Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
SenorGato

Kiwanuka speaks out against NFL contracts.

Recommended Posts

Despite obviously being a guy teams would pursue if cut, Mathias Kiwanuka took a paycut in April. He took it because he could not relocate - his wife was very pregnant at the time.

 

 

 

 "If we are going to be playing on these contracts, make them contracts," Kiwanuka told theNewark Star-Ledger's Conor Orr. "Either that or everyone sign a one-year deal every year and we'll do it that way. It's not fair to be locked in somewhere and have that place say that we've decided not to honor the rest of the deal. I don't think it is a contract by definition if one side can opt out of it at any point and the other has no recourse." We'll never begrudge an NFL player for trying to get as much as he can for that very reason: contract aren't guaranteed. Of course, critics are quick to make the "Does anybody honor contracts?" argument when a player holds out for more money.

Either way, Kiwanuka doesn't like the current setup.

"I don't think it's right," he said. "I think that there are plenty of situations where players out-perform their contracts and they're bashed media-relations wise or fan-wise for asking for more money (COUGH*REVIS*COUGH), so when two sides agree to a contract and one side decides they're not going to live up to it, it's disappointing. ...

"You want to expect that that is the deal, but you're naive if you think that is what is going to happen," he continued. "That's the reality of the situation. That is the reality of the league. I don't agree with it at all, but these are the rules that we agreed upon. So we could either play or watch."

Kiwanuka knows that there's not much he can do about it; the league and the NFLPA agreed to this process in the CBA.

"It's something that is bargained collectively and for me, as an individual, you only have one action or recourse and that is to withhold your services and hold out," Kiwanuka said. "There is no market for you to shop your skills around. That is the part that is very unfair to players. We've come a long way, I can't imagine playing in the league without free agency, there has been progress. It is more fair than it has been in the past but that doesn't mean it's fair or equal now."

 

 

He's right, of course. Unfortunately I have no doubts that this will fall on deaf ears because proles really are that stupid and really do hate each other that much. Still, it is great to see a player speak intelligently about the situation. Kiwanuka is not your typical dumbass player either. He earned his degree early from Boston College (possibly one of the few real schools) and is the grandson of the first prime minister of Uganda. 

 

BTW: I think it's hilarious that whoever wrote the article states that they would never begrudge an NFL player for seeking more money.  Lolwut? Begrudging an NFL player for seeking more money couldn't happen fast enough on a consistent basis. It's part of why these pieces of human sh*t owners feel free to do what they do in the first place. Public compliance is one of their greatest tools/skills/assets, almost as valuable as the money itself.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the solution then? Eliminate the cap? Unable to cut players under contract? Every player on a one year contract wouldn't work.

Edited by Matt39

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually no, he's wrong.  Welcome to... the world.  The difference is he gets paid millions of dollars to do what he does, unlike the rest of us.  Until players are either willing to either eliminate any and all advanced bonuses they receive of any kind, or be willing to pay back any unearned portions of those bonuses, they will never ever be given the same rights as the team, just as they shouldn't be.  Guys like this expect to get all of the financial reward while taking none of the financial risk.  That's not how the real world works, and nobody who gets paid excessively less money with far less guarantees has any reason to think these guys are "victims", outside of having some sort of vendetta against the owners because they're richer than the rest of us.

 

And Gato, is it really that hard for you to stop sucking off Revis long enough to just post a damn article without forcing in some incorrect comparison to a guy who held out before ever taking a snap in the NFL?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the solution then? Eliminate the cap? Unable to cut players under contract? Every player on a one year contract wouldn't work.

 

Guarantee the contracts. Then if you cut a player, you could give the team the option to clear that contract from their cap if they want the room - or not, if they don't - depending on the team's financial situation. That's a basic framework that would need to be tweaked. Wealthier teams could take more advantage of that than poorer teams. Maybe throw in some sort of luxury tax for the teams looking to clear cap room to spend more to balance it out. 

 

You could also write language into contracts that if players sign with another team after being cut, they would have to pay back their previous team (if they were making $5M from the old team, and $2M from the new, the old team would be on the hook for $2M less, and the player would still have his $5M guarantee). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the solution then? Eliminate the cap? Unable to cut players under contract? Every player on a one year contract wouldn't work.

**** yes. **** that piece of sh*t cap right into the ground.

 

The vast majority of players are basically under constant one year team options anyway....that's basically the way NFL contracts work out. While every player on an outright one year contract wouldn't work, Kiwanuka isn't actually presenting it as an idea so much as a summarizing the contract situations for most players in the first place. He signed a 4 year deal in 2012 and was threatened with a release this year. He's very likely to be released next year, especially since he's gotten all uppity...

 

That cap can burn along with the people who created it. That would be a great place to start. Speaks a very telling statement about proles that the cap is seen as just a [fun] challenge for teams rather than what it actually is - an artificial salary deflating tool put in place by people funneling money to themselves while convincing the hilariously dumb fans that the players don't do anything to deserve more money. 

 

I think the contracts should be contracts - guaranteed. It's that teams fault if they choose to actually give Albert Haynesworth 100 million. 

Edited by SenorGato

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

**** yes. **** that piece of sh*t cap right into the ground.

 

The vast majority of players are basically under constant one year team options anyway....that's basically the way NFL contracts work out. While every player on an outright one year contract wouldn't work, Kiwanuka isn't actually presenting it as an idea so much as a summarizing the contract situations for most players in the first place. He signed a 4 year deal in 2012 and was threatened with a release this year. He's very likely to be released next year, especially since he's gotten all uppity...

 

That cap can burn along with the people who created it. That would be a great place to start. Speaks a very telling statement about proles that the cap is seen as just a [fun] challenge for teams rather than what it actually is - an artificial salary deflating tool put in place by people funneling money to themselves while convincing the hilariously dumb fans that the players don't do anything to deserve more money. 

 

I think the contracts should be contracts - guaranteed. It's that teams fault if they choose to claim they gave Albert Hanyesworth 100 million dollars, now it would no longer be a claim. 

 

We'd need to eliminate revenue sharing too then. Free for all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

he also risks his brain, unlike the rest of us. 

 

There's plenty of professions with greater health risks than football players with far less pay, benefits, or guarantees.  But even still, that's why I would 100% be behind the NFL seriously tweaking the injury clauses up to more greatly benefit the players.  I have no problem with a player not getting screwed because they were hurt (on the field) and can no longer perform, or at least to the same level.  The idea that they should receive large up-front payments while making absolutely no concessions on their end is absurd though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The difference is he gets paid millions of dollars to do what he does, unlike the rest of us. 

 

 

This could not possibly be less relevant. Here's hoping your job tells you to take a pay cut or gtfo. Nobody cares that you're jealous. That you find your jealousy more important than what is actually right goes to show the pettiness and stupidity of the prole mind. 

Edited by SenorGato

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All rookie contracts should be fully guaranteed and there should be a minimum base for all drafted players that make the team.That way a player in the league actually establishes some financial base and flexibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

he also risks his brain, unlike the rest of us. 

 

Nobody put a gun to his head, and told him he had to be a professional football player.  It was his choice, and he accepted the risks that come with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's plenty of professions with greater health risks than football players with far less pay, benefits, or guarantees.  But even still, that's why I would 100% be behind the NFL seriously tweaking the injury clauses up to more greatly benefit the players.  I have no problem with a player not getting screwed because they were hurt (on the field) and can no longer perform, or at least to the same level.  The idea that they should receive large up-front payments while making absolutely no concessions on their end is absurd though.

 

So the prole solution is to OK the NFL's sh*tty treatment of their on field employees rather than speak out against those professions. What just a hopeless people...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MLB sucks.  Lets not let the NFL become the MLB.

 

As far as hating Revis?  Why not?  We are Jets fans, and we want what is best for the Jets.  Revis's actions were not that.  I'm not a fan of Darrelle Revis the business man and couldn't care less about his bottom line.  My interest in the NFL is in the Jets success, not player's financial futures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This could not possibly be less relevant. Here's hoping your job tells you to take a pay cut or gtfo. Nobody cares that you're jealous. That you find your jealousy more important than what is actually right goes to show the pettiness and stupidity of the prole mind. 

 

So if it's not relevant, then why should there be any differences in how their jobs are treating them as opposed to everyone else?  If I end up being paid far more than I'm worth to my company, then I have no doubt I will eventually be let go.  Just like every other person in every other company out there.  The fact that you can't grasp the concept that this is exactly how the job market works throughout the world is your own issue, not mine, as it displays a complete lack of knowledge on your part.  You're the one who wants them to be put up onto some pedestal and be the exception to the rule.

 

The jealousy comment is beyond ironic, as your position has been long since documented of how bitter you are towards the "evil" owners, all because they're the richer ones.  Your deleting out the points from my post that you cannot refute only does more to show the lack of validity your position has and the fabricated nonsense you're pointlessly attempting to credit to me is a desperate attempt to have something you can claim some sort of "victory" over.

 

The bottom line is that if a player is truly worth a particular amount of money, then even if cut, he will get that from another team.  Therefore, this entire argument is based around the premise that someone should get paid more money than they actually deserve, simply because at some point in their lives they may have once been seen as worth that much money, even though they no longer are, or perhaps never even were.  It's a ridiculous concept with no viable justification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's plenty of professions with greater health risks than football players with far less pay, benefits, or guarantees.  But even still, that's why I would 100% be behind the NFL seriously tweaking the injury clauses up to more greatly benefit the players.  I have no problem with a player not getting screwed because they were hurt (on the field) and can no longer perform, or at least to the same level.  The idea that they should receive large up-front payments while making absolutely no concessions on their end is absurd though.

 

Nobody is suggesting that the bonus structure would remain the same if the contracts were guaranteed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody is suggesting that the bonus structure would remain the same if the contracts were guaranteed.

 

The players (and Gato) essentially are.  After all, the complaint that the current contract setup allows for a player to be cut but not leave whenever he sees fit suggests exactly that, and it ignores the reasons why that is the case.  Is it possible that revisions could be made to end up shifting the way players can come and go in the NFL?  Perhaps, but it would also involve some major concessions from the players that I doubt they'd ever make.  If they would then so be it, but it would essentially mean tearing up the entire current CBA and starting from scratch.

Edited by Bleedin Green

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The jealousy comment is beyond ironic, as your position has been long since documented of how bitter you are towards the "evil" owners, all because they're the richer ones. 

 

 

You don't need quotes around evil, and I have no problems with them being rich. I have far less problems with the owners being rich than fans/proles, such as yourself, do with the players making money actually. I have issues with the owners' methods of making money in this league, which they basically do openly because it is allowed and supported. This is no different from many other professions, you're right. You and most other proles solutions? Attack the proles making the money rather than go for the source. It's a very simple, very dumb way to live that allows for this ridiculous status quo we have all been forced to accept despite the massive, obvious wrongs. Just a dumb, beaten down populace trying to drag each other down, constantly...

 

The bottom line is that if a player is truly worth a particular amount of money, then even if cut, he will get that from another team.  

 

 

 

No, the bottom line is that players sign contracts with teams who hold all the power once the contract is signed. The only recourse a player has is to hold out, in which case dummies such as yourself forever hold it against them because you prefer logos. Proles stink like that. 

Edited by SenorGato

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't need quotes around evil, and I have no problems with them being rich. I have far less problems with the owners being rich than fans do with the players making money actually....and as Dom suggest, no one is saying the bonus system would be the same if contracts became garaunteed. The bonus system is in place because the contracts are not guaranteed.

 

 

No, the bottom line is that players sign contracts with teams who hold all the power once the contract is signed. The only recourse a player has is to hold out, in which case dummies such as yourself forever hold it against them because you prefer logos. Proles stink like that. 

 

There's two conflicting arguments you're making now.  Should the contracts be fully guaranteed, in which case the player would still have no power to do anything if they feel they are being underpaid?  Or should a player have the freedom to be able to leave a team as they see fit?  In the latter scenario, the contracts would of course not be fully guaranteed contracts.  Quite the opposite actually, it would necesitate a contract not being guaranteed at all.  It would also require them eliminating any up-front bonuses because, as you mentioned, those are in place because of the current contract structure.

 

And I'm sorry to have to prove you wrong on this matter yet again, but a player holding out twice in three years, once of which was before ever taking a single snap in the league, accompanied by faking injuries and then showing up fat and out of shape, is no way equivalent to an NFL player trying to get more money at a point in their career.  Try as you like to distort the reality of this situation, it is a rather significant factor in Revis catching as much crap for his actions as he did.

Edited by Bleedin Green

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That other proles are proles even sh*ttier does not proles the NFL less proles as an employer. That is the proles of the proles that the proles is so proles.

Fixed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Should the contracts be fully guaranteed, in which case the player would still have no power to do anything if they feel they are being underpaid? 

 

 

Yeah, no. That the contracts will be fully guaranteed will make it the player's own fault if he feels he got screwed (unless of course totally not collusion was involved). In which case you and your fellow proles can feel free to jump all over said player. 

 

Or should a player have the freedom to be able to leave a team as they see fit?

 

 

Rotfl, this doesn't actually exist right now either and we live in the world of non-guaranteed contracts. Lol what delusional nonsense....freedom? Kiwanuka isn't even two years into his four year deal and he would have gotten cut if he didn't take a pay cut. Freedom! 

 

Like I said - just a beaten down, mentally damaged populace....Stockholm Syndrome on a truly grand scale. 

Edited by SenorGato

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fixed?

 

You know who hates proles above all else? Other proles. 

 

And I'm sorry to have to prove you wrong on this matter yet again,

 

 

More prole hating prole created delusion...Hilarious as usual. 

Edited by SenorGato

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  



×