receives in
return for conveying his playing rights to the team. That's what makes it a
contract. You've got to be the only person who's ever claimed that the bonus is
a penalty. That's one for the books.
> You seem to resist this obvious characterization of the deal because
> you do not want to admit that the owners routinely break their promise
> to pay a certain amout over a certain term.
I reject your characterization of the deal because to claim that a bonus is a
penalty is bogus enough on it's face, but also because no player has ever so
much as sought to claim that the contract was not valid, as well as because the
bonus was clearly paid and received in return for a conveyance of rights to the
team.
> You see some ethical
> component to the promise to pay aside from the contract.
No, I see an ethical component to both parties of the contract, and that when a
player fails to fulfill his commitment with a holdout, he's committed and
contractual and ethical breach, but when the team cuts him, because that was an
option which the player conveyed to the team in the contract, it's not an
ethical or contractual breach.
> But there is
> no such ethical component. The owners are not acting badly when they
> act, in accordance with the contract, to void the contract and pay the
> damages.
Pay damages? The bonus was already paid. Are you claiming that the bonus is
not only damages, but it's paid in anticipation that they'll breach the
contract? So what happens if the player plays out his contract? Does the
player have to reimburse the team because they didn't breach? Or does the bonus
suddenly become something else? Man, you're getting pretty desperate now. A
bonus is a penalty paid in advance of a breach, but if no breach is committed,
it's just compensation. Is that it?
> Nor are the players acting badly when they do the same.
Sure they are. In return for money, they promised to play at the teams behest
for a predetermined salary. They cashed the bonus check, but then renege on the
promise. That's an ethical breach if ever there was one, and in the R. Williams
case, the courts said as much.
> In
> other words, you want to bifurcate the player's promise from the
> agreed penalty but not do the same with the owner's promise. You do
> not seem to realize that your approach makes hash of contract law.
Penalty. You mean bonus? LOL!
>
> Let me add that you did make one correct point, and that is that
> people who resort to insults instead of argumentation often do so
> because they realize they have lost the argument. That may be why I've
> refrained from insulting you, despite severe provocation, whereas you
> have resorted to sarcasm and insults as soon as it was clear that your
> arguments were not compelling.
Bonus = Penalty = Time + Bonus = Compensation.
Rich. Very rich.
AllYou!
> On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 09:20:57 -0400, "AllYou!" <Ida...@conversent.net>
> quacked:
>
>
>>
>>I'm saying that if a team (e.g., Arizona) is hell bent of spending the least
>>they can (i.e., the floor of the cap), then they will do that under any
>>structure, but that most teams will always spend to the cap limit. Therefore,
>>because of the cap, teams will spend what they spend on players regardless of
>>whether or not there are guaranteed contracts. Therefore, the total amount of
>>money spent on players (i.e., all the money which all 32 teams spend on all
>>the
>>players) will not change. Some players will get more, and others less, but
>>the
>>total will not change appreciably.
>>
First of all, the floor is 90% of the cap, not 52%.
> The above has to be wrong, at least in practice. Asume a team (AZ)
> wants to spend at 60% of the cap. It signs Player X, and, under the
> contract with Player X, the contract price in year 3 will put AZ over
> 60% of the cap. So now it is year 3 and AZ wants to cut Player X. But
> to do so will really, really hurt the team. With a hard cap, AZ has no
> real choice but to cut Player X (or make some equivalent harmful
> move), but this 60% rule is a "soft" cap that AZ can exceed if needed
> to keep fans in the seats. So, if the incentive to win is strong, it
> will break its soft cap, In practice, it can be expected to do so
> routinely.
That's not the point. Any team can spend up to the cap, and virtually all teams
do. The only point here is that if a team is determined to stay under the cap
because they're cheap, or for whatever reason, there's no reason toe believe
that if the CBA were to suddenly include the provision that all newly negotiated
contracts must be guaranteed, that these cheap teams would suddenly spend more
than what they had already determined they would spend.
But because hardly any tems routinely do this anyway, it's all just a sideshow.
jstrazz
> >Nonsense.
> >Guarantees have nothing to do with penalties.
> >They are upfront money.
>
> You can assert that, but asserting it does not make it true. However
> guarantees and bonus get described, they function as penalties (or
> damages) for not continuing the contract to term.
Again, this is nonsense.
For them to function as "penalties", they would have to apply ONLY when
someone is being penalized.
Guarantees give the player money no matter what.
Bonuses give the player money, often up front, sometimes in response to
an achievement, never due to a penalty.
> You seem to give some special significant to the term "upfront money."
> But I am talking about functional equivalence, not about terms and
> semantics. I agree that "upfront money" is descriptive, but it is not
> helpful in ascertaining the function a bonus plays in a contract. That
> is, the underlying question is: What function does upfront money play
> in protecting a player from early termination of a contract? My
> suggested answer is that it serves as a penalty or as damages to the
> player for the failure of the team to fulfull the term of the contract
> (plus serving as an interest-free loan).
Up front money does not protect a player from early termination.
It's a sunk cost.
For up front money to have any protection/penalty value, it would only
kick in when a player is cut before the contract expires.
Perhaps you have heard of a case where up front money isn't actually
paid up front, but I haven't.
>
> I do not claim that my way of describing the contracts is the only
> coherent way.
For me, at least, it's not coherent at all!
> It is no great surprise
> that the sticking point for the next CBA in football is about revenue
> sharing.
You are confusing an owner-important item (revenue sharing) with a
player-important item (the next CBA).
The owners want to agree on modifications to revenue sharing, before
they tackle the details of the next CBA.
The players could not care less if there is more or less revenue
sharing, as long as more money is available to them in the CBA.
McDuck
quacked:
>
>"McDuck" <wallymcdu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:k7f4f1hnqgr3bt7rp...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 09:20:57 -0400, "AllYou!" <Ida...@conversent.net>
>> quacked:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>I'm saying that if a team (e.g., Arizona) is hell bent of spending the least
>>>they can (i.e., the floor of the cap), then they will do that under any
>>>structure, but that most teams will always spend to the cap limit. Therefore,
>>>because of the cap, teams will spend what they spend on players regardless of
>>>whether or not there are guaranteed contracts. Therefore, the total amount of
>>>money spent on players (i.e., all the money which all 32 teams spend on all
>>>the
>>>players) will not change. Some players will get more, and others less, but
>>>the
>>>total will not change appreciably.
>>>
>
>First of all, the floor is 90% of the cap, not 52%.
I assume you are responding to someone else, as I made no statement
about the amount of the floor. My understanding is that the floor is
85% (56%/65.5%), but I could be wrong.
>
>> The above has to be wrong, at least in practice. Asume a team (AZ)
>> wants to spend at 60% of the cap. It signs Player X, and, under the
>> contract with Player X, the contract price in year 3 will put AZ over
>> 60% of the cap. So now it is year 3 and AZ wants to cut Player X. But
>> to do so will really, really hurt the team. With a hard cap, AZ has no
>> real choice but to cut Player X (or make some equivalent harmful
>> move), but this 60% rule is a "soft" cap that AZ can exceed if needed
>> to keep fans in the seats. So, if the incentive to win is strong, it
>> will break its soft cap, In practice, it can be expected to do so
>> routinely.
>
>That's not the point. Any team can spend up to the cap, and virtually all teams
>do.
The topic under discussion is the effect on teams that do not spend up
to the cap. So the effect on a team not wanting to spend up to the cap
is exactly the point.
>The only point here is that if a team is determined to stay under the cap
>because they're cheap, or for whatever reason, there's no reason toe believe
>that if the CBA were to suddenly include the provision that all newly negotiated
>contracts must be guaranteed, that these cheap teams would suddenly spend more
>than what they had already determined they would spend.
And I just gave you a very good reason (the implication of a soft vs
hard cap) for thinking you may be wrong. So why not try to respond to
that reason?
>
>But because hardly any tems routinely do this anyway, it's all just a sideshow.
I mostly agree with this --- that most teams treat the cap as both the
cap and the floor for all practical purposes. But you are the one who
brought up the "sideshow" and called someone a moron for rejecting
your understanding of the implications of that sideshow.
--McDuck
AllYou!
The topic under discussion is why the NFLPA doesn't go to the mat on this issue,
and to that point, it's because the most that would happen is that money would
get distributed to players differently, but that there's only a highly
speculative argument that it would increase the total amount of money to the
players. In fact, because teams would be much more careful with their offers,
there's just as valid an argument that teams would find themselves spending
slightly less than they would under the existing system.
>>The only point here is that if a team is determined to stay under the cap
>>because they're cheap, or for whatever reason, there's no reason toe believe
>>that if the CBA were to suddenly include the provision that all newly
>>negotiated
>>contracts must be guaranteed, that these cheap teams would suddenly spend more
>>than what they had already determined they would spend.
>
> And I just gave you a very good reason (the implication of a soft vs
> hard cap) for thinking you may be wrong. So why not try to respond to
> that reason?
What reason? There's simply no good argument to make to the effect that if
contracts were guaranteed, the very few teams who are currently cheap would be
any less cheap. If you have an argument to make for that case as to
specifically why the new paradigm would lead to any such change, please make it.
>>But because hardly any tems routinely do this anyway, it's all just a
>>sideshow.
>
> I mostly agree with this --- that most teams treat the cap as both the
> cap and the floor for all practical purposes. But you are the one who
> brought up the "sideshow" and called someone a moron for rejecting
> your understanding of the implications of that sideshow.
No, I called him a moron because he's a moron and because he, like you, have
never made any argument as to whit is would be about guaranteed contracts which
would suddenly make cheap teams spend more than they do now.
AllYou!
me for emphasis)
11. SKILL, PERFORMANCE AND CONDUCT. Player understands that he is competing with
other players for a position on Club's roster within the applicable player
limits. If at any time, *in the sole judgment of Club*, Player's skill or
performance has been unsatisfactory as compared with that of other players
competing for positions on Club's roster, or if Player has engaged in personal
conduct reasonably judged by Club to adversely affect or reflect on Club, then
*Club may terminate this contract*. In addition, during the period any salary
cap is legally in effect, this contract may be terminated if, *in Club's
opinion*, Player is anticipated to make less of a contribution to Club's ability
to compete on the playing field than another player or players whom Club intends
to sign or attempts to sign, or another player or players who is or are already
on Club's roster, and for whom Club needs room.
There it is boys......the clear understanding is that the Club can terminate the
services of any player essentially for any reason. And there's nothing anywhere
in the standard contract which states that if the team does this, they pay any
sort of penalty whatsoever.
Therefore, both sides know in plain English that the Club can terminate the
contract at any time. Moreover, no such language exists giving the player any
such option. In fact, there's all sorts of language, including the following,
in which the player *promises* to play for the club.
Club employs Player as a skilled football player. Player accepts such
employment. He agrees to give his best efforts and loyalty to the Club, and to
conduct himself on and off the field with appropriate recognition of the fact
that the success of professional football depends largely on public respect for
and approval of those associated with the game. Player will report promptly for
and participate fully in Club's official mandatory minicamp(s), official
preseason training camp, all Club meetings and practice sessions, and all
preseason, regular season and postseason football games scheduled for or by
Club.
Pretty simple stuff.
AllYou!
In case you missed it, this came from the NFLPA. It's excepts from a standard
NFL contract:
(asterisks added by me for emphasis)
11. SKILL, PERFORMANCE AND CONDUCT. Player understands that he is competing with
other players for a position on Club's roster within the applicable player
limits. If at any time, *in the sole judgment of Club*, Player's skill or
performance has been unsatisfactory as compared with that of other players
competing for positions on Club's roster, or if Player has engaged in personal
conduct reasonably judged by Club to adversely affect or reflect on Club, then
*Club may terminate this contract*. In addition, during the period any salary
cap is legally in effect, this contract may be terminated if, *in Club's
opinion*, Player is anticipated to make less of a contribution to Club's ability
to compete on the playing field than another player or players whom Club intends
to sign or attempts to sign, or another player or players who is or are already
on Club's roster, and for whom Club needs room.
So there it is, in writing. No where else in the contract is there any
provision for the player be able to hold out, yet there it is, in it's full
glory, that the team has the option to terminate the contract *essentially* at
will.
If there were some mutual expectation that either the player or the team could
break a promise, why are the circumstances under which the team can terminate
the contract so plainly written, and nothing like that for the player?
Both sides know in plain English that the Club can terminate the contract at any
time. Moreover, no such language exists giving the player any such option. In
fact, there's all sorts of language, including the following, in which the
player *agrees* to play for the club.
Club employs Player as a skilled football player. Player accepts such
employment. He agrees to give his best efforts and loyalty to the Club, and to
conduct himself on and off the field with appropriate recognition of the fact
that the success of professional football depends largely on public respect for
and approval of those associated with the game. Player will report promptly for
and participate fully in Club's official mandatory minicamp(s), official
preseason training camp, all Club meetings and practice sessions, and all
preseason, regular season and postseason football games scheduled for or by
Club.
That last provision is obviously for the term of the contract, so the player
agrees to do just that, and nowhere is there any mention to the contrary.
Pretty simple stuff.
Hobbes
> There it is boys......the clear understanding is that the Club can
> terminate the services of any player essentially for any reason. And
> there's nothing anywhere in the standard contract which states that
> if the team does this, they pay any sort of penalty whatsoever.
Of interest to me were the following:
1) They were referred to as "clubs" and not "corporations". Kind of
supports my thought that the owners are more like franchisees than anything
else.
2) In most states, there is something called "right to work". A company
can fire you with or without cause. Interestingly, a "club" cannot fire
you without cause; and they further define what "cause" is.
--
___________________
Klecko's Komrades
Rocking it live in 2005
Miguel
>>>
>>> 4) Cutting players with huge salaries due to be paid them does not save
>>> a team any money. Almost always, the money saved is for cap reasons
>>> which means that it's spent on other players. The players, as a whole,
>>> lose nothing, and the teams gain nothing. It's a zero sum game.
>>
>> This is not always true. If a team is over the cap before the cap
>> deadline, they will typically release players with high salaries. That
>> money is not spent on other players. See Ty Law and Troy Brown this year.
>
> you missed the point. The point is that teams that cutting players with
> huge salaries doesn't save the team money (in virtually all cases). The
> fact that they have to get under the cap is a given, and so cutting
> players with huge salaries is what allows them to sign other players or to
> keep other current players. IOW, one way or another, the team will spend
> what they spend, and most spend up to the cap. You're splitting hairs
> here that have nothing to do with the point being made.
We will have to agree to disagree on if cutting players is indeed a zero sum
game. I believe that it is not.
--
In order to help out the Bread of Life, I am giving them my season tickets
to 9 of the 10 games. I am keeping the tickets to the Colts game. My tickets
are in Section 339. The Bread of Life will be holding a silent auction
sometime in August at the DockSide Restaurant which is in Malden, Ma. If you
are interested in placing a bid and can't attend, you can place your bid
with Mea Quinn Mustone at meamu...@yahoo.com and she will write your name
down. Good luck.
jupiter49
>
> "jupiter49" <jupiter4...@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:65adndkEmZP...@comcast.com...
> >
> > "AllYou!" <Ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message
> > news:o-idndKEhcU...@conversent.net...
> >>
> >>
> >> The issue isn't *strikes*, the issue is *holdouts*. In a holdout
> > situation, the
> >> player is going back on his word. He's breaking a promise.
> >
> > Christ, you talk about contracts as if they are some Holy Grail to which
we
> > should all bow down.
>
> Easy moron, you're making a fool of yourself. All I'm claiming is that a
player
> does not have the ethical right to renege on a contract.
Wonder if the contract is no longer ethical, or never was ethical, only got
written badly and agreed to under duress?
jupiter49
Yeh, you're so damned ethical that you can transcend your own rules of
conduct in a thread where you damn players for transcending ethical rules of
conduct.
McDuck
quacked:
Thanks for looking up the contract language. It is pretty much what we
have all been assuming in our discussion.
--McDuck
McDuck
quacked:
I provided you (see above) with an example showing the likely
difference in conduct of a team under a soft cap (the floor) and a
hard cap (the ceiling). If you have some question about it, ask away.
But your bluster gives the impression either that you do not
understand the example or are unwilling to admit error. Neither gets
you a lot of points.
By the way, can you give me a link for your 90% claim? Why isn't the
floor 85% of the cap? Have I done the arithmetic wrong, or is my
formula wrong? Or do you agree with my number?
--McDuck
N
<wallymcdu...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>He'll never get it, and what's more, he;;l never respond to that argument
>>directly. He's much happier just claiming that such a promise was made, and
>>going from there.
>
>Wrong. I responded in great detail. In brief, you do not have a
>contract (an exchange of promises) if one side simply promises to pay
>a certain amount over a certain term unless it decided not to do it.
AllYou! was right!
NK
AllYou!
It's very difficult to figure out exactly what you're asking here, but if you're
implying that a free agent signs a contract under duress, you'll have to make
that case for yourself.
AllYou!
What's unethical about calling you a moron?
AllYou!
LOL! That's pretty funny. Actually, that language is inconsistent with your
position. Explicitly stated in the contract is the option that the team can
terminate it any time they wish, but no where in the contract is it stated that
the player can withhold his services. That's pretty convincing evidence that
your position is simply a failed one.
AllYou!
"Miguel" <migueli...@patsfans.com> wrote in message
news:q7yIe.13743$MO.4136@lakeread04...
>
> "AllYou!" <Ida...@conversent.net> wrote in message
> news:mtSdnZ2dnZ33qMiwnZ2dn...@conversent.net...
>>>>
>>>> 4) Cutting players with huge salaries due to be paid them does not save a
>>>> team any money. Almost always, the money saved is for cap reasons which
>>>> means that it's spent on other players. The players, as a whole, lose
>>>> nothing, and the teams gain nothing. It's a zero sum game.
>>>
>>> This is not always true. If a team is over the cap before the cap deadline,
>>> they will typically release players with high salaries. That money is not
>>> spent on other players. See Ty Law and Troy Brown this year.
>>
>> you missed the point. The point is that teams that cutting players with huge
>> salaries doesn't save the team money (in virtually all cases). The fact that
>> they have to get under the cap is a given, and so cutting players with huge
>> salaries is what allows them to sign other players or to keep other current
>> players. IOW, one way or another, the team will spend what they spend, and
>> most spend up to the cap. You're splitting hairs here that have nothing to
>> do with the point being made.
>
> We will have to agree to disagree on if cutting players is indeed a zero sum
> game. I believe that it is not.
That statement purposefully mischaracterizes my position.
AllYou!
Sure, but you never made the case how the new paradigm (mandatory guaranteed
contracts v. the current system) would affect how a team spends. You seem to be
great at providing responses, but very many of them have nothing to do with the
comments to which you're responding.
> But your bluster gives the impression either that you do not
> understand the example or are unwilling to admit error. Neither gets
> you a lot of points.
I'm not after any points. See where I say that "If you have an argument to make
for that case as to specifically why the new paradigm would lead to any such
change, please make it."? You've never addressed *that* situation.
FE
news:XNvIe.1308$646...@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
> AllYou! wrote:
>> There it is boys......the clear understanding is that the Club can
>> terminate the services of any player essentially for any reason. And
>> there's nothing anywhere in the standard contract which states that
>> if the team does this, they pay any sort of penalty whatsoever.
>
>
> Of interest to me were the following:
>
> 1) They were referred to as "clubs" and not "corporations". Kind of
> supports my thought that the owners are more like franchisees than
> anything else.
That seems logical to me. The NFL is a corporation and the teams are
franchisees. That's why an NFL team is called a "franchise," right?
> 2) In most states, there is something called "right to work". A company
> can fire you with or without cause. Interestingly, a "club" cannot fire
> you without cause; and they further define what "cause" is.
In Texas it's called "work at will" or "at will." It's not that the company
can fire you without cause, it's that the "cause" is up to the discretion of
the company. Still, even in a "right to work" or "at will" state, a company
can fire you because they don't like your attitude, but they can't fire you
because you're Irish or becaue you're a woman or because you're trying to
become a woman or because you're a Scientologist or because you're a Jets
fan. Well, maybe that last one is ok.
John C (tx)
AllYou!
"Hobbes" <Hob...@CalvinBall.gov> wrote in message
news:XNvIe.1308$646...@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
>> There it is boys......the clear understanding is that the Club can
>> terminate the services of any player essentially for any reason. And
>> there's nothing anywhere in the standard contract which states that
>> if the team does this, they pay any sort of penalty whatsoever.
>
>
> Of interest to me were the following:
>
> 1) They were referred to as "clubs" and not "corporations". Kind of
> supports my thought that the owners are more like franchisees than anything
> else.
Well, I'm not sure the NFL knows or cares if they are corporations. To the NFL,
thay are a club. But you're right that they are also a franchise of the NFL.
Those two are not mutually exclusive, and so I'm not sure of your point.
> 2) In most states, there is something called "right to work". A company can
> fire you with or without cause. Interestingly, a "club" cannot fire you
> without cause; and they further define what "cause" is.
Even in right to work states, if a company and a person enter into some sort of
employment contract, then that contract can further limit the circumstances
under which the employer can fire the employee. That's true of all union
circumstances. IOW, the employer has the right to fire an employee at will, but
also has the right to agree with the employee that he won't do so.
Hobbes
>> 1) They were referred to as "clubs" and not "corporations". Kind
>> of supports my thought that the owners are more like franchisees than
>> anything else.
>
> That seems logical to me. The NFL is a corporation and the teams are
> franchisees. That's why an NFL team is called a "franchise," right?
That's true - I totally forgot about that. They do also refer to each club
as a franchise.
> In Texas it's called "work at will" or "at will." It's not that the
> company can fire you without cause, it's that the "cause" is up to
> the discretion of the company. Still, even in a "right to work" or
> "at will" state, a company can fire you because they don't like your
> attitude, but they can't fire you because you're Irish or becaue
> you're a woman or because you're trying to become a woman or because
> you're a Scientologist or because you're a Jets fan. Well, maybe that
> last one is ok.
Funny you should mention that. Here in GA, it made the news that SaveRite
/ WinnDixie fired some guy and his wife because the guy was a cross dresser
on his own time, off company property. Some Winn-Dixie employee saw the
guy and his wife at a bar or restaurant, IIRC, and reported it to WD; at
which point WD fired the husband and the wife. I suspect a law suit will
come out of this.
Hobbes
> "Hobbes" <Hob...@CalvinBall.gov> wrote in message
>> of supports my thought that the owners are more like franchisees
>> than anything else.
>
> Well, I'm not sure the NFL knows or cares if they are corporations. To the
> NFL, thay are a club. But you're right that they are also a
> franchise of the NFL. Those two are not mutually exclusive, and so
> I'm not sure of your point.
Here is where I am going with this. Let's say you work at a Pizza Hut; and
decide to go out drinking and eat the pizza instead of deliver it. So,
when you stagger back into the Pizza Hut they fire you. That was one Pizza
Hut franchise owner firing you. I do not think you can go 2 miles down the
street and apply to work for the next Pizza Hut. I think you are now no
longer able to work for Pizza Hut.
If that theory is true, let's apply it to NFL. Let's say Seymour violates
his contract and is fired from the NWE franchise. Should that preclude him
from applying for work at the NYJ franchise?
> Even in right to work states, if a company and a person enter into
> some sort of employment contract, then that contract can further
> limit the circumstances under which the employer can fire the
> employee. That's true of all union circumstances. IOW, the employer
> has the right to fire an employee at will, but also has the right to
> agree with the employee that he won't do so.
But if the NFL and the NFLPA both approved Seymour's contract, and Seymour
signed it; then I think the NFL should be allowed to ban Seymour from *any*
NFL franchise if they fire him for violation of contract.
AllYou!
"Hobbes" <Hob...@CalvinBall.gov> wrote in message
> AllYou! wrote:
>> "Hobbes" <Hob...@CalvinBall.gov> wrote in message
>>> 1) They were referred to as "clubs" and not "corporations". Kind
>>> of supports my thought that the owners are more like franchisees
>>> than anything else.
>>
>> Well, I'm not sure the NFL knows or cares if they are corporations. To the
>> NFL, thay are a club. But you're right that they are also a
>> franchise of the NFL. Those two are not mutually exclusive, and so
>> I'm not sure of your point.
>
> Here is where I am going with this. Let's say you work at a Pizza Hut; and
> decide to go out drinking and eat the pizza instead of deliver it. So, when
> you stagger back into the Pizza Hut they fire you. That was one Pizza Hut
> franchise owner firing you. I do not think you can go 2 miles down the street
> and apply to work for the next Pizza Hut. I think you are now no longer able
> to work for Pizza Hut.
I don't know if Pizza Hut has that policy or not.
> If that theory is true, let's apply it to NFL. Let's say Seymour violates
> his contract and is fired from the NWE franchise. Should that preclude him
> from applying for work at the NYJ franchise?
Well, there's the CBA to consider here because all player contracts also include
all of the provisions of the CBA. If a team outright fires (cuts) a player,
then that player *is* allowed to work for another team. However, the Pats would
not fire a player for holding out because under the CBA, not only do the Pats
not have to pay the player, but the rights to the player still belong to the
team and get extended for the term of the holdout. Now, that's a simplification
of what goes on, but that's the gist of it.
So in that case, there's no reason to fire (cut) the player because there's
nothing for the team to gain in doing so, and a whole lot to lose (e.g., he
plays for another team).
>> Even in right to work states, if a company and a person enter into
>> some sort of employment contract, then that contract can further
>> limit the circumstances under which the employer can fire the
>> employee. That's true of all union circumstances. IOW, the employer
>> has the right to fire an employee at will, but also has the right to
>> agree with the employee that he won't do so.
>
> But if the NFL and the NFLPA both approved Seymour's contract, and Seymour
> signed it; then I think the NFL should be allowed to ban Seymour from *any*
> NFL franchise if they fire him for violation of contract.
And they do, except that there's no need to fire a guy who doesn't show up.
Hobbes
> "Hobbes" <Hob...@CalvinBall.gov> wrote in message
>> Hut; and decide to go out drinking and eat the pizza instead of
>> deliver it. So, when you stagger back into the Pizza Hut they fire
>> you. That was one Pizza Hut franchise owner firing you. I do not
>> think you can go 2 miles down the street and apply to work for the
>> next Pizza Hut. I think you are now no longer able to work for
>> Pizza Hut.
>
> I don't know if Pizza Hut has that policy or not.
I am just assuming. Actually, when I was at United Technologies and was a
Union Chief Steward; we fought grievances now and then where someone might
get fired from one division and want to know why they could not work at
another. So, this example could have been UTC. People who got fired at
Sikorsky Aircraft would be denied the right to work at Pratt & Whitney
Aircraft. I picked Pizza Hut only because it was an actual franchise.
> Well, there's the CBA to consider here because all player contracts
> also include all of the provisions of the CBA. If a team outright
> fires (cuts) a player, then that player *is* allowed to work for
> another team. However, the Pats would not fire a player for holding
> out because under the CBA, not only do the Pats not have to pay the
> player, but the rights to the player still belong to the team and get
> extended for the term of the holdout. Now, that's a simplification
> of what goes on, but that's the gist of it.
So, NWE could have refused to pay Seymour, and Seymour could not go to
another club? They should have just done that, then. Would they have lost
a roster spot while Seymour was on strike?
> So in that case, there's no reason to fire (cut) the player because
> there's nothing for the team to gain in doing so, and a whole lot to
> lose (e.g., he plays for another team).
Gotcha.
>> But if the NFL and the NFLPA both approved Seymour's contract, and
>> Seymour signed it; then I think the NFL should be allowed to ban
>> Seymour from *any* NFL franchise if they fire him for violation of
>> contract.
>
> And they do, except that there's no need to fire a guy who doesn't
> show up.
As long as they do not lose a roster spot, I guess your way makes way more
sense. Just stop paying him, start fining him, and find a replacement
player.
AllYou!
"Hobbes" <Hob...@CalvinBall.gov> wrote in message
IIRC, it all depends upon what list they put him on, but they certainly had some
options open to them. But the reasons they caved are two, IMO......first, they
also realized that he was being woefully underpaid, and second is that they very
much wanted him on the field, especially with the departures of the Ted's.
Hobbes
> IIRC, it all depends upon what list they put him on, but they
> certainly had some options open to them. But the reasons they caved
> are two, IMO......first, they also realized that he was being
> woefully underpaid, and second is that they very much wanted him on
> the field, especially with the departures of the Ted's.
Which frustrated me too. I felt he was taking advantage of a bad situation.
I had no idea he was underpaid. What was he being paid? What are others at
his position (with roughly his length of service) being paid at other
franchises? Kraftard is not cheap, by any means. Gillette is proof
positive of that; as are other things he does with his money.
MZ
> decide to go out drinking and eat the pizza instead of deliver it. So,
> when you stagger back into the Pizza Hut they fire you. That was one Pizza
> Hut franchise owner firing you. I do not think you can go 2 miles down the
> street and apply to work for the next Pizza Hut. I think you are now no
> longer able to work for Pizza Hut.
>
> If that theory is true, let's apply it to NFL. Let's say Seymour violates
> his contract and is fired from the NWE franchise. Should that preclude him
> from applying for work at the NYJ franchise?
It doesn't matter if that theory is true. If Pizza Hut required all its
franchises to follow certain rules (which it does), and if one of those
rules was that another Pizza Hut can't hire the guy, then it's not
trampling on the free market as McDouche is suggesting.
D-word
> "ray o'hara" <r...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:WN2dnQopCcA...@comcast.com...
> >
> > "D-word" <yank_e...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1123101365....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> AllYou! wrote:
> >>
> >> > I don't see them as the same, and made that quite clear. I do see a
> > strike as
> >> > perfectly legitimate, whereas a holdout is not. That's why I drew the
> >> > distinction.
> >>
> >>
> >> It is entirely clear that you don't see them that way. How would an
> >> individual stopping work to gain a better contract be different when
> >> the same thing is done collectively?
> >>
> >
> > because he doesn't see it that way. and he is the arbiter of what a
> > situation is.
>
> Translation, your hopelessly lost in any one-on-one debate with me,
I don't see it that way. LOL.
You are spinning to avoid the inevitable erroneousness of your
position. You have been caught in the act of differentiating between
two like things for no rational reason, and now you are trying to
explain how a holdout isn't the same thing as a stike. I on the other
hand, am laughing at you (knowing that you are wrong). I've already
made the case for it (they differ only by scale). I am waiting for a
cogent reply, not just spin.
AllYou! wrote: "I don't see them as the same, and made that quite
clear. I do see a strike as perfectly legitimate, whereas a holdout is
not. That's why I drew the distinction."
So, aside from the fact that you don't, "See it that way," WHY are
they not the same?
McDuck
Right to work is about whether you have to join (or pay equivalent
due) to a union. It has nothing to do with at will contracts.
--McDuck
McDuck
>"Hobbes" <Hob...@CalvinBall.gov> wrote in message
>news:XNvIe.1308$646...@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
>> AllYou! wrote:
>>> There it is boys......the clear understanding is that the Club can
>>> terminate the services of any player essentially for any reason. And
>>> there's nothing anywhere in the standard contract which states that
>>> if the team does this, they pay any sort of penalty whatsoever.
No, the contract states clearly the reasons. The reasons are very
broad and will apply in most cases, but there are stated reasons. If
there were no stated reasons, the validity of the contract would be
brought into question. Maybe you should ask yourself, why did the
contract give detailed reasons instead of just saying, as you
initially said, you can e cut for ANY reason. The answer is the one I
gave.
>>
>>
>> Of interest to me were the following:
>>
>> 1) They were referred to as "clubs" and not "corporations". Kind of
>> supports my thought that the owners are more like franchisees than
>> anything else.
The are both clubs and corporations. And the club is sometimes
referred to as a franchise. As far as I know, those labels have no
legal significance.
>
>That seems logical to me. The NFL is a corporation and the teams are
>franchisees. That's why an NFL team is called a "franchise," right?
>
No, not right.
By the way, lotes of franchises in more normal business are
independent corporations. And the rules are mixed. I've not looked in
a long time, but many years ago, Dominos had some franchises owed by
the company and some independent companies.
--McDuck
AllYou!
As I posted oh so long ago.........
No. A strike is when all of the members of a union refuse to work until they
get a union contract to their satisfaction. A wildcat strike is when all, or at
least many of the members of a union stop working even though a union contract
is in place.
A holdout, in the NFL, is someone who unilaterally, doesn't work even though
he's got a contract to do so.
See? A holdout is when there's both a valid contract and CBA in place.
However, in an NFL strike, it occurs when there's no CBA in effect, and the
language of every contract recognizes that possibility.
McDuck
quacked:
>
>"Hobbes" <Hob...@CalvinBall.gov> wrote in message
>news:uQMIe.30$bV2...@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
>> AllYou! wrote:
>>> "Hobbes" <Hob...@CalvinBall.gov> wrote in message
>>>> 1) They were referred to as "clubs" and not "corporations". Kind
>>>> of supports my thought that the owners are more like franchisees
>>>> than anything else.
>>>
>>> Well, I'm not sure the NFL knows or cares if they are corporations. To the
>>> NFL, thay are a club. But you're right that they are also a
>>> franchise of the NFL. Those two are not mutually exclusive, and so
>>> I'm not sure of your point.
>>
>> Here is where I am going with this. Let's say you work at a Pizza Hut; and
>> decide to go out drinking and eat the pizza instead of deliver it. So, when
>> you stagger back into the Pizza Hut they fire you. That was one Pizza Hut
>> franchise owner firing you. I do not think you can go 2 miles down the street
>> and apply to work for the next Pizza Hut. I think you are now no longer able
>> to work for Pizza Hut.
>
>I don't know if Pizza Hut has that policy or not.
I don't know either, but I doubt it. As you know, Pizza Hut used to be
owned by Pepsi and is now owned by Yum! Brands, Inc. The legal
relationships with franchises are complex. A little less that a
quarter of the stores are owned by the company, and the rest are
either independently owned or Yum has a minority interest. In most
caes an independent company will own several franchises, sometimes a
boatload of them. Indeed, some of the franchises are themselves traded
on a stock exchange.
Yum has a lot of policies, etc., that each franchise must follow, but
each franchise is subject separately to labor laws, antitrust laws,
etc. The fact that it is a franchise of Pizza Hut give it no special
legal protection. My guess is that, as a practical matter, the
franchises would share some employment information, so I can imaging
an employee getting blackballed. But I doubt that they could legally
blackball someone. As far as I know, none of the Pizza Hut workers are
unionized. Most work for minimum wages, and over 3/4 are part-time
workers. There is on-going litigation about their employment practices
--- Yum says it expects to wein on appeal <g>.
>
>> If that theory is true, let's apply it to NFL. Let's say Seymour violates
>> his contract and is fired from the NWE franchise. Should that preclude him
>> from applying for work at the NYJ franchise?
>
>Well, there's the CBA to consider here because all player contracts also include
>all of the provisions of the CBA. If a team outright fires (cuts) a player,
>then that player *is* allowed to work for another team. However, the Pats would
>not fire a player for holding out because under the CBA, not only do the Pats
>not have to pay the player, but the rights to the player still belong to the
>team and get extended for the term of the holdout. Now, that's a simplification
>of what goes on, but that's the gist of it.
>
>So in that case, there's no reason to fire (cut) the player because there's
>nothing for the team to gain in doing so, and a whole lot to lose (e.g., he
>plays for another team).
I agree.
>
>>> Even in right to work states, if a company and a person enter into
>>> some sort of employment contract, then that contract can further
>>> limit the circumstances under which the employer can fire the
>>> employee. That's true of all union circumstances. IOW, the employer
>>> has the right to fire an employee at will, but also has the right to
>>> agree with the employee that he won't do so.
>>
>> But if the NFL and the NFLPA both approved Seymour's contract, and Seymour
>> signed it; then I think the NFL should be allowed to ban Seymour from *any*
>> NFL franchise if they fire him for violation of contract.
>
>And they do, except that there's no need to fire a guy who doesn't show up.
As you said, the teams can do what they are allowed to do under the
CBA. Pizza Hut employees do not have union protection. But the
franchises also do not have any exemption from the antitrust laws.
they cannot conspire together to control a market --- to agree, for
example, to pay only the minimum wage or to require uncompensated
overtime.
Interestingly, the Pizza Hut's code of conduct specifically provides
that the franchises will obey the Constitution and will not enter into
personal service contracts in violation of the 13th Amendment.
--McDuck
jupiter49
>
>
> > Yeh, you're so damned ethical that you can transcend your own rules of
> > conduct in a thread where you damn players for transcending ethical
rules of
> > conduct.
>
>
> What's unethical about calling you a moron?
>
I don't usually aske personal questions, I am into privacy and all of that,
but I'd really like to ask you - have you ever taken a really good shit?
Hobbes
Have you ever eaten your own? Just asking......
Miguel
>>
>> We will have to agree to disagree on if cutting players is indeed a zero
>> sum game. I believe that it is not.
> That statement purposefully mischaracterizes my position.
While I should have included the phrase "with huge salaries" so as to be
100% clear, I did not leave the phrase out to "purposefully mischaracterize"
your position. It was a honest mistake.
If I have in anyway offended you, I apologize.
Captain Charisma
news:A4Gdna54ZND...@conversent.net:
>
> "Captain Charisma" <Why...@WannaKnow.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns96A866212D56...@129.250.170.81...
>> "AllYou!" <Ida...@conversent.net> wrote in
>> news:atydnaxJtoe...@conversent.net:
>>
>>> Easy moron, all you had to do was ask nicely. Was there something
>>> in there you didn't understand and that's got you mad? Here, I'll
>>> go more slowly of the intellectually challenged, like you.
>>>
>>> I'm saying that if a team (e.g., Arizona) is hell bent of spending
>>> the least they can (i.e., the floor of the cap), then they will do
>>> that under any structure, but that most teams will always spend to
>>> the cap limit. Therefore, because of the cap, teams will spend what
>>> they spend on players regardless of whether or not there are
>>> guaranteed contracts. Therefore, the total amount of money spent on
>>> players (i.e., all the money which all 32 teams spend on all the
>>> players) will not change. Some players will get more, and others
>>> less, but the total will not change appreciably.
>>
>> I didn't know your original statement came with all these qualifiers,
>> dumbass.
>
> Don't blame me because you're so stupid that I had to spell it all out
> for you, cumbrain.
>
>> First it was "the total will not change". Now, it's "will not
>> change appreciably".
>
> Well, it goes without saying to most people of at least marginal
> intelligence that the term *will not change* does not mean any change
> whatsoever, even down to the penny. But in having to spell it out for
> a dimwit like you, I had to add that qualifier so that you'd not say
> that I was claiming that everything, right down to that last penny,
> would be the same. See, shithead, I had to add that clarification
> just for you.
No, you goddamn fucking idiot. Did you or did you not say that "the total
will not change". Own it, bitch. You said it, and it's there in black and
white for everybody to see. So lets take a closer look and see if the
total changes "appreciably" or not, shall we?
The max salary cap for the team is determined by the total "defined gross
revenues" (DGR) for a given league year times the CBA percentage (65.5% for
this year), which is then divided by the total number of teams (32). A
certain amout gets deducted from this computation for projected league wide
benefits, but it's totally miniscule.
Now the min salary cap (the least that a team can spend w/o consequences)
is calculated in similar fashion with the only difference being that the
CBA percentage is 56%.
So pinhead, are you of the opinion that this difference (between 56% and
65.5%) is not significant? I can actually figure out the DGR for last year
and print out the exact differences and show you up for the IDIOT that you
are. Let me know if you so desire.
But that concludes my lesson for today. Moral of today's story: shut the
fuck up if you don't know what you're talking about.
<SNIP REST OF YOUR CRAP>
FE
>>> supports my thought that the owners are more like franchisees than
>>> anything else.
>
> The are both clubs and corporations. And the club is sometimes
> referred to as a franchise. As far as I know, those labels have no
> legal significance.
You crack me up. Do you think the NFL makes up words that have no legal
significance just to sound smart? You like to say things aren't what they
are because of some information only you possess. No, even you don't possess
it, but things must not be what they are, although you're not sure why.
>>That seems logical to me. The NFL is a corporation and the teams are
>>franchisees. That's why an NFL team is called a "franchise," right?
>>
>
> No, not right.
Care to explain?
> By the way, lotes of franchises in more normal business are
> independent corporations. And the rules are mixed. I've not looked in
> a long time, but many years ago, Dominos had some franchises owed by
> the company and some independent companies.
Corporations can buy franchises. Most groups that buy an NFL franchise form
a corporation, such as New York Giants Football, Inc., in order to buy a
franchise. It happens all the time. Professional corporations can be
partners in a LLP, for example. So, please explain how the NFL is not a
corporation or how teams are not franchises.
D-word
AllYou! wrote:
> "A strike is when all of the members of a union refuse to work until they get a union contract to their satisfaction."
A strike is a work stoppage. Employees need not be part of a union to
strike, although they usually are. They strike until demands are met,
not necessarily until they get a new labor contract. Striking
employees "hold out" until their demands are met.
AllYou! wrote:
> "A wildcat strike is when all, or at least many of the members of a union stop working even though a union contract is in place."
Actually, A wildcat strike is a work stoppage that is not authorized by
a union. (This expression is irrelevant to the discussion).
AllYou! wrote:
> "A holdout, in the NFL, is someone who unilaterally, doesn't work even though he's got a contract to do so."
A holdout is more general term for a "work stoppage," One "holds out"
until one's demands are met. See strike. The only difference between
a strike and a holdout is that a holdout can be used to describe both
the actions of a group of employees or a single employee, while a
strike only refers to many employees holding out. They are, for the
most part, synonymous. Anyone who works has a contract to do so.
> "See? A holdout is when there's both a valid contract and CBA in place."
No, a holdout is just another way of saying "stopping work until
demands are met."
> "However, in an NFL strike, it occurs when there's no CBA in effect, and the
language of every contract recognizes that possibility."
This is erroneous. The CBA attempts to prohibit a strike with language
written into the CBA, but the nature of a strike isn't prohibited by
contractual language, it is a mechanism to circumvent such obligations.
How does the "language of every contract" stop the players union from
striking or holding out? It doesn't, hasn't and it won't. You are too
hung up with your provincial "NFL" references and experiences. In the
legal (or semantic) sense there is no difference between a strike and a
holdout -- except scale. Sorry.
Every person who holds a job does so as the result of an "employment
contract" -- not just NFL players. The contract, which is the mutual
agreement that defines the conditions of their job, doesn't prevent
them from striking, which is to say it doesn't prevent them from
holding out, either individually or en masse.
As I said before, the League prohibits them from taking employment "at
will" in the NFL if they are under contract from another team. The
player is at a disadvantage in that they work in a closed labor market.
The holdout isn't anti-competitive -- the league policies are.
McDuck
>"McDuck" <wallymcdu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:vje7f1h7grgkrb8ib...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 14:23:01 GMT, "FE" <sta...@myway.com> quacked:
>>>> 1) They were referred to as "clubs" and not "corporations". Kind of
>>>> supports my thought that the owners are more like franchisees than
>>>> anything else.
>>
>> The are both clubs and corporations. And the club is sometimes
>> referred to as a franchise. As far as I know, those labels have no
>> legal significance.
>
>You crack me up. Do you think the NFL makes up words that have no legal
>significance just to sound smart? You like to say things aren't what they
>are because of some information only you possess. No, even you don't possess
>it, but things must not be what they are, although you're not sure why.
What's your problem? Are you actually asking me a question or just
mouthing off?
Do you know what a franchise is? Generally, it is a contractual
arrangement between two legal entities, where one licenses a name,
trade practice, know how, whatever, to the other in return for a
royalty payment. Is that what you think happens in the NFL? If not,
then you are agreeing with me that the use of the term "franchise" has
no legal significance.
Also franchises generally do not compete against each other. They
might to some small extent, but generally each has a territory
designed to avoid competition. True, a few teams in the NFL do not
compete <g>, but most do. Indeed, that is the whole point of the
arrangement.
>
>>>That seems logical to me. The NFL is a corporation and the teams are
>>>franchisees. That's why an NFL team is called a "franchise," right?
>>>
>>
>> No, not right.
>
>Care to explain?
The legal relationship between the league and the teams is not a
contractual arrangement that has any significant relationship to a
franchise relationship, except in certain side areas, like
merchandising. The term "franchise" generally is used to describe a
type of contractual relationship; that relationship does not
characterize the relationship of teams to the league.
If you read the annual reports of corporations, you frequently will
see affiliated companies of the common parent company often referred
to as "partners" or "associates." The use of those terms has no legal
significance and is not intended to. It is colloquial language, not
technical legal language.
>
>> By the way, lots of franchises in more normal business are
>> independent corporations. And the rules are mixed. I've not looked in
>> a long time, but many years ago, Dominos had some franchises owed by
>> the company and some independent companies.
>
>Corporations can buy franchises. Most groups that buy an NFL franchise form
>a corporation, such as New York Giants Football, Inc., in order to buy a
>franchise. It happens all the time. Professional corporations can be
>partners in a LLP, for example. So, please explain how the NFL is not a
>corporation or how teams are not franchises.
>
I never said the NFL is not a corporation. I said the relationship
between the teams and the league is not a franchise relationship. And
that is a simple, uncontestable fact. But I should not have referred
to the pizza "units" owned directly by Dominos as "franchises." That
was a casual usage, like the NFL usage, of the term but was not
legally precise. Usually, the term "franchise" is reserved for
unaffiliated corporations or corporations where the franchise creator
has at most a minority interest. A division of a company is not
properly called a franchise because a franchise is a contractual
arrangement, and a company cannot contract with itself.
You're welcome.
--McDuck
McDuck
quacked:
I believe you got everything right. Nice post (or bad post in the
unlikely event we are both wrong <g>).
--McDuck
McDuck
quacked:
>
>The max salary cap for the team is determined by the total "defined gross
>revenues" (DGR) for a given league year times the CBA percentage (65.5% for
>this year), which is then divided by the total number of teams (32). A
>certain amout gets deducted from this computation for projected league wide
>benefits, but it's totally miniscule.
>
>Now the min salary cap (the least that a team can spend w/o consequences)
>is calculated in similar fashion with the only difference being that the
>CBA percentage is 56%.
>
>So pinhead, are you of the opinion that this difference (between 56% and
>65.5%) is not significant? I can actually figure out the DGR for last year
>and print out the exact differences and show you up for the IDIOT that you
>are. Let me know if you so desire.
>
>But that concludes my lesson for today. Moral of today's story: shut the
>fuck up if you don't know what you're talking about.
>
><SNIP REST OF YOUR CRAP>
Then you agree with my understanding that the floor is 86% of the cap
(56%/65.5%), not the 90% figure claimed by another? This is a real
question, not a baiting question, as I'm not at all sure of the rules
here.
--McDuck
FE
> On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 21:09:37 GMT, "FE" <sta...@myway.com> quacked:
>
>>"McDuck" <wallymcdu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>news:vje7f1h7grgkrb8ib...@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 05 Aug 2005 14:23:01 GMT, "FE" <sta...@myway.com> quacked:
>>>>> 1) They were referred to as "clubs" and not "corporations". Kind of
>>>>> supports my thought that the owners are more like franchisees than
>>>>> anything else.
>>>
>>> The are both clubs and corporations. And the club is sometimes
>>> referred to as a franchise. As far as I know, those labels have no
>>> legal significance.
>>
>>You crack me up. Do you think the NFL makes up words that have no legal
>>significance just to sound smart? You like to say things aren't what they
>>are because of some information only you possess. No, even you don't
>>possess
>>it, but things must not be what they are, although you're not sure why.
>
> What's your problem? Are you actually asking me a question or just
> mouthing off?
I'm asking you a question.
> Do you know what a franchise is?
Yes. Why do you assume that you're the only one who knows things?
> Generally, it is a contractual
> arrangement between two legal entities, where one licenses a name,
> trade practice, know how, whatever, to the other in return for a
> royalty payment. Is that what you think happens in the NFL?
Not exactly, but then I think your definition is not entirely accurate. I do
think that an NFL franchise is a legal agreement between two legal entities
where on licenses a name, trade practice, "whatever," to the other in return
for a payment (like the $500 that Billy Gibson paid for the New York Giants
franchise in 1925 or the $600 million just paid by the group led by Zygmunt
Wilf for the Vikings franchise).
> If not,
> then you are agreeing with me that the use of the term "franchise" has
> no legal significance.
The team names and logs are the property of the NFL. When someone buys a
franchise, they get the right to use the team name and logo to make money in
a certain region. So no, I don't agree with you. They call it a franchise,
because it is a franchise.
> Also franchises generally do not compete against each other.
In what way? They certainly try not to compete against each other for
business. You can't open up a McDonalds across the street from another
McDonalds. The McDonalds corporation won't let you. It's the same thing with
NFL franchises. They don't compete with each other for business. If I
remember correctly, there was a big deal about the Redskins moving into
Maryland. They wanted to make sure the Redskins and Ravens weren't competing
for business. I mean, they share revenue. How can you say they're competing
against one another? Is it because their business is based around a sport?
That's ridiculous.
> They
> might to some small extent, but generally each has a territory
> designed to avoid competition. True, a few teams in the NFL do not
> compete <g>, but most do. Indeed, that is the whole point of the
> arrangement.
I don't think you understand the difference between competing business and
competing sports teams.
>>>>That seems logical to me. The NFL is a corporation and the teams are
>>>>franchisees. That's why an NFL team is called a "franchise," right?
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, not right.
>>
>>Care to explain?
>
> The legal relationship between the league and the teams is not a
> contractual arrangement that has any significant relationship to a
> franchise relationship, except in certain side areas, like
> merchandising. The term "franchise" generally is used to describe a
> type of contractual relationship; that relationship does not
> characterize the relationship of teams to the league.
You just nailed it. To buy an NFL franchise is to enter into a contractual
relationship concerning the team name, logo, revenue sharing, marketing,
merchandising, concessions, player contracts, etc. That's why it's a
franchise. You have yet to explain why it is *not* a franchise. It's just
like a Pizza Hut. If I owned a Pizza Hut franchise and sold it to Hobbes, he
would get the right to use the name, the boxes, the bags, and most likely
the employment agreements. In fact, I bet it's against the franchise
agreement for one Pizza Hut franchise owner to steal employees from another
Pizza Hit franchise owner. Does that seem familiar to anyone?
> If you read the annual reports of corporations, you frequently will
> see affiliated companies of the common parent company often referred
> to as "partners" or "associates." The use of those terms has no legal
> significance and is not intended to. It is colloquial language, not
> technical legal language.
Congratulations. You have actually found a word that is sometimes used in a
non-legal manner. You might as well have said that John Wayne didn't mean he
had a legal partnership with somebody just because he called him "partner."
It doesn't prove anything about NFL franchises though.
>>> By the way, lots of franchises in more normal business are
>>> independent corporations. And the rules are mixed. I've not looked in
>>> a long time, but many years ago, Dominos had some franchises owed by
>>> the company and some independent companies.
>>
>>Corporations can buy franchises. Most groups that buy an NFL franchise
>>form
>>a corporation, such as New York Giants Football, Inc., in order to buy a
>>franchise. It happens all the time. Professional corporations can be
>>partners in a LLP, for example. So, please explain how the NFL is not a
>>corporation or how teams are not franchises.
>>
>
> I never said the NFL is not a corporation. I said the relationship
> between the teams and the league is not a franchise relationship. And
> that is a simple, uncontestable fact.
Haha! You have got to be kidding. I'm questioning it, asshole. Don't tell me
it's unquestionable.
> But I should not have referred
> to the pizza "units" owned directly by Dominos as "franchises." That
> was a casual usage, like the NFL usage, of the term but was not
> legally precise. Usually, the term "franchise" is reserved for
> unaffiliated corporations or corporations where the franchise creator
> has at most a minority interest. A division of a company is not
> properly called a franchise because a franchise is a contractual
> arrangement, and a company cannot contract with itself.
Are you calling the Green Bay Football Corporation a "division" of NFL,
Inc.? If the Patriots team, for example, is just a "division" of the NFL,
then how did Bob Kraft buy it?
Please take into consideration the following definition of the word
"franchise":
3: a right or license that is granted to an individual or group to market a
company's goods or services in a particular territory under the company's
trademark, trade name, or service mark and that often involves the use of
rules and procedures designed by the company and services (as advertising)
and facilities provided by the company in return for fees, royalties, or
other compensation
also
: a business granted such a right or license
Example: ran a fast-food franchise
Taken from (http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com).
Clearly, an NFL franchise is a franchise. It's as plain as the word
"franchise." You've done nothing but assume that you're the smartest person
in the (virtual) room. Get over yourself.
McDuck
>"McDuck" <wallymcdu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:touaf1dq3ec6n3h5l...@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>> The are both clubs and corporations. And the club is sometimes
>>>> referred to as a franchise. As far as I know, those labels have no
>>>> legal significance.
>>>
>>>You crack me up. Do you think the NFL makes up words that have no legal
>>>significance just to sound smart? You like to say things aren't what they
>>>are because of some information only you possess. No, even you don't
>>>possess
>>>it, but things must not be what they are, although you're not sure why.
>>
>> What's your problem? Are you actually asking me a question or just
>> mouthing off?
>
>I'm asking you a question.
>
>> Do you know what a franchise is?
>
>Yes. Why do you assume that you're the only one who knows things?
I certainly don't assume that. I assume lots of people know lots of
things and that I don't know a lot of things. But I did think there
was a fair chance that you did not know what the term franchise meant
before looking it us because you were using the term incorrectly. I
had no way of knowing whether you were using it incorrectly to try to
win some debating point or you were not informed of the legal meaning
of the term.
>
>> Generally, it is a contractual
>> arrangement between two legal entities, where one licenses a name,
>> trade practice, know how, whatever, to the other in return for a
>> royalty payment. Is that what you think happens in the NFL?
>
>Not exactly, but then I think your definition is not entirely accurate. I do
>think that an NFL franchise is a legal agreement between two legal entities
>where on licenses a name, trade practice, "whatever," to the other in return
>for a payment (like the $500 that Billy Gibson paid for the New York Giants
>franchise in 1925 or the $600 million just paid by the group led by Zygmunt
>Wilf for the Vikings franchise).
>
Those are good examples of buying into the league. They are not
examples of a franchise relationship, at least as that term is
commonly understood.
<snip>
>>>>>That seems logical to me. The NFL is a corporation and the teams are
>>>>>franchisees. That's why an NFL team is called a "franchise," right?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, not right.
>>>
>>>Care to explain?
>>
>> The legal relationship between the league and the teams is not a
>> contractual arrangement that has any significant relationship to a
>> franchise relationship, except in certain side areas, like
>> merchandising. The term "franchise" generally is used to describe a
>> type of contractual relationship; that relationship does not
>> characterize the relationship of teams to the league.
>
>You just nailed it. To buy an NFL franchise is to enter into a contractual
>relationship concerning the team name, logo, revenue sharing, marketing,
>merchandising, concessions, player contracts, etc. That's why it's a
>franchise. You have yet to explain why it is *not* a franchise. It's just
>like a Pizza Hut. If I owned a Pizza Hut franchise and sold it to Hobbes, he
>would get the right to use the name, the boxes, the bags, and most likely
>the employment agreements.
Is that what a new team gets? I don't mean the boxes and bags, but the
right to use a name? Did the Patriots get the right to use the name
"Patriots" from the league? they did get rights to play in the league.
But THAT is not what the store owner got from Pizza Hit. It already
had the right to run a store. It got the right to use the logo, etc.
And you seem to me to be mixing up a sale of a franchise to a third
party (which may or may not be permitted under the franchise
agreement) with the relationship of the teams to the league or the
store owners to Pizza Hut (actually Yum!).
>In fact, I bet it's against the franchise
>agreement for one Pizza Hut franchise owner to steal employees from another
>Pizza Hit franchise owner. Does that seem familiar to anyone?
Now I'm really interested. Just how much are you willing to wager?
Please pick a really big number. Do you have a reputation for paying
off on your wagers?
>
>> If you read the annual reports of corporations, you frequently will
>> see affiliated companies of the common parent company often referred
>> to as "partners" or "associates." The use of those terms has no legal
>> significance and is not intended to. It is colloquial language, not
>> technical legal language.
>
>Congratulations. You have actually found a word that is sometimes used in a
>non-legal manner. You might as well have said that John Wayne didn't mean he
>had a legal partnership with somebody just because he called him "partner."
>It doesn't prove anything about NFL franchises though.
Try to follow the argument. You claimed that the NFL would not use a
term like "franchise" unless they meant it in the technical legal
sense. I gave you an example of "colloquial" use of legal terms in an
annual report, which is a pretty formal document. Same in a 10-K
filing with the SEC. Of course, my point does not prove what the legal
relationship is. But it does illustrate that you were incorrect to
simply assume that the use of the term by the NFL meant that there was
a real franchise relationship.
<snip>
>So, please explain how the NFL is not a
>>>corporation or how teams are not franchises.
>>>
>>
>> I never said the NFL is not a corporation. I said the relationship
>> between the teams and the league is not a franchise relationship. And
>> that is a simple, uncontestable fact.
>
>Haha! You have got to be kidding. I'm questioning it, asshole. Don't tell me
>it's unquestionable.
Right. Thanks for the reminder. One always has to leave space for the
uninformed or the person arguing for the sake of argument. I should
have simply said it was a fact. Obviously, you and others are free to
question any fact you wish.
>
>> But I should not have referred
>> to the pizza "units" owned directly by Dominos as "franchises." That
>> was a casual usage, like the NFL usage, of the term but was not
>> legally precise. Usually, the term "franchise" is reserved for
>> unaffiliated corporations or corporations where the franchise creator
>> has at most a minority interest. A division of a company is not
>> properly called a franchise because a franchise is a contractual
>> arrangement, and a company cannot contract with itself.
>
>Are you calling the Green Bay Football Corporation a "division" of NFL,
>Inc.? If the Patriots team, for example, is just a "division" of the NFL,
>then how did Bob Kraft buy it?
I fear that you have a reading comprehension problem here. I've argued
even in this threat that the teams are not divisions, although you
said "right on" to the poster who made that incorrect claim. Pizza
Hut, however, does own some the stores that operate under the Pizza
Hut logo. Around 20%, I think. That subset of stores should not be
referred to as franchises, as I stated above. The relationship in
those cases is a something like the relationship of the Expose to MLB
last year.
>
>Please take into consideration the following definition of the word
>"franchise":
> 3: a right or license that is granted to an individual or group to market a
>company's goods or services in a particular territory under the company's
>trademark, trade name, or service mark and that often involves the use of
>rules and procedures designed by the company and services (as advertising)
>and facilities provided by the company in return for fees, royalties, or
>other compensation
>
>also
>: a business granted such a right or license
>Example: ran a fast-food franchise
>
>Taken from (http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com).
>Clearly, an NFL franchise is a franchise. It's as plain as the word
>"franchise." You've done nothing but assume that you're the smartest person
>in the (virtual) room. Get over yourself.
>
The above definition is mostly fine. Well, it is incorrect to say that
the good or services marketed have to be the goods and services of the
company owning the logo. For example, Pizza Hut does not own the food
served in a Pizza Hut franchized store. In some cases, the store may
buy stuff from the "company," but that is not essential to have a
franchise. Anyway, the definition you give is a more detailed and
technical (but, as noted above, a bit less accurate) definition than
the one I gave above. For our purposes, the definition is fine.
As I indicated in some detail, the NFL teams do operate as franchises
for certain purposes, such as merchandising of team apparel, etc. The
issue is whether they operate as franchises with respect to players
and player contracts and their core activities. If you think the legal
relationship between the NFL and the Patriots is largely the same as
the relationship between Pizza Hut (well, Yum! is the actual parent
company) and the Pizza Hut stores, you are misinformed. Actually, I
have a post giving some detail on how Pizza Hut operates.
Try to apply the fine definition your provided. Do you really think
the Patriots are marketing the NFL's goods or services in a particular
territory under the NFL trade name? And what are those goods or
services? And what is that trade name? And who owns that trade name?
Do the Patriots play only in "their" territory, or do they play half
of their games on the road?
See, when you answer for yourself these questions, you see important
differneces between what the Patriots and other teams do and what
Pizza Hut stores do. Playing in the other team's home ground, for
example, is an essential part of the NFL arrangement and not a part of
the Pizza Hit world.
As discussed elsewhere, there is some analogy between a franchise
relationship and the relationship between the teams and the league. It
is a more useful analogy that the analogy I was rejecting --- that the
teams are like divisions of a company. But it is still a flawed
analogy. I really don't care if someone wants to use the term
franchise --- it is not unusual for a term to have a variety of
meanings. The relationship of the teams to the league is complex, and
no traditional term captures that relationship very well.
But those who are drawing legal conclusions from the use of the term
"franchise" to describe NFL teams are making a serious legal error.
That was and is my central point. In particular, the ability of the
teams to restrict player movement has nothing to do with any alleged
franchise relationship.
--McDuck
FE
> On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 20:00:56 GMT, "FE" <sta...@myway.com> quacked:
>
>>"McDuck" <wallymcdu...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>news:touaf1dq3ec6n3h5l...@4ax.com...
>
>>
>>Yes. Why do you assume that you're the only one who knows things?
>
> I certainly don't assume that. I assume lots of people know lots of
> things and that I don't know a lot of things. But I did think there
> was a fair chance that you did not know what the term franchise meant
> before looking it us because you were using the term incorrectly. I
> had no way of knowing whether you were using it incorrectly to try to
> win some debating point or you were not informed of the legal meaning
> of the term.
LOL. Later in the thread you admit that the NFL teams do operate as
franchises for certain purposes, such as merchandising of team apparel, etc.
So why all the argument. This all started when I said:
"That seems logical to me. The NFL is a corporation and
the teams are franchisees. That's why an NFL team is called
a "franchise," right?"
And you, like the smug bastard that you are, said:
"No, not right."
Of course, right here in your last post you admit that you it was right. So
fuck off, you disputatious dimwit.
>>Not exactly, but then I think your definition is not entirely accurate. I
>>do
>>think that an NFL franchise is a legal agreement between two legal
>>entities
>>where on licenses a name, trade practice, "whatever," to the other in
>>return
>>for a payment (like the $500 that Billy Gibson paid for the New York
>>Giants
>>franchise in 1925 or the $600 million just paid by the group led by
>>Zygmunt
>>Wilf for the Vikings franchise).
>>
>
> Those are good examples of buying into the league. They are not
> examples of a franchise relationship, at least as that term is
> commonly understood.
LOL. I think "commonly understood" is a ghost of an argument. You've already
admitted that the NFL teams do operate as franchises for certain purposes,
such as merchandising of team apparel, etc. So they're franchises. Quit
arguing.
> <snip>
>
>>>>>>That seems logical to me. The NFL is a corporation and the teams are
>>>>>>franchisees. That's why an NFL team is called a "franchise," right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, not right.
Thanks for posting the origin of this argument. Clearly, it was right. So
fuck off.
>>You just nailed it. To buy an NFL franchise is to enter into a contractual
>>relationship concerning the team name, logo, revenue sharing, marketing,
>>merchandising, concessions, player contracts, etc. That's why it's a
>>franchise. You have yet to explain why it is *not* a franchise. It's just
>>like a Pizza Hut. If I owned a Pizza Hut franchise and sold it to Hobbes,
>>he
>>would get the right to use the name, the boxes, the bags, and most likely
>>the employment agreements.
>
> Is that what a new team gets? I don't mean the boxes and bags, but the
> right to use a name?
Of course. How can you be such a bully in this duscussion and not know the
fundamentals? You're fond of presenting "unquestionable facts," but you
don't even know the facts.
> Did the Patriots get the right to use the name
> "Patriots" from the league?
Yes. Man, you're an idiot.
> they did get rights to play in the league.
> But THAT is not what the store owner got from Pizza Hit. It already
> had the right to run a store. It got the right to use the logo, etc.
Straw man. Bob Kraft already had the right to run a football team. But he
decided to run an NFL branded football team.
> And you seem to me to be mixing up a sale of a franchise to a third
> party (which may or may not be permitted under the franchise
> agreement) with the relationship of the teams to the league or the
> store owners to Pizza Hut (actually Yum!).
You really don't get it.
Q: So when a first party sells an NFL franchise to a second party, what does
the second party get?
A: The second party gets all the rights of the franchise agreement.
You still have yet to explain why an NFL franchise is not a franchise. To
the contrary, you basically acknowledge that an NFL franchise is a
franchise. And yet you're still arguing. Amazing.
>>In fact, I bet it's against the franchise
>>agreement for one Pizza Hut franchise owner to steal employees from
>>another
>>Pizza Hit franchise owner. Does that seem familiar to anyone?
>
> Now I'm really interested. Just how much are you willing to wager?
> Please pick a really big number. Do you have a reputation for paying
> off on your wagers?
I'm not going to wager anything, because I don't know the specifics of the
franchise agreement between Pizza Hut and a given franchisee. Besides, it
really doesn't matter. Franchise agreements can vary. It's pretty wide open
actually. And that's why you have yet to show that an NFL franchise is not a
"real" franchise. Because it is.
>>Congratulations. You have actually found a word that is sometimes used in
>>a
>>non-legal manner. You might as well have said that John Wayne didn't mean
>>he
>>had a legal partnership with somebody just because he called him
>>"partner."
>>It doesn't prove anything about NFL franchises though.
>
> Try to follow the argument. You claimed that the NFL would not use a
> term like "franchise" unless they meant it in the technical legal
> sense.
Not in so many words. I said that the fact that the NFL calls the right to
run an NFL team a "franchise" is a good indication that it's a franchise.
You're the one flailing against the facts.
> I gave you an example of "colloquial" use of legal terms in an
> annual report, which is a pretty formal document. Same in a 10-K
> filing with the SEC. Of course, my point does not prove what the legal
> relationship is. But it does illustrate that you were incorrect to
> simply assume that the use of the term by the NFL meant that there was
> a real franchise relationship.
I don't think that YOU are following the discussion. You are the one making
assumptions. You ASSUME that and NFL franchise is not a "real" franchise,
although you can't explain why.
>>> I never said the NFL is not a corporation. I said the relationship
>>> between the teams and the league is not a franchise relationship. And
>>> that is a simple, uncontestable fact.
>>
>>Haha! You have got to be kidding. I'm questioning it, asshole. Don't tell
>>me
>>it's unquestionable.
>
> Right. Thanks for the reminder. One always has to leave space for the
> uninformed or the person arguing for the sake of argument. I should
> have simply said it was a fact. Obviously, you and others are free to
> question any fact you wish.
So are you sticking to the "fact" that the relationship between the teams
and the league is not a franchise relationship? I mean, you say later that
the NFL teams do operate as franchises for certain purposes, such as
merchandising of team apparel, etc. So it really is a franchise
relationship, right?
Wow. Which one of is is arguing for the sake of argument again?
>>Are you calling the Green Bay Football Corporation a "division" of NFL,
>>Inc.? If the Patriots team, for example, is just a "division" of the NFL,
>>then how did Bob Kraft buy it?
>
> I fear that you have a reading comprehension problem here. I've argued
> even in this threat that the teams are not divisions, although you
> said "right on" to the poster who made that incorrect claim.
I'm pretty sure I've never said "right on" in my entire life.
> Pizza
> Hut, however, does own some the stores that operate under the Pizza
> Hut logo. Around 20%, I think. That subset of stores should not be
> referred to as franchises, as I stated above. The relationship in
> those cases is a something like the relationship of the Expose to MLB
> last year.
So which one of the NFL teams is owned by the NFL. List them for me please.
>>Please take into consideration the following definition of the word
>>"franchise":
>> 3: a right or license that is granted to an individual or group to market
>> a
>>company's goods or services in a particular territory under the company's
>>trademark, trade name, or service mark and that often involves the use of
>>rules and procedures designed by the company and services (as advertising)
>>and facilities provided by the company in return for fees, royalties, or
>>other compensation
>>
>>also
>>: a business granted such a right or license
>>Example: ran a fast-food franchise
>>
>>Taken from (http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com).
>>Clearly, an NFL franchise is a franchise. It's as plain as the word
>>"franchise." You've done nothing but assume that you're the smartest
>>person
>>in the (virtual) room. Get over yourself.
>
> The above definition is mostly fine. Well, it is incorrect to say that
> the good or services marketed have to be the goods and services of the
> company owning the logo. For example, Pizza Hut does not own the food
> served in a Pizza Hut franchized store.
They own the recipes. When you buy a Pizza Hut pizza, you know what you're
getting.
> In some cases, the store may
> buy stuff from the "company," but that is not essential to have a
> franchise. Anyway, the definition you give is a more detailed and
> technical (but, as noted above, a bit less accurate) definition than
> the one I gave above. For our purposes, the definition is fine.
>
> As I indicated in some detail, the NFL teams do operate as franchises
> for certain purposes, such as merchandising of team apparel, etc. The
> issue is whether they operate as franchises with respect to players
> and player contracts and their core activities. If you think the legal
> relationship between the NFL and the Patriots is largely the same as
> the relationship between Pizza Hut (well, Yum! is the actual parent
> company) and the Pizza Hut stores, you are misinformed. Actually, I
> have a post giving some detail on how Pizza Hut operates.
>
> Try to apply the fine definition your provided. Do you really think
> the Patriots are marketing the NFL's goods or services in a particular
> territory under the NFL trade name?
Yes.
> And what are those goods or
> services?
Football games.
> And what is that trade name?
"NFL" and "Patriots."
> And who owns that trade name?
The NFL.
> Do the Patriots play only in "their" territory, or do they play half
> of their games on the road?
Under the franchise agreement they play half their games on the road, but
they only get 40% of the gate.
> See, when you answer for yourself these questions, you see important
> differneces between what the Patriots and other teams do and what
> Pizza Hut stores do.
Not a significant difference.
> Playing in the other team's home ground, for
> example, is an essential part of the NFL arrangement and not a part of
> the Pizza Hit world.
The specifics of the franchise agreements are different. So? A Pizza Hut
franchise is different from a Bockbuster franchise. I mean, do you eat
movies? Of course not. But it's still a franchise.
> As discussed elsewhere, there is some analogy between a franchise
> relationship and the relationship between the teams and the league. It
> is a more useful analogy that the analogy I was rejecting --- that the
> teams are like divisions of a company. But it is still a flawed
> analogy. I really don't care if someone wants to use the term
> franchise --- it is not unusual for a term to have a variety of
> meanings. The relationship of the teams to the league is complex, and
> no traditional term captures that relationship very well.
It's a franchise. It's like you're pissing into the wind to prove that there
is no wind. You got pee all over you.
> But those who are drawing legal conclusions from the use of the term
> "franchise" to describe NFL teams are making a serious legal error.
ROFL
> That was and is my central point. In particular, the ability of the
> teams to restrict player movement has nothing to do with any alleged
> franchise relationship.
That's wrong.
FE
> As discussed elsewhere, there is some analogy between a franchise
> relationship and the relationship between the teams and the league. It
> is a more useful analogy that the analogy I was rejecting --- that the
> teams are like divisions of a company. But it is still a flawed
> analogy. I really don't care if someone wants to use the term
> franchise --- it is not unusual for a term to have a variety of
> meanings. The relationship of the teams to the league is complex, and
> no traditional term captures that relationship very well.
From NFL.com (http://www.nfl.com/history/chronology/1971-1980):
"Seattle was awarded an NFL franchise to begin play in 1976, June 4. Lloyd
W. Nordstrom, president of the Seattle Seahawks, and Hugh Culverhouse,
president of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, signed franchise agreements, December
5."
I find it strange that Lloyd Nordstrom and Hugh Culverhouse signed franchise
agreements. What is it that they signed? Analogies? How foolish of them.
FE
of franchise agreements and contracts. More foolish people using the word
"franchise" incorrectly.
http://www.business.auburn.edu/~caudisb/ECO3300/fort5.ppt
You might also read NFL v. Oakland Raiders at
http://www.courttv.com/archive/legaldocs/business/raiders.html, which
states, "the determination of franchisee locations is committed by contract
to internal League governance procedures." That is, a franchisee signs a
franchise agreement in which the entity agrees to be bound by the NFL
Constitution and Bylaws. Even the courts are using the word incorrectly.
You're smarter than EVERYBODY.
McDuck
So, it now seems you joined an argument in progress and didn't
understand that you were doing so. As a result, you made rude,
inaccurate, and largely stupid remarks. The starting point of the
"franchise" discussion was the morality, or lack thereof, of Seymour's
holdout. The claim was made that the Patriots could control his
employment relationship because the team was a franchise. I explained
in some detail how it was a franchise in some limited respects but not
in many important respects and not at all for the point being made.
If you think you make any point by quoting the language above, you
have missed the point of the discussion. No surprise.
--McDuck
FE
news:F3zJe.302$A86...@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
>> of their games on the road?
>
> Under the franchise agreement they play half their games on the road, but
> they only get 40% of the gate.
After reading this again, I got a good laugh. This was the biggest straw man
I have ever seen. To suggest that each and every NFL team should play all of
its games at home, well, that's hilarious. I really can't stop laughing.
FE
So do you or do you not admit that an NFL franchise is a franchise?
I'm still waiting for this simple acknowledgement.
McDuck
<snip>
>
>>>In fact, I bet it's against the franchise
>>>agreement for one Pizza Hut franchise owner to steal employees from
>>>another
>>>Pizza Hit franchise owner. Does that seem familiar to anyone?
>>
>> Now I'm really interested. Just how much are you willing to wager?
>> Please pick a really big number. Do you have a reputation for paying
>> off on your wagers?
>
>I'm not going to wager anything, because I don't know the specifics of the
>franchise agreement between Pizza Hut and a given franchisee. Besides, it
>really doesn't matter. Franchise agreements can vary. It's pretty wide open
>actually. And that's why you have yet to show that an NFL franchise is not a
>"real" franchise. Because it is.
Fine. We have closure. The issue was whether Seymour acted unethically
in holding out. You seem to understand that --- thus your sarcastic
reference "sound familiar". In the context of that argument, one
poster claimed that the Patriots got their power to control a player's
employment from the franchise agreement, claiming it was just like
Pizza Hut --- that if a Pizza Hut driver messes up at one franchise,
he can't just go and get a job at another. I explained in some detail
that the teams are franchises in a limited sense, but not in the
relevant sense. It now appears that this whole discussion and the
context for it passed you by.
Some of your arguments are correct, indeed, the majority. But, to the
extent they are correct, they are exactly the arguments I previously
made. You did make some mistakes, nevertheless, including the one
above that went to the very heart of the prior discussion. And you
didn't just make a mistake, you did it with sarcasm, rudeness, and
crude language.
And then you offer a bet and, when I respond to it, you go hide in the
ladies room. Fine, I'd never bet with you anyway --- just a rhetorical
flourish to force you to concede that you were just blowing smoke and
had no idea what the employment effects of the Pizza Hut franchise
agreement might be. Again that's fine, lots of people don't know. But
why pretend that you do and that the agreement supports your position?
You even repeated my prior point that franchise agreements vary
considerably. I made that point to support my position that it is
unwise to draw legal conclusions simply from the existence of a
franchise agreement.
Needless to say, I will not be continuing this "discussion."
<snip>
--McDuck
Captain Charisma
Yes, given that the salary cap is 65% times the forumula above, the floor of
that would be 86%.
FE
> understand that you were doing so. As a result, you made rude,
> inaccurate, and largely stupid remarks. The starting point of the
> "franchise" discussion was the morality, or lack thereof, of Seymour's
> holdout. The claim was made that the Patriots could control his
> employment relationship because the team was a franchise. I explained
> in some detail how it was a franchise in some limited respects but not
> in many important respects and not at all for the point being made.
> If you think you make any point by quoting the language above, you
> have missed the point of the discussion. No surprise.
Interesting...
:"McDuck" <wallymcdu...@comcast.net> wrote in
: message news:vje7f1h7grgkrb8ib...@4ax.com...
:> The are both clubs and corporations. And the club is sometimes
:> referred to as a franchise. As far as I know, those labels have no
:> legal significance.
:>
:>>
:>>That seems logical to me. The NFL is a corporation and the teams are
:>>franchisees. That's why an NFL team is called a "franchise," right?
:>>
:>
:> No, not right.
:
:"McDuck" <wallymcdu...@comcast.net> wrote in
: message news:touaf1dq3ec6n3h5l...@4ax.com...
:> Do you know what a franchise is? Generally, it is a contractual
:> arrangement between two legal entities, where one licenses a name,
:> trade practice, know how, whatever, to the other in return for a
:> royalty payment. Is that what you think happens in the NFL? If not,
:> then you are agreeing with me that the use of the term "franchise" has
:> no legal significance.
:>
[snip]
:>
:> I never said the NFL is not a corporation. I said the relationship
:> between the teams and the league is not a franchise relationship. And
:> that is a simple, uncontestable fact.
I did not miss the point of the discussion. And I didn't jump in the middle.
AllYou! started it. Hobbes responded to AllYou! I responded to Hobbes. And
you entered the conversation by responding to me and abruptly stating that I
was wrong when I said that NFL franchises are franchises. From that point on
you maintained your position that NFL franchises are not really franchises.
You said repeatedly that the use of the term "franchise" has NO LEGAL
SIGNIFICANCE. By saying "[n]o, not right" to me you clearly stated that
teams are not franchises. You said that the relationship between the teams
and the league is not a franchise relationship and that was "a simple,
uncontestable fact." Have you backed off that position?
FE
> in holding out. You seem to understand that --- thus your sarcastic
> reference "sound familiar". In the context of that argument, one
> poster claimed that the Patriots got their power to control a player's
> employment from the franchise agreement, claiming it was just like
> Pizza Hut --- that if a Pizza Hut driver messes up at one franchise,
> he can't just go and get a job at another. I explained in some detail
> that the teams are franchises in a limited sense, but not in the
> relevant sense. It now appears that this whole discussion and the
> context for it passed you by.
You responded to me and said I was wrong when I stated that NFL franchises
are franchises. The context appears to have passed you by.
> Some of your arguments are correct, indeed, the majority. But, to the
> extent they are correct, they are exactly the arguments I previously
> made. You did make some mistakes, nevertheless, including the one
> above that went to the very heart of the prior discussion. And you
> didn't just make a mistake, you did it with sarcasm, rudeness, and
> crude language.
What mistake is that? I didn't make a mistake.
> And then you offer a bet and, when I respond to it, you go hide in the
> ladies room. Fine, I'd never bet with you anyway --- just a rhetorical
> flourish to force you to concede that you were just blowing smoke and
> had no idea what the employment effects of the Pizza Hut franchise
> agreement might be. Again that's fine, lots of people don't know. But
> why pretend that you do and that the agreement supports your position?
Get over yourself. I still think Pizza Hut has it in their agreement that
franchise owners can't try to steal employees from other Pizza Hut
franchises. I just wouldn't make a bet on it, because I don't have a Pizza
Hut franchise agreement before me. Besides, I used "I bet" for effect, to
concede that I could be wrong. I did not intend to actually offer a bet. You
took that opportunity to challenge me. This is a typical cowardly tactic
that nerds use on Usenet. I politely declined. But you still think it makes
you a man and it makes me a lady. Whatever. You can have that victory if it
makes you feel better.
> You even repeated my prior point that franchise agreements vary
> considerably. I made that point to support my position that it is
> unwise to draw legal conclusions simply from the existence of a
> franchise agreement.
Actually, you said that NFL franchises are not franchises.
> Needless to say, I will not be continuing this "discussion."
I'll believe it when I see it.
AllYou!
"jupiter49" <jupiter4...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:PoKdnZ2dnZ3VuNG6nZ2dn...@comcast.com...
Yes, I call them Jupiter49's.
AllYou!
Let me put this in terms that even you can understand. When there's an
agreement between the parties and one of them unilaterally withholds their end
of the bargain, it's unethical.
Case closed.
AllYou!
"Captain Charisma" <Why...@WannaKnow.com> wrote in message
LOL! Once again, you prove what a fucking cum brain you are.
D-word
Right, right. *You* misdefined every single term you attempted to
define, and I am the one having difficulty with comprehension.
Hilarous.
> When there's an
> agreement between the parties and one of them unilaterally withholds their end
> of the bargain, it's unethical.
>
> Case closed.
Case Re-opened:
Wasn't the matter being discussed the fact that you said a /strike/ was
different from a /holdout/?
What happened here? LOL. This is like Dubya on the deck of an
aircraft carrier declaring victory. It is a straw victory. All you
did was change the question....
I have to take your evasive actions as an admission of defeat.