Jump to content

Recommended Posts

http://www.nflpa.org/pdfs/Agents/CBA_Amended_2006.pdf

Read section 9 the forfeiture section line C

© No forfeitures permitted(currect and future contracts) for signing bonus allocations for years already performed or for salary escalators or performance bonuses already earned.

In other words the Judge made the right ruling based on the language in the Collective Bargaining agreement. Vick received the money for roster bonus. The $3.75Million Vick received for being on the roster in March of 2007 was what he had to repay since he did not play this year.

Link to post
Share on other sites
goatehall (2/15/2008)
http://www.nflpa.org/pdfs/Agents/CBA_Amended_2006.pdf

Read section 9 the forfeiture section line C

© No forfeitures permitted(currect and future contracts) for signing bonus allocations for years already performed or for salary escalators or performance bonuses already earned.

In other words the Judge made the right ruling based on the language in the Collective Bargaining agreement. Vick received the money for roster bonus. The $3.75Million Vick received for being on the roster in March of 2007 was what he had to repay since he did not play this year.

I don't see anywhere in that where it says its illegal to get the money back if the player was convicted of a felony during said contract. I really don't care whether we get it back or not but breach of contract is still breach of contract.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is... he was payed to play football. I look at it as a loan. Basically it was money up front that he would have payed back in his services to the team (wins, fans in the seats, playoffs ect.) Now being in jail he cannot play, and thus cannot pay us back in his services; therefore he should pay us back with the actual money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is... he was payed to play football. I look at it as a loan. Basically it was money up front that he would have payed back in his services to the team (wins, fans in the seats, playoffs ect.) Now being in jail he cannot play, and thus cannot pay us back in his services; therefore he should pay us back with the actual money.

Vick has $85million plus remaining on his contract. THat is the money that he will not be getting. This was not a loan it was a performance bonus for the services he already provided. THe $3.75million he had to pay back was the roster bonus he received for 2007. Since he is not playing then he had to pay the money back.

As far as breach of contract and him not playing. This happened when Vick did not play this season there for the money for this season and years beyond is in jeopardy. However the money he received for the service he already provided is not eligible to forfeiture. That is what the CBA states in black and white.

Link to post
Share on other sites
goatehall (2/15/2008)
http://www.nflpa.org/pdfs/Agents/CBA_Amended_2006.pdf

Read section 9 the forfeiture section line C

© No forfeitures permitted(currect and future contracts) for signing bonus allocations for years already performed or for salary escalators or performance bonuses already earned.

In other words the Judge made the right ruling based on the language in the Collective Bargaining agreement. Vick received the money for roster bonus. The $3.75Million Vick received for being on the roster in March of 2007 was what he had to repay since he did not play this year.

The question was whether they paid the money for service already rendered, or the expectation of future service. The arbiter ruled that it was for the expectation of future services, and the judge ruled that it was for service already rendered.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The question was whether they paid the money for service already rendered, or the expectation of future service. The arbiter ruled that it was for the expectation of future services, and the judge ruled that it was for service already rendered.

The arbitrator did not rule that it was for future service. The arbitrator ruled that since was currently in violation of his contract that he should not receive the money that he previously earned.

In a highly technical, nine-page ruling, Burbank said the Falcons were entitled to $3.75 million of the $7.5 million bonus that Vick was paid after signing the deal in 2004, $13.5 million of the $22.5 million in roster, reporting and playing bonuses he was paid in 2005 and 2006, and $2.72 million of the $7 million roster, reporting and playing bonus that he received this year

The judge rules that under the CBA money could not be forfeited for services already provided. Legal experts were saying that even before the arbitrator ruled the 1st time that the Falcons would only be entitled to about $3.75 million. In the end that is how the judge ruled.

Link to post
Share on other sites
goatehall (2/15/2008)
http://www.nflpa.org/pdfs/Agents/CBA_Amended_2006.pdf

Read section 9 the forfeiture section line C

© No forfeitures permitted(currect and future contracts) for signing bonus allocations for years already performed or for salary escalators or performance bonuses already earned.

In other words the Judge made the right ruling based on the language in the Collective Bargaining agreement. Vick received the money for roster bonus. The $3.75Million Vick received for being on the roster in March of 2007 was what he had to repay since he did not play this year.

I believe the NFL and their attorneys would know better than any of us on this board whether or not the decision was correct. If the NFL didn't believe they had a case, then i am sure they wouldn't pursue it. With that being said, this thread is basically dead.

Link to post
Share on other sites
BlacksburgHokie (2/15/2008)
goatehall (2/15/2008)
http://www.nflpa.org/pdfs/Agents/CBA_Amended_2006.pdf

Read section 9 the forfeiture section line C

© No forfeitures permitted(currect and future contracts) for signing bonus allocations for years already performed or for salary escalators or performance bonuses already earned.

In other words the Judge made the right ruling based on the language in the Collective Bargaining agreement. Vick received the money for roster bonus. The $3.75Million Vick received for being on the roster in March of 2007 was what he had to repay since he did not play this year.

The question was whether they paid the money for service already rendered, or the expectation of future service. The arbiter ruled that it was for the expectation of future services, and the judge ruled that it was for service already rendered.

exactly. i have stock options on my job. they mature at different times. we also have an annual performance bonus period.

if i am arrested and consequently fired from my job in '08 (no jinx-o), any unexercised stock options are null and void. forfeit. regardless of whether they vested or not.

and if this happens prior to the date of our annual bonus/profit sharing, even if said bonus was paid based upon my rating (and therefore, my services rendered in '07), i will not get the current year's bonus.

HOWEVER, my company can NOT go back and take my performance bonuses from '05, '06, '04. nor can they touch or sue me for stock options that i received in '02 and which matured in '05, and were cashed out by me in '06 or '07.

i was an employee in good standing at the time that i received that money.

vick's disputed money was for ROSTER bonuses. it was not a signing bonus, and therefore not subject to future conditions. it was payable at the time and for services rendered, not expected in the future.

if the NFL wins this case, then there is NO such thing as guaranteed money. period.

i don't know why this is so hard for people to understand.

Link to post
Share on other sites
chris30277 (2/15/2008)
The thing is... he was payed to play football. I look at it as a loan. Basically it was money up front that he would have payed back in his services to the team (wins, fans in the seats, playoffs ect.) Now being in jail he cannot play, and thus cannot pay us back in his services; therefore he should pay us back with the actual money.

well the NFL not the Atlanta Falcons is making the same argument that I just made.

Link to post
Share on other sites
goatehall (2/15/2008)
The question was whether they paid the money for service already rendered, or the expectation of future service. The arbiter ruled that it was for the expectation of future services, and the judge ruled that it was for service already rendered.

The arbitrator did not rule that it was for future service. The arbitrator ruled that since was currently in violation of his contract that he should not receive the money that he previously earned.

In a highly technical, nine-page ruling, Burbank said the Falcons were entitled to $3.75 million of the $7.5 million bonus that Vick was paid after signing the deal in 2004, $13.5 million of the $22.5 million in roster, reporting and playing bonuses he was paid in 2005 and 2006, and $2.72 million of the $7 million roster, reporting and playing bonus that he received this year

The judge rules that under the CBA money could not be forfeited for services already provided. Legal experts were saying that even before the arbitrator ruled the 1st time that the Falcons would only be entitled to about $3.75 million. In the end that is how the judge ruled.

right. just like i'm sure it was entirely reasonable for goodell to destroy the pats tapes.

just like every prosecutor who brings a case to court is always right. and just like every defense attorney is always right.

your reductionist analysis leaves absolutely no room for fallibility or for self-interest on the part of any of the parties involved. by extension, why do we even talk about football games? the coaches and players always know much better than we do. how about they play the contests in an empty stadium and we just peruse the box scores?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the NFL and their attorneys would know better than any of us on this board whether or not the decision was correct. If the NFL didn't believe they had a case, then i am sure they wouldn't pursue it. With that being said, this thread is basically dead.

Yes the same NFL that knew BB was illegally taping in 2000 and did nothing. The NFL does not do what is right it does what benefits the NFL. That is why they are doing nothing for former players b.c it does not benefit them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
goatehall (2/15/2008)
http://www.nflpa.org/pdfs/Agents/CBA_Amended_2006.pdf

Read section 9 the forfeiture section line C

© No forfeitures permitted(currect and future contracts) for signing bonus allocations for years already performed or for salary escalators or performance bonuses already earned.

In other words the Judge made the right ruling based on the language in the Collective Bargaining agreement. Vick received the money for roster bonus. The $3.75Million Vick received for being on the roster in March of 2007 was what he had to repay since he did not play this year.

That is not their argument. Their argument is that Vick was participating before, during and after he signed the contract. The contract has stipulations on illegal activity. He signed the contract knowing that he had before, and acurrently was participating in illegal activites therefore voiding/invalidating the terms of the contract from the beginning.

Link to post
Share on other sites
poetx99 (2/15/2008)

i don't know why this is so hard for people to understand.

Simple, it's because they don't want to understand.

That and they suffer from rabid idol worship when it comes to Vick.

Anyway, the NFL is going after the reversal for this ruling. Evidently, they see as setting a dangerous (and expensive) precedent in future contract dealings.

Link to post
Share on other sites
poetx99 (2/15/2008)
BlacksburgHokie (2/15/2008)
goatehall (2/15/2008)
http://www.nflpa.org/pdfs/Agents/CBA_Amended_2006.pdf

Read section 9 the forfeiture section line C

© No forfeitures permitted(currect and future contracts) for signing bonus allocations for years already performed or for salary escalators or performance bonuses already earned.

In other words the Judge made the right ruling based on the language in the Collective Bargaining agreement. Vick received the money for roster bonus. The $3.75Million Vick received for being on the roster in March of 2007 was what he had to repay since he did not play this year.

The question was whether they paid the money for service already rendered, or the expectation of future service. The arbiter ruled that it was for the expectation of future services, and the judge ruled that it was for service already rendered.

exactly. i have stock options on my job. they mature at different times. we also have an annual performance bonus period.

if i am arrested and consequently fired from my job in '08 (no jinx-o), any unexercised stock options are null and void. forfeit. regardless of whether they vested or not.

and if this happens prior to the date of our annual bonus/profit sharing, even if said bonus was paid based upon my rating (and therefore, my services rendered in '07), i will not get the current year's bonus.

HOWEVER, my company can NOT go back and take my performance bonuses from '05, '06, '04. nor can they touch or sue me for stock options that i received in '02 and which matured in '05, and were cashed out by me in '06 or '07.

i was an employee in good standing at the time that i received that money.

vick's disputed money was for ROSTER bonuses. it was not a signing bonus, and therefore not subject to future conditions. it was payable at the time and for services rendered, not expected in the future.

if the NFL wins this case, then there is NO such thing as guaranteed money. period.

i don't know why this is so hard for people to understand.

Thats just it, you proved their point yourself. If you committed illegal acts in 08, they can only take your 08 stock options. However, Vick was commiting illegal acts as far back as 01/02, and every year thereafter. Therefore, he was in breach of the contract from the very moment he signed it, and in actuallity was illegally signing a contract that he knew he was already violating.

It is the same principle as signing a contract for a job that says you will be paid a bonus every year that you do not smoke cigarettes. You recieve bonuses for 5 years while secretly smoking that entire time. If they can prove you have been smoking and violating the terms of the contract that entire time, they can take the funds they have already paid to you.

When the contract says "guaranteed" it is not the type of guarantee you are thinking of. It is not 100% guaranteed no matter what, there are still terms of the contract. Terms of which Vick was in violation of from the moment he signed the contract, and before.

It really isnt that difficult to understand.

You say "not subject to future conditions" but thats just it, it has nothing to do with FUTURE conditions. It all has to do with past and current conditions when He Signed The Contract as well as Every Single Time he recieved those bonuses he was in violation of the contract.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is not their argument. Their argument is that Vick was participating before, during and after he signed the contract. The contract has stipulations on illegal activity. He signed the contract knowing that he had before, and acurrently was participating in illegal activites therefore voiding/invalidating the terms of the contract from the beginning.

Their argument was that he used the processed from the contract extension in 2004 for illegal purposes. According to the indictment, statement of facts, and plea agreement this ended in 2004 when Taylor left. Vick signed the contract in at the end of 2004. Further more the CBA has nothing to do with how he spends his money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats just it, you proved their point yourself. If you committed illegal acts in 08, they can only take your 08 stock options. However, Vick was commiting illegal acts as far back as 01/02, and every year thereafter. Therefore, he was in breach of the contract from the very moment he signed it, and in actuallity was illegally signing a contract that he knew he was already violating.

It is the same principle as signing a contract for a job that says you will be paid a bonus every year that you do not smoke cigarettes. You recieve bonuses for 5 years while secretly smoking that entire time. If they can prove you have been smoking and violating the terms of the contract that entire time, they can take the funds they have already paid to you.

When the contract says "guaranteed" it is not the type of guarantee you are thinking of. It is not 100% guaranteed no matter what, there are still terms of the contract. Terms of which Vick was in violation of from the moment he signed the contract, and before.

It really isnt that difficult to understand.

You say "not subject to future conditions" but thats just it, it has nothing to do with FUTURE conditions. It all has to do with past and current conditions when He Signed The Contract as well as Every Single Time he recieved those bonuses he was in violation of the contract.

It doesn't matter what happened in those previous years because until now he was not convicted. OVer the course of those years a service was provided and that service should be paid for. If the Falcons will turn over all proceeds and monies made from the Vick years from TV, sell outs, sponsorship, memorabilia sales ect then you have a point. Regardless of what someone was doing on the side if they provided a service, made certain incentives then they must pay for those services.

If you work for a company and then you fail a drug test and admit to smoking for years the company can terminate you from this point forward. The company can not go back and take back salary, bonuses, and commission received for the services that have already been provided. Further more Vick's contract was not for not smoking cigarretters or getting in trouble as you call it. His contract was for playing football and his bonuses were performance based. Vick did perform those services.

The Falcons had no problem reaping the benefits from a player who was in violation as you call it of his contract until they could no longer reap the benefits. THis was not the argument that the Falcons made.

Link to post
Share on other sites
goatehall (2/15/2008)
Thats just it, you proved their point yourself. If you committed illegal acts in 08, they can only take your 08 stock options. However, Vick was commiting illegal acts as far back as 01/02, and every year thereafter. Therefore, he was in breach of the contract from the very moment he signed it, and in actuallity was illegally signing a contract that he knew he was already violating.

It is the same principle as signing a contract for a job that says you will be paid a bonus every year that you do not smoke cigarettes. You recieve bonuses for 5 years while secretly smoking that entire time. If they can prove you have been smoking and violating the terms of the contract that entire time, they can take the funds they have already paid to you.

When the contract says "guaranteed" it is not the type of guarantee you are thinking of. It is not 100% guaranteed no matter what, there are still terms of the contract. Terms of which Vick was in violation of from the moment he signed the contract, and before.

It really isnt that difficult to understand.

You say "not subject to future conditions" but thats just it, it has nothing to do with FUTURE conditions. It all has to do with past and current conditions when He Signed The Contract as well as Every Single Time he recieved those bonuses he was in violation of the contract.

It doesn't matter what happened in those previous years because until now he was not convicted. OVer the course of those years a service was provided and that service should be paid for. If the Falcons will turn over all proceeds and monies made from the Vick years from TV, sell outs, sponsorship, memorabilia sales ect then you have a point. Regardless of what someone was doing on the side if they provided a service, made certain incentives then they must pay for those services.

If you work for a company and then you fail a drug test and admit to smoking for years the company can terminate you from this point forward. The company can not go back and take back salary, bonuses, and commission received for the services that have already been provided. Further more Vick's contract was not for not smoking cigarretters or getting in trouble as you call it. His contract was for playing football and his bonuses were performance based. Vick did perform those services.

The Falcons had no problem reaping the benefits from a player who was in violation as you call it of his contract until they could no longer reap the benefits. THis was not the argument that the Falcons made.

Goat, I agree. But some refuse to see this no matter what you post, they are reading what they want to into the contract, not what's there. Again, the judge got it right.

Link to post
Share on other sites

yea what alot of people are missing on the vick contract is that his deal was an extension rather than a new deal. When you extend a guy it is based on past performance...if it was a new deal such as the winslow deal he would have to pay back some of that money...the rules are very tricky on this stuff. I think that vick should voluntarily give back 10mil and call it a day but thats just me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

yea what alot of people are missing on the vick contract is that his deal was an extension rather than a new deal. When you extend a guy it is based on past performance...if it was a new deal such as the winslow deal he would have to pay back some of that money...the rules are very tricky on this stuff. I think that vick should voluntarily give back 10mil and call it a day but thats just me.

And why should he voluntarily give the money back? He earned his money. What does he have to gain by giving back more than is required from the ruling thus far? He should give back the $3.75million and call it a day.

Link to post
Share on other sites

these crimes he committed happened a long time ago....some even when he was in college.

he wasn't under any contract then...my question is where did he get the money to bet on dogs then????? boosters????? that is another question.

How did he committ these crimes in college? You are going to believe the words of someone who has his voice altered and his faced blacked out. For all we know that was Chris Berman. That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. There is no evidence that he did these things in college.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...