johnny green balls Posted June 6, 2007 Share Posted June 6, 2007 Fair enough. I couldn't agree more that we are splitting hairs, but it's certainly not as simple as franchise = 1 year contract. He's free to hold out. As for the CBA I won't start on that or the ****ing bull**** NFL monopoly. anyone is "free" to hold out, even if in year 2 of a 5 year deal because we don't imprison people for breaching contracts. but how free is he really? if he sits, he doesn't get paid. sure sounds like the pats got him contractually by the balls on that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECURB Posted June 6, 2007 Share Posted June 6, 2007 He should just tell the pats he will sign a 1 year deal but ONLY if there is a promise that he wont be franchised next season too... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#27TheDominator Posted June 6, 2007 Share Posted June 6, 2007 anyone is "free" to hold out, even if in year 2 of a 5 year deal because we don't imprison people for breaching contracts. but how free is he really? if he sits, he doesn't get paid. sure sounds like the pats got him contractually by the balls on that one. Players under contract are fined. Samuel doesn't owe the Patriots anything even though in practice he isn't free to sign with anybody. As for the Pats having him by the balls, I already told you that I will not discuss the CBA or the ****ing bull**** NFL monopoly! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny green balls Posted June 6, 2007 Share Posted June 6, 2007 Players under contract are fined. Samuel doesn't owe the Patriots anything even though in practice he isn't free to sign with anybody. As for the Pats having him by the balls, I already told you that I will not discuss the CBA or the ****ing bull**** NFL monopoly! he is being fined. it's called lost wages. he's not free--by contract--to play for another team. that means something is stopping him. it's not desire, it's a contract that has a firm grip on his balls. i stand by my characterization. but ya, it is a monopoly which is inherently anti-american. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
serphnx Posted June 6, 2007 Share Posted June 6, 2007 being able to cut someone is an implicit part of every contract due to the collective bargaining agreement so a team cutting someone isn't "breaking the contract" it's taking an opt-out clause. to protect against this, players could negotiate a poison pill (ala steve hutchinson) or a no trade/no cut clause to modify the CBA. of course they will have to compromise and give something else up (i.e. lower salary) but nothing in life is free. few players want to give up $ for stability so that's their call. holding out, on the other hand, is punished by the CBA (excusing the team from honoring--i.e. paying--the contract) and is a recognized contract breach. therein lies the difference. lastly, the first thing you learn in law school is that no female law students are hot, the second thing you learn is that breaking a contract is not immoral or a sin and that if a contract ceases to be beneficial, it is a reasonable business decision to break it but that you must of course compensate the non-breaching party for any loss and move on (often there are "liquidated damages" clauses which state "you break the contract, you pay me xnumber of dollars.") contracts don't equal servitude, they just define two (or more) parties' relationships. i tend to think it's honorable to keep up your end of the bargain, stuff like that but the law doesn't care. it's pretty hard/impossible to get punitive damages for contract breaches in the absence of bad faith (i.e. purposefully entering a contract than bailing just to screw someone). the law wants to encourage the breach of bad deals-- society doesn't derive a benefit when two parties continue to honor a contract that has become worthless. Maybe you missed lesson 3: personal service contracts are not enforceable. I have never heard of a poison pill being used for anything outside of corporate mergers/anti-takeover defenses. I have absolutely no clue how you intend to use a poison pill, enlighten me. #27, i hope you are taking notes from our resident attorney, you know you could learn a thing or two from a 1L taking Contracts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny green balls Posted June 6, 2007 Share Posted June 6, 2007 Maybe you missed lesson 3: personal service contracts are not enforceable. I have never heard of a poison pill being used for anything outside of corporate mergers/anti-takeover defenses. I have absolutely no clue how you intend to use a poison pill, enlighten me. #27, i hope you are taking notes from our resident attorney, you know you could learn a thing or two from a 1L taking Contracts. #1 steve hutchinson's deal has a poison bill. look it up. #2, did you read what i wrote about them not being able to force him to play but they CAN make him sit/not play for anyone else. the NFL is a monopoly, thus excluding him from playing for another team is negative enforcement of a personal service contract unless you consider playing for the CFL a viable option. hornbooks don't teach you everything bro, learn about the exceptions because that's what exams focus on. good luck in your 1L year! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raffyD Posted June 6, 2007 Share Posted June 6, 2007 Maybe you missed lesson 3: personal service contracts are not enforceable. I have never heard of a poison pill being used for anything outside of corporate mergers/anti-takeover defenses. I have absolutely no clue how you intend to use a poison pill, enlighten me. #27, i hope you are taking notes from our resident attorney, you know you could learn a thing or two from a 1L taking Contracts. Didn't you know? 1L's know more about the law than practicing attorney's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny green balls Posted June 6, 2007 Share Posted June 6, 2007 Didn't you know? 1L's know more about the law than practicing attorney's. who the hell is a 1L? i've been practicing for years . i thought serphx meant he was a 1L. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#27TheDominator Posted June 6, 2007 Share Posted June 6, 2007 #1 steve hutchinson's deal has a poison bill. look it up. #2, did you read what i wrote about them not being able to force him to play but they CAN make him sit/not play for anyone else. the NFL is a monopoly, thus excluding him from playing for another team is negative enforcement of a personal service contract unless you consider playing for the CFL a viable option. hornbooks don't teach you everything bro, learn about the exceptions because that's what exams focus on. good luck in your 1L year! I wouldn't be too hard on the kid JGB. In this thread you have claimed that the franchise tag = a contract, that the $7.9M isn't a tender (it specifically is called that), that Samuel isn't a free agent and that lost wages equal fines. If that's true, the Jets have been fining me for years because they refuse to carry me on their roster. It's all splitting hairs because deep down the owners have the players by the balls, but if you want to get specific he wouldn't do too well on his contract exam with that info. Where'd you mention the poison pill? Hutch had one, but the Jets couldn't use that one because we wouldn't want to guarantee any DB top salary since Rhodes and Revis both might be commanding huge salaries in the future. The NFL likes to disallow those sorts of provisions, but I think they left Hutchinson's in because it is so much like the franchise tag to begin with (highest $$ at the position) who the hell is a 1L? i've been practicing for years . i thought serphx meant he was a 1L. I think he was referring to me. I don't know why. I was admitted in '91. Sorry everybody. FWIW, I think there is nothing worse than lawyers having a discussion on the internet. If it were any fun we'd be working instead of posting on a Jets message board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny green balls Posted June 6, 2007 Share Posted June 6, 2007 I wouldn't be too hard on the kid JGB. In this thread you have claimed that the franchise tag = a contract, that the $7.9M isn't a tender (it specifically is called that), that Samuel isn't a free agent and that lost wages equal fines. If that's true, the Jets have been fining me for years because they refuse to carry me on their roster. It's all splitting hairs because deep down the owners have the players by the balls, but if you want to get specific he wouldn't do too well on his contract exam with that info. Where'd you mention the poison pill? Hutch had one, but the Jets couldn't use that one because we wouldn't want to guarantee any DB top salary since Rhodes and Revis both might be commanding huge salaries in the future. The NFL likes to disallow those sorts of provisions, but I think they left Hutchinson's in because it is so much like the franchise tag to begin with (highest $$ at the position) facing a determined opponent is a good lesson for the kid. and yes, it is splitting hairs because with the unequal bargaining power of the players/owners, the CBA and the functional monopoly of the league, general black letter law (i.e. offer + acceptance = contract) is virtually worthless when analyzing the legal elements of NFL contracts. also, just cause they call it a "tender" doesn't mean it operates like one outside of the NFL monopolistic microcosm. we all know terms means what the governing contracts--not a textbook-- says they mean. I think he was referring to me. I don't know why. I was admitted in '91. Sorry everybody. FWIW, I think there is nothing worse than lawyers having a discussion on the internet. If it were any fun we'd be working instead of posting on a Jets message board. i'll drink to that, this "debate" will always be circular anyway given the points i stated above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
serphnx Posted June 6, 2007 Share Posted June 6, 2007 Who are you referring to as kid? Me? I'm no 1L and have absolutely zero intention of ever being a lawyer. I was just commenting on the argument, and I agree with #27 because a lot of what he says is very common sense. I can see how you misread it now looking over my post, but I don't think anyone else read it like you did (raffyD certainly didn't). I thought you were a 1L because you mentioned things in law school. I never knew female law students weren't hot, I thought it was just anyone that wanted to be a lawyer was unsuitable for any form of personal relationship. I also thought lawyers used better punctuation and grammar than you use, but, meh, whatever, I'll leave you and #27 to argue with each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmypopples Posted June 7, 2007 Share Posted June 7, 2007 Who are you referring to as kid? Me? I'm no 1L and have absolutely zero intention of ever being a lawyer. I was just commenting on the argument, and I agree with #27 because a lot of what he says is very common sense. I can see how you misread it now looking over my post, but I don't think anyone else read it like you did (raffyD certainly didn't). I thought you were a 1L because you mentioned things in law school. I never knew female law students weren't hot, I thought it was just anyone that wanted to be a lawyer was unsuitable for any form of personal relationship. I also thought lawyers used better punctuation and grammar than you use, but, meh, whatever, I'll leave you and #27 to argue with each other. Honestly, after reading this, i wonder if you even ever met a lawyer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
serphnx Posted June 7, 2007 Share Posted June 7, 2007 Honestly, after reading this, i wonder if you even ever met a lawyer. I wear a cross around my neck, it's been a great ward so far and I will keep using it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#27TheDominator Posted June 7, 2007 Share Posted June 7, 2007 Who are you referring to as kid? Me? I'm no 1L and have absolutely zero intention of ever being a lawyer. I was just commenting on the argument, and I agree with #27 because a lot of what he says is very common sense. I can see how you misread it now looking over my post, but I don't think anyone else read it like you did (raffyD certainly didn't). I thought you were a 1L because you mentioned things in law school. I never knew female law students weren't hot, I thought it was just anyone that wanted to be a lawyer was unsuitable for any form of personal relationship. I also thought lawyers used better punctuation and grammar than you use, but, meh, whatever, I'll leave you and #27 to argue with each other. I think I'm the first one to call you kid, sorry. Didn't think of it as an insult. What do you have against personal relationships with lawyers? Don't you like to MMA fight with us? That's a "personal relationship". At least oktaren would have thought so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
serphnx Posted June 7, 2007 Share Posted June 7, 2007 I think I'm the first one to call you kid, sorry. Didn't think of it as an insult. What do you have against personal relationships with lawyers? Don't you like to MMA fight with us? That's a "personal relationship". At least oktaren would have thought so. I actually only (personally) know of a few law students that do MMA, but no lawyers, and I haven't rolled with any yet. I tend to roll with law enforcement personnel, like cops or sheriffs or what not, maybe FBI but I wouldn't know if they were I'm sure. Lawyers are too aggressive and fairly arrogant for the most part. Women already are very confrontational over the most absurd and trivial things, if she's a lawyer won't that just be exacerbated? By personal relationship, I meant more sexual, since he mentioned female law students I thought that was what he meant. But in general, any relationship now that I think about it... The best women to date, imo, are nurses, school teachers, etc. I only like nice girls Lawyers are definitely not nice people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#27TheDominator Posted June 7, 2007 Share Posted June 7, 2007 I actually only (personally) know of a few law students that do MMA, but no lawyers, and I haven't rolled with any yet. I tend to roll with law enforcement personnel, like cops or sheriffs or what not, maybe FBI but I wouldn't know if they were I'm sure. Lawyers are too aggressive and fairly arrogant for the most part. Women already are very confrontational over the most absurd and trivial things, if she's a lawyer won't that just be exacerbated? By personal relationship, I meant more sexual, since he mentioned female law students I thought that was what he meant. But in general, any relationship now that I think about it... The best women to date, imo, are nurses, school teachers, etc. I only like nice girls Lawyers are definitely not nice people. Personal relationship means sexual!?!? Stay away from me! No matter what oktaren said! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
serphnx Posted June 7, 2007 Share Posted June 7, 2007 Personal relationship means sexual!?!? Stay away from me! No matter what oktaren said! A personal relationship with any female that is not related to me and is of the same age as me probably means sexual, yes, especially in the context of them being "hot." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gangreenman Posted June 7, 2007 Share Posted June 7, 2007 When Minny was winning, all he ever did was pump up the team and Daunte. When things started to go bad he become such richard's noggin. For the Jets sake I hope he doesn't get off to a good start and runs the Pats down the tube. But, unfortunately I don't think that will happen. If the Jets can't win the super bowl I'll root for whoever is against the Pats. No, he was only happy in Minny because HE was the main weapon in their success. Even if the pats have success and he's not the 'primary target', you better believe he's goinna start something. As I said in my above post, Sure, he wants to win, but NOT AT THE EXPENSE OF HIS EGO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raffyD Posted June 7, 2007 Share Posted June 7, 2007 A joke (hence the wink) on my part. Saw the 1L reference and was just thinking back to my 1L days and how I felt I knew the law cold (been practicing for 6 years myself). I need to work on my jokes. Btw, I'm hoping like hell that Samuel sits 10 games but it doesn't seem likely. How often has this actually happened? I can't think of one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raffyD Posted June 7, 2007 Share Posted June 7, 2007 Personal relationship means sexual!?!? Stay away from me! No matter what oktaren said! Always liked school teachers for some reason. And I never got into a relationship with female lawyers/law students. There were some hotties (and some fun) in law school though, have to admit that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raffyD Posted June 7, 2007 Share Posted June 7, 2007 I wouldn't be too hard on the kid JGB. In this thread you have claimed that the franchise tag = a contract, that the $7.9M isn't a tender (it specifically is called that), that Samuel isn't a free agent and that lost wages equal fines. If that's true, the Jets have been fining me for years because they refuse to carry me on their roster. It's all splitting hairs because deep down the owners have the players by the balls, but if you want to get specific he wouldn't do too well on his contract exam with that info. Where'd you mention the poison pill? Hutch had one, but the Jets couldn't use that one because we wouldn't want to guarantee any DB top salary since Rhodes and Revis both might be commanding huge salaries in the future. The NFL likes to disallow those sorts of provisions, but I think they left Hutchinson's in because it is so much like the franchise tag to begin with (highest $$ at the position) I think he was referring to me. I don't know why. I was admitted in '91. Sorry everybody. FWIW, I think there is nothing worse than lawyers having a discussion on the internet. If it were any fun we'd be working instead of posting on a Jets message board. Sorry I missed this earlier, POTW nom! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raffyD Posted June 7, 2007 Share Posted June 7, 2007 I double posted and deleted it. Severely jetlagged and not too clear headed. (Just got back from my honeymoon in Hawaii-good place btw). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny green balls Posted June 7, 2007 Share Posted June 7, 2007 Who are you referring to as kid? Me? I'm no 1L and have absolutely zero intention of ever being a lawyer. I was just commenting on the argument, and I agree with #27 because a lot of what he says is very common sense. I can see how you misread it now looking over my post, but I don't think anyone else read it like you did (raffyD certainly didn't). I thought you were a 1L because you mentioned things in law school. I never knew female law students weren't hot, I thought it was just anyone that wanted to be a lawyer was unsuitable for any form of personal relationship. I also thought lawyers used better punctuation and grammar than you use, but, meh, whatever, I'll leave you and #27 to argue with each other. please, lawyers purposefully avoid common sense in laws so that you have to hire us to interpret them! punctuation/grammar nitpicker-- oh boy, you're one of those. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.