Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Is Manning Coming Back?


Quantum88
 Share

Recommended Posts

CBSSports.com is reporting that Manning and Brees are demanding immediate free agency (when eligible) as part of the settlement of the Brady suit. Brees is still under contract, but Manning's is "franchised" which he apparently is challenging. This could be a nightmare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CBSSports.com is reporting that Manning and Brees are demanding immediate free agency (when eligible) as part of the settlement of the Brady suit. Brees is still under contract, but Manning's is "franchised" which he apparently is challenging. This could be a nightmare.

Well let's hope so but I guess it will be a mistery until the lock out and all are settled. :FBshocked:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CBSSports.com is reporting that Manning and Brees are demanding immediate free agency (when eligible) as part of the settlement of the Brady suit. Brees is still under contract, but Manning's is "franchised" which he apparently is challenging. This could be a nightmare.

This was reported a ways back before June Even I believe, ( NO LONGER HAVE THE LINK ) , before Manning & brees & Brady had that joint announcement about lets get this settled now, the time has come as todays article below points out

since then i only have seen rehashing of the same statement though havent seen yours nor know from where they are getting the info, for all wwe know its the same old statement again being used as a source

This is the issue at hand from another post i did today & references the Manning situation & only 2 guys presenting a current problem

Jackson, Mankins push for compensation supposedly holding up end of lockout

LONG ARTICLE

Yahoo! Sports has learned through multiple sources that the agents for wide receiver Vincent Jackson(notes) and guard Logan Mankins(notes) have requested that their players either become unrestricted free agents when the lockout is over or that they receive $10 million each as part of the settlement. Both Jackson and Mankins chose to sit out much of the 2010 season when they failed to reach long-term deals with the San Diego Chargers and New England Patriots, respectively

.

Likewise, quarterbacks Peyton Manning(notes) and Drew Brees(notes) could push for compensation, although another source said each is far less likely to create problems, particularly after their joint statement with Tom Brady last week in which they pushed for a settlement.

“[Manning and Brees] don’t really have that much to gain because they’re both quarterbacks,” a source said. “They pretty much have all the leverage they could want. But I think some other guys are going to expect to be compensated.”

Jackson, Mankins and Manning were designated “franchise” players in February, and Brees could be hit with the tag after this season, the final year of his current contract.

My link

Cole: Manning not going anywhere

Even as word reaches that Manning and Brees request that there be no franchise tag on them, Jason Cole reports that no one thinks Manning is going anywhere.

An NFL source said that the league would consider all its options in dealing with the settlement. However, the league might be more inclined to pay Jackson and Mankins because removing the franchise tag would set a precedent for Manning to ask for the same thing now and Brees to do so next year if he doesn’t get a new contract from the New Orleans Saints.

My link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The new CBA only allows you to be tagged once. He's already had that. So yes, he should be exempt from any more tags.

Also, it's to set a precedent for other players who have been tagged in the past. Don't assume it's selfish. It's an issue that needs to be clarified league wide and this will force them to do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you say tagged once, do you mean only once, EVER? Or only once in a row?

It makes sense to me that when coming off of a multi-year contract the team should be able to utilize its Franchise Tag, but only for one year. If the player plays under the tag, then the following year that tag should not be able to be used on the same player.

I do believe Vincent Jackson and Logan Mankins were both tagged in 2010 and now again tagged for 2011. It makes sense that as settlement, those two players should have their existing Franchise Tag lifted. I do not agree about exempting Manning, Brady, or Brees, though. In fact, I do not believe that Brady or Brees should even have any standing in the lawsuit, because they are both under existing, valid, in force contracts and therefore, have not suffered any damages. They should have no standing in the lawsuit. At least with Manning, because he is an existing free agent, logically he ought to have standing.

All I know is, I cheer for the Colts as a team and because their players are Colts, I cheer for them to excel individually as well.

If anything, though, this whole labor unrest has made me care a lot less about individual players. As bad as it would be for the team if Manning actually wanted to and did go elsewhere, I would be like, Meh, sucks for the Colts, but screw him. If he's on a different team, instead of being beloved, he would be the enemy, doubly despised for rebuking the Colts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you say tagged once, do you mean only once, EVER? Or only once in a row?

It makes sense to me that when coming off of a multi-year contract the team should be able to utilize its Franchise Tag, but only for one year. If the player plays under the tag, then the following year that tag should not be able to be used on the same player.

I do believe Vincent Jackson and Logan Mankins were both tagged in 2010 and now again tagged for 2011. It makes sense that as settlement, those two players should have their existing Franchise Tag lifted. I do not agree about exempting Manning, Brady, or Brees, though. In fact, I do not believe that Brady or Brees should even have any standing in the lawsuit, because they are both under existing, valid, in force contracts and therefore, have not suffered any damages. They should have no standing in the lawsuit. At least with Manning, because he is an existing free agent, logically he ought to have standing.

All I know is, I cheer for the Colts as a team and because their players are Colts, I cheer for them to excel individually as well.

If anything, though, this whole labor unrest has made me care a lot less about individual players. As bad as it would be for the team if Manning actually wanted to and did go elsewhere, I would be like, Meh, sucks for the Colts, but screw him. If he's on a different team, instead of being beloved, he would be the enemy, doubly despised for rebuking the Colts.

Huh? Brady and others are on the antitrust lawsuit; this has absolutely NOTHING to do with those who are under contract, not under contract, or anything else. This had to do with the new CBA, not individual contracts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An NFL source with direct knowledge of negotiations said Indianapolis Colts quarterback Peyton Manning and Drew Brees of the New Orleans Saints are requesting to be exempt from the franchise tag for the rest of their careers.

That means Manning, who was tagged by the Colts before the lockout, wants to become an unrestricted free agent now.

The NFL feels this is a last-ditch power play being orchestrated by NFLPA lead counsel Jeff Kessler, who has long been a thorn in the NFL's side, and powerful agent Tom Condon, who represents Manning and Brees.

If you remember, just last week Manning and Brees, along with Patriots quarterback Tom Brady, were calling on NFL owners to make a deal because the NFLPA's offer was fair

http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/extra_points/2011/07/brees_manning_r.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, it's to set a precedent for other players who have been tagged in the past. Don't assume it's selfish. It's an issue that needs to be clarified league wide and this will force them to do it.

Nah, it's not selfish at all. Let's hold up a dealat the last minute for two thousand others until I get mine. Nope. not at all.

(Wonder how'd you feel if he walked away from the Colts to play in Arizona ???)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nah, it's not selfish at all. Let's hold up a dealat the last minute for two thousand others until I get mine. Nope. not at all.

(Wonder how'd you feel if he walked away from the Colts to play in Arizona ???)

He's not holding anything up yet. Each player in the lawsuit gets a settlement in order for it to end. This is what Brees and Manning's agent has asked for as a settlement. Most of the analysts I'm listening to don't think it's a big deal to settle.

Jackson is asking for $10 million dollars in one payment. That's the one that's mostly under contention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's not holding anything up yet. Each player in the lawsuit gets a settlement in order for it to end. This is what Brees and Manning's agent has asked for as a settlement. Most of the analysts I'm listening to don't think it's a big deal to settle.

Jackson is asking for $10 million dollars in one payment. That's the one that's mostly under contention.

Believe both asking for 10 million & Mankins as would be 2 years in a row being tagged doesnt like that idea

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, Manning wants a lifetime exclusion from the franchise tag?

Greedy much?

Agreed. I hope this is nothing more then a last minute act and it dissapears tonight or tomorrow. If not, Manning deserves all the crap he will get and is getting right now by some.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that this will affect where Peyton ends up whatsoever. He'll end up a Colt, of course. It'll just be under a brand-spanking-new contract.

yeah, which is what we all would prefer

not sure if it would be possible, but freeing up the tag could, in theory, allow us to use it on someone else if need be

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huh? Brady and others are on the antitrust lawsuit; this has absolutely NOTHING to do with those who are under contract, not under contract, or anything else. This had to do with the new CBA, not individual contracts.

Hmmm strange, didn't know you can sue for damages unless damages are sufferred, which no player under a current contract negotiated under the terms of a cba, can demonstrate. Also, how can the suit be about a cba when the union is decertified and thus, the NFLPA cannot negotiate a cba? Of course, it's all a sham really, but whatever. I'm not going to get into an argument about "legal standing".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that this will affect where Peyton ends up whatsoever. He'll end up a Colt, of course. It'll just be under a brand-spanking-new contract.

Yep, the question becomes at what cost. Will he handicap the rest of the roster? Early on i thought no, now i'm not as sure. He's already turned down one offer already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm strange, didn't know you can sue for damages unless damages are sufferred, which no player under a current contract negotiated under the terms of a cba, can demonstrate. Also, how can the suit be about a cba when the union is decertified and thus, the NFLPA cannot negotiate a cba? Of course, it's all a sham really, but whatever. I'm not going to get into an argument about "legal standing".

my head just exploded

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah, which is what we all would prefer

not sure if it would be possible, but freeing up the tag could, in theory, allow us to use it on someone else if need be

I don't think so. The tag had to be used by the end of the 2010 league year, which was the beginning of March. Can't turn around and use it on someone else (nor would we want to).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think so. The tag had to be used by the end of the 2010 league year, which was the beginning of March. Can't turn around and use it on someone else (nor would we want to).

that's what i would tend to think as well. unless there is specific language allowing it, it would be off the table

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, they don't want to be tied to one year contracts? They want long term deals.

Anybody would give them money and buckets of it. But the length of the contract might be another issue.

Esp considering nobody really knows how manning's neck is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you say tagged once, do you mean only once, EVER? Or only once in a row?

It makes sense to me that when coming off of a multi-year contract the team should be able to utilize its Franchise Tag, but only for one year. If the player plays under the tag, then the following year that tag should not be able to be used on the same player.

I do believe Vincent Jackson and Logan Mankins were both tagged in 2010 and now again tagged for 2011. It makes sense that as settlement, those two players should have their existing Franchise Tag lifted. I do not agree about exempting Manning, Brady, or Brees, though. In fact, I do not believe that Brady or Brees should even have any standing in the lawsuit, because they are both under existing, valid, in force contracts and therefore, have not suffered any damages. They should have no standing in the lawsuit. At least with Manning, because he is an existing free agent, logically he ought to have standing.

All I know is, I cheer for the Colts as a team and because their players are Colts, I cheer for them to excel individually as well.

If anything, though, this whole labor unrest has made me care a lot less about individual players. As bad as it would be for the team if Manning actually wanted to and did go elsewhere, I would be like, Meh, sucks for the Colts, but screw him. If he's on a different team, instead of being beloved, he would be the enemy, doubly despised for rebuking the Colts.

VJ and Mankins were RFAs, and only due to the uncapped 2010 rules. I think VJ can demonstrate harm due to being forced to play under the tender (Mankins to a much lesser extent, since he was offered a long term deal), but that's a different issue. He's not asking for tag exemption, he's asking for money damages. Same with Mankins.

Brady, Brees and Manning are asking for tag exemption. This is problematic for the Saints and the Colts. Brady just signed a four year deal, so it's not as pressing an issue. But Brees is a free agent after 2011. Manning was a free agent after 2010, and was tagged. If the tag exemption applies in the settlement, Manning would immediately be a free agent. I don't know if Manning can really demonstrate that he was harmed due to the tag, especially since he was reportely offered a long term deal that would make him the highest paid player in the NFL.

As for the tag rules, I haven't heard anything so far that says definitively what the new rules will be. I've heard that the old franchise tag rule was that a player could only be tagged a total of three times during his career, and the players wanted that reduced to one. *IF* the new rules reduce that tag to once per, then it would make sense that Manning would seek exemption from it now, since he was tagged in 2003. He already had his one time. Can't really say the same for Brady and Brees, since neither has ever been tagged, and I don't think either has ever even been an RFA.

Hmmm strange, didn't know you can sue for damages unless damages are sufferred, which no player under a current contract negotiated under the terms of a cba, can demonstrate. Also, how can the suit be about a cba when the union is decertified and thus, the NFLPA cannot negotiate a cba? Of course, it's all a sham really, but whatever. I'm not going to get into an argument about "legal standing".

We've had our disagreements, but I think this is spot on. I wouldn't go so far as to call it a sham (the NLRB never got around to this case), but the 8th Circuit pretty much stated that any suit brought about by the players would be an extension of the labor dispute, and they'd at least have to wait a significant period of time (think it was a year from the time of decertification) before their case could be heard on its merits. Either way, the suit was not and could not be about the CBA, technically speaking. Of course, that's exactly what it was about, and I think it's working the way it was intended, to give the players leverage where they had none, and get them more favorable terms than they would have gotten otherwise. We'll see what the end result is. We all knew what the intentions were, to begin with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We will definately see in the next coming days what really motivates Manning. Is it loyalty to the Colts, or is it money? There will be teams out there who will give away the farm to get Manning when the franchise tag is removed and he hits the free agent market. Tampa Bay has over $50 million it has to spend and Cincinatti also has over $30 they have to spend to be in compliance with the new salary cap rule. There are other teams that will dump other players to free cap room for Manning. Indy doesn't have enough cap space to sign Manning to the contract he wants and be active in the free agent market. I, for one, am a little nervous about this whole situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, they don't want to be tied to one year contracts? They want long term deals.

Anybody would give them money and buckets of it. But the length of the contract might be another issue.

Esp considering nobody really knows how manning's neck is.

That's where they could possibly demonstrate harm, if their team tagged them and forced them to play under one year deals. Problem is, that's not the case for any of them. Manning was tagged in 2003, and was eventually signed to a long-term deal. I don't think there were even any team activities between the time he was tagged and the time his deal was done. No harm. He hasn't played a game under the franchise tag, and has been offered the richest contract in NFL history. No harm.

Brees is still under contract, and has never been tagged. Same for Brady (who is under contract for four years, and is currently the second highest paid player in the NFL). No harm for either of them. Unless the argument is that being restricted from true free agency has reduced their earning potential, but that's a hard thing to quantify, and why it's relevant that the Colts offered Manning a huge deal and that Brady has a huge deal.

I think this might be about setting precedent. I'm not sure if settlements can be used as legal precedent, and I actually doubt that they can. But if the players can negotiate a settlement that includes a restriction on the teams of use of the franchise tag, it might give the players a leg to stand on in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We will definately see in the next coming days what really motivates Manning. Is it loyalty to the Colts, or is it money? There will be teams out there who will give away the farm to get Manning when the franchise tag is removed and he hits the free agent market. Tampa Bay has over $50 million it has to spend and Cincinatti also has over $30 they have to spend to be in compliance with the new salary cap rule. There are other teams that will dump other players to free cap room for Manning. Indy doesn't have enough cap space to sign Manning to the contract he wants and be active in the free agent market. I, for one, am a little nervous about this whole situation.

It's unclear whether that's true or not. There have been some reports that put the Colts up against the cap, and others that show them with tens of millions in cap space.

Link to comment
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
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...