Kiwaunuka Calls NFL Contracts Unfair..............

Discussion in 'Chicago Bears' started by soulman, Jun 18, 2014.

  1. Ski-Whiz

    Ski-Whiz George Halas
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 1996
    Messages:
    37,317
    Likes Received:
    931
    ßearz ßuckz:
    1,221ß
    Please Register or Log in to Remove this Advertisement!
    Have you seen a lot of Terms of Service agreements? Look at Facebook. You sign all your rights for your information.

    This happens everywhere. Either society starts to gain control of this, or you sign your rights away.
     
  2. riczaj01

    riczaj01 DaBears Ditka
    SuperFan DBS Writer

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2006
    Messages:
    24,437
    Likes Received:
    3,905
    ßearz ßuckz:
    3,704ß
    i'm sorry did "both sides sign the contract" if so then he agreed to this. If he didn't agree to that term he should have had it removed; they wouldn't have and he wouldn't have a contract or be playing right now, but that was HIS choise.

    and players hold out for new contracts all the time, Urlacher did it at least 2x's. MJD and Forte both did it. So it's not one sided.
     
  3. Ski-Whiz

    Ski-Whiz George Halas
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 1996
    Messages:
    37,317
    Likes Received:
    931
    ßearz ßuckz:
    1,221ß

    They have the money, they make the rules. Welcome to America!

    Thats the way this land is run.
     
  4. butkus3595

    butkus3595 Pro-Bowler

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2013
    Messages:
    3,859
    Likes Received:
    1,728
    ßearz ßuckz:
    3,018ß
    Again...he said he understands that. You can know and understand something will or could happen and still be frustrated by it when and if it does. As for your examples, the fines teams can place on these guys make hold outs far and few in between now a days. Secondly...Matt Forte missed OTA's and mini camp if I remember correctly...he didn't hold out into training camp or the season and if he did so he would have been fined $30,000 per day missed.
     
  5. Jimmors

    Jimmors The Rhymenoceros
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2005
    Messages:
    31,648
    Likes Received:
    5,081
    ßearz ßuckz:
    2,602ß
    I think thats the gist of his argument...that NFL contracts ARENT guaranteed (i.e. a team can cut a player at any time, and not have to pay him the amount in the contract). Contracts are only "guaranteed" if the player is on the team during that time of the contract.

    Its a problem unique to the NFL, most pro leagues have actual guarantees that must be paid, even if the player is cut. And to double down on that problem, if a player in the NFL is cut due to injury, his chances of getting another high-paying contract when he is rehabbed and ready to sign on another team is very small (teams are rarely willing to shell out big bucks to players coming back from an injury serious enough that lead to him being cut).
     
  6. Ski-Whiz

    Ski-Whiz George Halas
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 1996
    Messages:
    37,317
    Likes Received:
    931
    ßearz ßuckz:
    1,221ß

    Just because they feel it's unfair. By them trying to steer the contract. Yes I understand negotations, but when the payers start ti demand too much, thats when they start to steer the team.

    It's the old argument of "without me, this comany is nothing". Look at revenue sharing.

    The whole arguement against the auto industry was how much money they were making. So the employees wanted more. They went on strike, and did just that.

    In the NFL the owners maintained the control, hence why players feel they need more.

    It's the owners team, they make the rules. They will have to cave in when needed, but in the end if the players don't like it, they can opt to do something else.
     
  7. Jimmors

    Jimmors The Rhymenoceros
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2005
    Messages:
    31,648
    Likes Received:
    5,081
    ßearz ßuckz:
    2,602ß
    Not exactly, the owners AND the players make the rules, via the CBA.
     
  8. butkus3595

    butkus3595 Pro-Bowler

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2013
    Messages:
    3,859
    Likes Received:
    1,728
    ßearz ßuckz:
    3,018ß
    I gotta be honest...I think you are misunderstanding what Kiwi is saying. He understands he can opt to do something else, he understands how his contract was set up, and he understands the rules he has to play by. THAT BEING SAID...he has a right to be frustrated by what can sometimes be a very arbitrary process..."Hey, we know you had one of your best years last year, but you need to take a pay cut of more than half". None of you like it when it happens to you, no matter if you're making $15 per hour, or 1 million per year. It would be even more frustrating to you if you had signed a contract stating you were to make a certain amount over a certain period of time. There are penalties in place for a player if he doesn't fulfill his part of the contract(fines for holdout's and such), however there is no penalty for a team for not fulfilling there end...and it's set up that way. That can be frustrating.
     
  9. soulman

    soulman Position Coach
    SuperFan DBS Writer

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    6,877
    Likes Received:
    2,087
    ßearz ßuckz:
    2,714ß
    Good post brother. This is what I was getting at. How do we as a well informed and certainly football intelligent group of fans see this issue that Kiwanuka brings up?

    I already know how the average Joe on the street will react. Just like they usually do. In this instance they'll tell Kiwanuka to shut up, take the $1.5 mil and be glad of it because he's making more money than they'll make in a lifetime. Of course if he was a FA and the team was negotiating with him on a new deal and playing hardball over a few mil in guarantees then it would be that the owners are all greedy bastards and they should pay the man because he the heart and soul of their defense. Have I got that about right guys? You know I have, admit it. :lol 027:

    There was a time not all that long ago when no contract was ever guaranteed and no one paid any player a signing bonus. HOF players like Butkus and Sayers were never guaranteed a penny in their deals. As much of a cheapskate as the Old Man was thought to be Gale Sayers was paid every nickel of his contract the year he was injured and the team paid for his surgery and recovery costs. The Bears did much the same for Brian Piccolo and although it's possible I don't really recall Walter Payton ever getting an upfront signing bonus or any guarantees because NFL Free Agency began in 1989 two years after he retired.

    It was the competition among team for top free agents that brought about signing bonuses, roster bonuses, and guaranteed salaries. So the NFL owner's sought a salary cap to put a lid on at least some of that to protect themselves from the predatory practices of one another not the player or their agents mind you. They can and often are their own worst enemies. And even with the current Free Agency System it's still not a totally free market deal for the players. Players are still subject to the draft and restricted free agent status and for top players there's the franchise tag and other protected player covenants.

    As far as "fairness goes, by your definition, these deals are fair because there are goods and bads for both. The Giants have outlived their bad (the risk of upfront money) while Kiwanuka is just experiencing his for the first time (after your guarantees are up we don't have to pay you squat). So on that basis 4da and NFL contract is "fair". As for Kiwanuka's idea of one year deals well wake up brother Mathias, they're already only one year deals from the teams perspective just not from yours.

    Would all player contract being bi-lateral one year deals be more beneficial? I doubt it and it would lead to even more lawsuits than the NFL already has on it's collective desks. Player A has a top year and is able to raise his one year salary from $2 mil to $10 mil the following year but player B who made $10 mil blows out his knee and may never play again. What's he worth? I'd say whatever he can net out of a lawsuit against the team because he was injured at work. I think the insurance industry would love it because they'd sell far more indemnity policies that paid off for career diminishing or career ending injuries and the teams would most likely end up paying for those just to protect themselves.

    The whole thing as it relates to Kiwanuka's deal seems a bit messed up to me. We made those offers of salary cuts to avoid being released for established vets before the start of Free Agency. Not only do I believe that shows proper respect for the player and his family but I also believe teams should be compelled to do it that way. Fail to do it and your man's salary is set for that year provided he makes the team. While this guarantees him exactly nothing as far as his current year paycheck goes (as Weems is about to experience) it will at least give him the opportunity to make a choice whether he better off staying, being fairly sure of his status with his existing team, or going into Free Agency looking for a better deal as Earl Bennett did and then didn't get AND got released. He gambled and lost.

    None of this is likely to change until a new CBA is negotiated but philosophically speaking I think they should level this part of the playing field t make it more equally bad for both sides. Right now it' slanted to the owners. Instead of making the when purely up to the owners I believe there should be a date prior to the start of Free Agency when that offer of a reduced salary must be made. A date enough in advance for a player to have an opportunity to discuss it with his agent and his family. It's a man's career and his livelihood were talking about and even if it is a rather large livelihood there is still the matter of fairness and the removal of all manipulation of the player as appears to be the situation in Kiwanuka's case.

    Truly, what choice did he really have? To risk complete unemployment or employment for even less than the Giants were offering him was pretty much like putting a gun to his head. He really didn't have a good choice and that's what he's angry about. I think given being in a similar situation most of us would feel that way too.
     
  10. riczaj01

    riczaj01 DaBears Ditka
    SuperFan DBS Writer

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2006
    Messages:
    24,437
    Likes Received:
    3,905
    ßearz ßuckz:
    3,704ß
    Forte didn't have to hold out any longer into TC he got a contract that was inline w/where he was in his position for the NFL.

    And I'm all for players getting all the money they can. They deserve every dollar they can get, that's the American way. But I also don't want to hear 20-30 year old 1-10%'rs bitching about their lot in life. Shit's not guaranteed? Sorry about your damn luck, welcome to the real world where most things aren't, and be glad you at least got a little that was.

    As ski pointed out real 1 yr contracts, wouldn't be wanted by most players looking at a real legit shot at getting a serious injury anyways, the guaranteed money and the dead cap money is the way the NFL keeps teams from just cutting players. Cutler goes down w/a serious leg inj this year, they aren't cutting him next year b/c of the 19mil cap hit. I know most players aren't going to have that, but all the same any dead cap space is going to make the team way out if it's worth it.
     
    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page