Jump to content

  •  

Welcome to JetNation.com


Sign In  Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

Create Account
Welcome to JetNation.com, your home for New York Jets talk. We are an independent site, which means we aren't affiliated with the NY Jets or SNY. The opinions here are never censored. We want you to join in on the conversation, but don't worry this is a simple and FREE process. Be apart of JetNation.com by signing in or creating an account. When you create an account, you can also opt to use your existing Facebook or Twitter login.
  • Start new topics and reply to others
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get email updates
  • Get your own profile page and make new friends
  • Send personal messages to other members.
Also be sure to check us out on Facebook and Twitter.
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Photo
- - - - -

Should The Patriots Be Allowed To Void Hernandez’s Guarantees Under NFL Rules


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 JetNation

JetNation

    Transition Player

  • Members
  • 5,955 posts

Posted 30 June 2013 - 01:30 PM

Following up on a recent JetNation article regarding Aaron Hernandez’s contract multiple sources are reporting the New England Patriots were able to void his guaranteed base (season) salaries for 2013 and 14.  

Ian Rappoport of NFL.com had written the contract language voiding any future guaranteed salary for Hernandez was omitted:

In almost all situations, when an NFL player is suspended, he forfeits all of the future guarantees in his contract. Even if a signing bonus or base salary is guaranteed for skill, injury and salary cap, a “failure to perform” or “failure to practice” clause makes those guarantees null and void.

In a surprising twist, this appears not to be the case with the five-year, $40-million extension signed by New England Patriots tight end Aaron Hernandez in August of 2012. Upon close reading of his contract language — and after confirming the development with an expert — the “failure to perform” or “failure to practice” clause that appears in similar Patriots extensions is not present. This means Hernandez might be able to keep nearly $2.5 million of the deal, even if legal troubles prevented him from taking the field.

Hernandez was set to make fully guaranteed salaries of $1.323 million this year and $1.137 million in 2014 but without any voiding mechanism in his contract it looked as if the Patriots, while likely not paying the money, would be stuck with it counting ($2.46 million) in its entirety on their 2013 salary cap.

Section 9-(g) of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) gives teams the right to void future guaranteed salary but terms which trigger the voiding need to be expressed within the player’s contract:

(g) Voiding of Guarantees. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Section 9, a Club and player may negotiate the circumstances under which the guarantee of any unearned Salary (including, without limitation, Paragraph 5 Salary and/or future year roster bonuses, option bonuses or reporting bonuses) may be voided.

Now Rappoport is saying the Patriots believe they have been able to void Hernandez’s future guarantees based upon personal conduct policies:

The New England Patriots have voided all of Aaron Hernandez’s contract guarantees, according to a source informed of the Patriots’ decision-making and an NFL Players Association source, meaning the former tight end will have to fight to receive even the portion of his signing bonus that he’s already earned.

Hernandez was to receive $2.5 million in guaranteed base salaries over the next two seasons, and his contract does not have language to void that money if he fails to practice. However, the Patriots believe the Collective Bargaining Agreement covers them because he has engaged in conduct unbecoming after being arrested and charged with first-degree murder in the death of Odin Lloyd.

Source: Ian Rappoport / NFL.com

Ben Volin of the Boston Globe cites sources within the Patriots organization which believe NFL Rules and the CBA allow for the voiding because of Hernandez’s “detrimental” conduct:

But the Patriots believe the NFL’s bylaws and collective bargaining agreement have specific language about “conduct detrimental to the best interests of professional football” that works in favor of them voiding all future payments to Hernandez, including an installment of his signing bonus.

“It was guaranteed for skill and injury, but it wasn’t guaranteed for personal conduct that cast the club in a negative light, and that’s why we cut him,” the source said. “We know the CBA. We are well within our rights.”

The issue with the above argument is that Hernandez was released by the Patriots under a “Guaranteed Contract for Skill, Injury and Cap” designation:

Section 11 of a standard NFL player contract does contain a “conduct” clause:

11. SKILL, PERFORMANCE AND CONDUCT: … if (a) Player has engaged in personal conduct reasonably judged by Club to ad-versely affect or reflect on Club, then Club may terminate this contract.

So if the Patriots and NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell believe the CBA along with NFL bylaws allow for voiding of future guarantees via personal conduct then why not release Hernandez under that provision, which they could have done?  Doesn’t it make the case stronger that Hernandez’s action was “detrimental” to the team and league if he was released from the contract for that reason?

The NFL bylaws do give the commissioner power to “Cancel any contract or agreement of such person with the league,” who is guilty of conduct detrimental to the league.

It seems the NFL and NFL Players Association (NFLPA) is setting a bad precedent allowing the vague “conduct detrimental to the league” policy to supersede the collectively bargained, between the NFL Players Association and NFL, agreement which is supposed to govern these matters.  As a practical point the CBA expresses the procedure for voiding future guarantees but the NFLPA hands are tied to fight this voiding given the severity of the issue.  The Patriots seem to be getting a “mulligan” for omitting the proper language in the contract and following correct salary forfeiture protocol under the CBA allowing for immediate, as well as potential future, salary cap relief.

In the NFL’s quest to send a message they are losing sight of the bigger picture.  This is not about Aaron Hernandez specifically but how forfeiture of salary and the scope of the disciplinary powers are defined. 

The Patriots chose to release Hernandez after his arrest but before he was formally charged and incarcerated, so what if he was given a lesser charge than released?  Would the team/commissioner then still have the right to void his guarantees, would the NFLPA not fight this and could any of these decisions, even under current circumstances, stand up to an action brought before a court?

Some may feel that Hernandez does not deserve protection from the NFLPA or anyone given his circumstances but the rest of the people the NFL Players Association represent do.  Allowing such a wide scope of unchecked power puts all player contract guarantees at risk.  There are apparatuses in place, grievances or legal actions, but now the onus has been shifted from team to player and of course Hernandez has bigger problems right now then to engage in a contract dispute. 

The Aaron Hernandez situation is not the issue here but standard rules, protocol and procedures NFL teams and players must adhere to for the fulfillment, forfeiture or voiding of terms of a contract agreement that are specifically laid out.  The voiding of Hernandez’s guarantees seems correct on a personal level but it is not given an objective viewing of regulations governing NFL contracts and discipline policies as these decisions are subjectively (opinion) based rather than on agreed upon standards. 

  • 0

#2 Larz

Larz

    High priest of Syrinx

  • Members
  • 18,383 posts

Posted 30 June 2013 - 03:50 PM

I wasnt aware he had been convicted. He plead not guilty

I think the conduct that is detrimental should be established before
They get out of anything

At this point you cant even say who sent the txts drove the car or pulled
The trigger

Krafty seems to have no doubts

Wonder why
  • 0
All that is gold does not glitter, Not all those who wander are lost; The old that is strong does not wither, Deep roots are not reached by the frost.

#3 faba

faba

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 25,770 posts
  • LocationHolmdel

Posted 30 June 2013 - 04:36 PM

Seems like you should have to wait for a conviction before they could do this. I guess they are guided by the fact of knowing more than they say publicly


  • 0
Treat people with how you want to be treated-with respect.

#4 TechJet

TechJet

    Practice Squad Player

  • Members
  • 360 posts
  • LocationSomewhere on earth in the US eastern time zone

Posted 30 June 2013 - 04:39 PM

YES! :sign0174:


  • 0

#5 Blackout

Blackout

    Circle Of Bosses

  • Members
  • 33,135 posts
  • Locationhome

Posted 30 June 2013 - 04:41 PM

Seems like you should have to wait for a conviction before they could do this. I guess they are guided by the fact of knowing more than they say publicly

 

doesn't hurt when the cops are tipping your GM off on the murder charge before the guy is even arrested.  what if someone told Aaron and he had tried to escape, OJ style?


  • 0
Blackout, on 16 Oct 2014 - 10:28 PM, said: i HATE saying this but CJ2k is now CJ 0.5K at this point

#6 PFSIKH

PFSIKH

    Patriots' Paradigm CEO

  • Members
  • 19,290 posts
  • LocationClarksville, TN by way of New England

Posted 30 June 2013 - 05:49 PM

I wasnt aware he had been convicted. He plead not guilty

I think the conduct that is detrimental should be established before
They get out of anything

At this point you cant even say who sent the txts drove the car or pulled
The trigger

Krafty seems to have no doubts

Wonder why

 

As Polian and another former NFL guy on ESPN said, each team has former LEO professionals on the payroll to investigate players and to find out information on their players when they are involved in something to like this (or of a lesser nature).  So yeah, Kraft probably had a good idea where the investigation was going.

 

Should the Patriots be allowed? Yes.  It is not going to hurt them to try.   The NFLPA will fight it if Hernandez is ever acquitted.  Otherwise, they do not exactly want to fight this right now.


  • 0
Eagle Honors
"Our two most painful Patriots' losses ever, are sandwiched between two Manning family Superbowl victories. Talk about being the book of squandered opportunities between two butt hole bookends."
"I just wish they didn't get lucky when they selected that arrogant cleft-chinned, super-modeling banging prick in the sixth round out of Michigan. It's amazing how much I hate Mo Lewis now."

#7 New York Mick

New York Mick

    Still Censored

  • Members
  • 9,009 posts

Posted 30 June 2013 - 10:00 PM

Yes if he guilty
  • 0

#8 kelticwizard

kelticwizard

    2nd Year Veteran

  • Members
  • 3,454 posts
  • LocationSoutheastern Connecticut

Posted 30 June 2013 - 10:35 PM

Sounds to me like the Patriots are jumping the gun.  A contract is a contract, and the Patriots should follow through.

 

If somebody does extensive work on my property, sends me a bill and then gets arrested for something serious, do I get out of paying him because I find his suspected behavior so upsetting I can't imagine doing anything good for such a scandalous individual?  He earned the money!


Edited by kelticwizard, 30 June 2013 - 10:36 PM.

  • 0

#9 BurnleyJet

BurnleyJet

    Fan for 30 years (You get less for Murder these days!)

  • Members
  • 2,514 posts

Posted 01 July 2013 - 01:56 AM

They cut him, therefore no longer a Pat, so how can they void he's contract before he's convicted based on him missing time he's not missed yet?
  • 0

#10 flgreen

flgreen

    3rd Year Veteran

  • Members
  • 17,187 posts

Posted 01 July 2013 - 08:32 AM

It's entertaining how we fall back on this constitutional right of presumed innocence like it is a real thing.  It doesn't exist anymore then Santa Clause exists.  Just a soothing thing to think about.

 

Once you are accused of something, you are treated as guilty by the law.  What do you think happens if Hernandez decides to just run away because he is innocent?

 

IMO Hernandez is guilty, and should be incarcerated, but the idea that you are presumed innocent is silly.  Once a cop accuses you of something, you are treated by the court as if you are guilty.  They take your freedom.

 

If that is actually the in fact law of the land, why should business treat you any different?  


Edited by flgreen, 01 July 2013 - 08:32 AM.

  • 0

#11 PFSIKH

PFSIKH

    Patriots' Paradigm CEO

  • Members
  • 19,290 posts
  • LocationClarksville, TN by way of New England

Posted 01 July 2013 - 01:10 PM

Sounds to me like the Patriots are jumping the gun.  A contract is a contract, and the Patriots should follow through.

 

If somebody does extensive work on my property, sends me a bill and then gets arrested for something serious, do I get out of paying him because I find his suspected behavior so upsetting I can't imagine doing anything good for such a scandalous individual?  He earned the money!

 

What else can they do?

 

For whatever reason, they did not include a clause which stipulated forfeiture of future bonuses due to non-normative behavior.

 

Due to this they are between a rock and a hard place. 

 

Should they have kept him on the roster in order to get out of paying him?  No.  It is already a media $hit storm for them due to Hernandez' actions.

 

They will not pay him.  Whether they get relieved of a cap hit shall be seen.  No reason for Roger to release the Patriots from it.


  • 0
Eagle Honors
"Our two most painful Patriots' losses ever, are sandwiched between two Manning family Superbowl victories. Talk about being the book of squandered opportunities between two butt hole bookends."
"I just wish they didn't get lucky when they selected that arrogant cleft-chinned, super-modeling banging prick in the sixth round out of Michigan. It's amazing how much I hate Mo Lewis now."

#12 jgb

jgb

    Darksider

  • Members
  • 4,464 posts

Posted 01 July 2013 - 10:19 PM

there is legally correct and business correct. he doesn't have the time or cash to pursue a civil lawsuit right now. he will get desperate for $$ soon enough to pay his crim lawyers and settle with the pats for 20-40 cents on the dollar.


Edited by jgb, 01 July 2013 - 10:19 PM.

  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users