What's Worse?

[chrisfarley]

1) Signing a contract, then holding out for more money before the contract ends.

2) Organization terminating your contract prior to it ending (no insubordination or anything like that)

[Gavin]

signing contract and then holding out for more money, cause if a guy was to do that Id question his honor, which alot of players dont seem to have these days

[Gavin]

the latter is bound to happen, the player that signs that contract is set for life even if he was to have to restructure or is cut

[LJpalmbeacher2]

#2

[21isSuperman]

I can't stand it when a player holds out for money. I understand it (for example, CJ is likely never going to hit 2000 yards again, so he had to hold out when he did so he could have enough to back himself up), but I still can't stand it

[chrisfarley]

As a player, honor your contract

As an owner, be loyal to your players and their contracts

[bavanlan]

1) Signing a contract, then holding out for more money before the contract ends.

2) Organization terminating your contract prior to it ending (no insubordination or anything like that)

#1.

The contract says a team can cut a player at any time. The player agrees to be cut at the team's whim by signing the contract. #2 is simply exercising that right both parties agreed for the team to have. #1 is a deliberate breach of the contract both parties agreed to, it is far worse, IMO.

[subvet]

1) Signing a contract, then holding out for more money before the contract ends.

2) Organization terminating your contract prior to it ending (no insubordination or anything like that)

A contract is supposed to bind two parties legally as the old honor system of a handshake wasn't enough any more. In my mind it's much worse for the organization terminating it because they were the one requiring it in the first place and would take action if the player tried to hold out. I'm not a legal eagle but if a handshake won't work, a contract should otherwise how is an agreement ever to be honored?

[deedub75]

As a player, honor your contract

As an owner, be loyal to your players and their contracts

That's the problem. Owners rarely, if ever, honor their contracts.

[Smonroe]

And this is Colts related because...

[bavanlan]

That's the problem. Owners rarely, if ever, honor their contracts.

A contract is supposed to bind two parties legally as the old honor system of a handshake wasn't enough any more. In my mind it's much worse for the organization terminating it because they were the one requiring it in the first place and would take action if the player tried to hold out. I'm not a legal eagle but if a handshake won't work, a contract should otherwise how is an agreement ever to be honored?

Have you bothered to even read a player contract? You clearly haven't.

http://images.nflpla..._Searchable.pdf

Appendix A, Section 11. Page 260-261. Quote:

11. SKILL, PERFORMANCE AND CONDUCT. Player understands that he is competing with other players for a position on Club's roster within the applicable player limits. If at any time, in the sole judgment of Club, Player's skill or performance has been unsatisfactory as compared with that of other players competing for positions on Club's roster, or if Player has engaged in personal conduct reasonably judged by Club to adversely affect or reflect on Club, then Club may terminate this contract. In addition, during the period any salary cap is legally in effect, this contract may be terminated if, in Club' s opinion, Player is anticipated to make less of a contribution to Club' s ability to compete on the playing field than another player or players whom Club intends to sign or attempts to sign, or another player or players who is or are already on Club's roster, and for whom Club needs room.

[subvet]

And this is Colts related because...

Because maybe someone somewhere in the Colts system didn't honor a contract.....

[subvet]

Have you bothered to even read a player contract? You clearly haven't.

No I haven't, clearly. It probably says nothing anywhere about honor, just what will happen if you don't fulfill your part.

Honor has nothing to do with it and that is sad.

[bavanlan]

No I haven't, clearly. It probably says nothing anywhere about honor, just what will happen if you don't fulfill your part.

Honor has nothing to do with it and that is sad.

Both parties honored the contract. Not allowing the team to release a player would actually be dishonoring the contract.

[Warhorse]

Because maybe someone somewhere in the Colts system didn't honor a contract.....

I am guessing that my have been what thread starter was thinking about. But, all teams have terminated contracts before they were fulfilled, and all teams have players that have held out. That is why it is a general forum thread. If it had been stated about a particular Colt contract, it would be here. Just my opinion. Perhaps the thread starter will tell us.

[subvet]

Both parties honored the contract. Not allowing the team to release a player would actually be dishonoring the contract.

Honoring a contract is is a legal term, honor is keeping your word.

As you said though, both parties did honor the contract and that is what is important legally.

[bavanlan]

Honoring a contract is is a legal term, honor is keeping your word.

As you said though, both parties did honor the contract and that is what is important legally.

I guess I don't understand what word was broken between Irsay and Manning. Manning said Irsay could cut him and Irsay cut him.

[subvet]

I am guessing that my have been what thread starter was thinking about. But, all teams have terminated contracts before they were fulfilled, and all teams have players that have held out. That is why it is a general forum thread. If it had been stated about a particular Colt contract, it would be here. Just my opinion. Perhaps the thread starter will tell us.

Agreed, I was just thinking about how many players from the Colts it might have affected and didn't look at it from other angles.

[chrisfarley]

I am guessing that my have been what thread starter was thinking about. But, all teams have terminated contracts before they were fulfilled, and all teams have players that have held out. That is why it is a general forum thread. If it had been stated about a particular Colt contract, it would be here. Just my opinion. Perhaps the thread starter will tell us.

well, i specifically started the thread because of Friday's developments with Clark, Bullitt, Painter, Addai, and Gary Brackett.

[subvet]

I guess I don't understand what word was broken between Irsay and Manning. Manning said Irsay could cut him and Irsay cut him.

At one time a long time ago, a man was only as good as his word and a handshake is all that was needed.

Mr. Irsay and Mr. Manning were reported to have been closer than is usual with player/owner and I am old fashioned in that signing the contract was not as important as a "gentlemans agreement" with a handshake or a personal assurance. Obviously I was wrong but I am still entitled to my opinion, please do not be offended or amused at my outdated philosophy.

[bavanlan]

At one time a long time ago, a man was only as good as his word and a handshake is all that was needed.

Mr. Irsay and Mr. Manning were reported to have been closer than is usual with player/owner and I am old fashioned in that signing the contract was not as important as a "gentlemans agreement" with a handshake or a personal assurance. Obviously I was wrong but I am still entitled to my opinion, please do not be offended or amused at my outdated philosophy.

I'm neither offended or amused. I'm just trying to understand what the word was that was broken and how you know that word was given.

[subvet]

I'm neither offended or amused. I'm just trying to understand what the word was that was broken and how you know that word was given.

I don't know how to make it any clearer, sorry.

[GAColt]

If a player refuses to sign the contract because of that clause, he has no options, the team has his rights. Yet a team can still sign another player for that position. The system is slanted in the owners direction.

To answer the original question, my answer is neither. That's just the way business works in the NFL.

Everyone who has said players should always honor their contract, I bet you would think differently if your kid was an NFL RB with a contract that would pay the league minimum and they were the best back in the game.

[WeSpy]

#1 in my opinion. If you have committed to a deal, keep your commitment. I have no problem with a player requesting a better contract, but if he is refused one he needs to just play out his current one. Sitting out helps no one, especially if they really love the game.

[Warhorse]

At one time a long time ago, a man was only as good as his word and a handshake is all that was needed.

Mr. Irsay and Mr. Manning were reported to have been closer than is usual with player/owner and I am old fashioned in that signing the contract was not as important as a "gentlemans agreement" with a handshake or a personal assurance. Obviously I was wrong but I am still entitled to my opinion, please do not be offended or amused at my outdated philosophy.

I agree with the handshake IS a contract view. I remember when my mother went to the Bank of Harrisburg in Oregon about 1964. She asked for $2000 so her and my dad...who had just started a new job, could buy a home. She convinced J. C. Clay, the Banker, to loan her the money because he knew she would pay it back. They shook hands.

However, the NFL is backed on both sides by lawyers. End of handshakes meaning anything. But I do feel that both Jim and Peyton care for each other, and if anything untruthful was portrayed in that conference, it was done out of mutual respect for each other.

[subvet]

I agree with the handshake IS a contract view. I remember when my mother went to the Bank of Harrisburg in Oregon about 1964. She asked for $2000 so her and my dad...who had just started a new job, could buy a home. She convinced J. C. Clay, the Banker, to loan her the money because he knew she would pay it back. They shook hands.

However, the NFL is backed on both sides by lawyers. End of handshakes meaning anything. But I do feel that both Jim and Peyton care for each other, and if anything untruthful was portrayed in that conference, it was done out of mutual respect for each other.

I understand the significance of that $2000 considering a new car cost $2100 and average annual income was $6100. The handshake deal had enormous significance at that time but unfortunately it isn't practical anymore, too many scams and thieves.

[Superman]

At one time a long time ago, a man was only as good as his word and a handshake is all that was needed.

Mr. Irsay and Mr. Manning were reported to have been closer than is usual with player/owner and I am old fashioned in that signing the contract was not as important as a "gentlemans agreement" with a handshake or a personal assurance. Obviously I was wrong but I am still entitled to my opinion, please do not be offended or amused at my outdated philosophy.

You don't enter a contract indefinitely. People think a five year contract means you're bound for five years, but both sides understand that the terms of that contract allow the team to terminate it before that five years is up. It's just like a cell phone contract. You sign a two year contract, but that doesn't mean you have to stay for two years. There are ways to terminate that contract early, and everyone knows it. It doesn't mean you have no honor if you decide to get out of the contract. That was your right going in, and you exercised that right as you saw fit.

When it comes to a player contract in the NFL, they are structured so that a team can get out of the contract early if they see fit. It's written in plain English in the contract, as Bav showed.

To the OP question, it's much different for a team to release a player than it is for a player to hold out. The player is actually violating the terms of the contract by holding out. The team isn't violating the terms of their contract by releasing said player. Their option to terminate the contract is written into the contract.

[GoColts8818]

I guess I don't understand what word was broken between Irsay and Manning. Manning said Irsay could cut him and Irsay cut him.

Not only that but manning is the one who made irsay put the opt out clause in his contract that made it possible for the colts too cut him.

[bavanlan]

Honoring a contract is is a legal term, honor is keeping your word.

As you said though, both parties did honor the contract and that is what is important legally.

I thought of another question.

Would the honor you're speaking of preclude a team from having an 80 man preseason roster, since it ultimately will have to be cut to 53?

[subvet]

I thought of another question.

Would the honor you're speaking of preclude a team from having an 80 man preseason roster, since it ultimately will have to be cut to 53?

Apples and oranges, we're talking long term committed team player vs. rookies and journeymen looking for a roster spot.

We won't see eye to eye on this so can we just move on??

[bavanlan]

Apples and oranges, we're talking long term committed team player vs. rookies and journeymen looking for a roster spot.

1) Not necessarily. Long-term veterans get cut all the time after preseason.

2) I don't understand why your position shouldn't have universal applicability.

We won't see eye to eye on this so can we just move on??

If you want, that's fine. I was just curious as to the foundations of your position.

[Rblake]

Holding out is worse. It's dishonorable IMHO. Cutting a player is generally covered in the contract and comes with whatever severance was agreed upon.

[Rblake]

Everyone who has said players should always honor their contract, I bet you would think differently if your kid was an NFL RB with a contract that would pay the league minimum and they were the best back in the game.

Wrong. I would tell my son to honor his commitments, despite what others may do. I teach him not to rationalize his wrongdoings.

[GAColt]

Wrong. I would tell my son to honor his commitments, despite what others may do. I teach him not to rationalize his wrongdoings.

I would agree with you if the player had any options if he didn't sign the contract. Since all contracts with every team have the clause that the owners can cut the player to get out of the contract, he doesn't have the option to not sign and still play.

In basketball and baseball the contracts are guaranteed, and because of that the player should honor the contract. Football is different.

However, I believe the new CBA puts some hefty fines on players holding out, so they now have consequences if they hold out.

[bavanlan]

I would agree with you if the player had any options if he didn't sign the contract. Since all contracts with every team have the clause that the owners can cut the player to get out of the contract, he doesn't have the option to not sign and still play.

His Union didn't collectively bargain for guaranteed contracts. Your position saddles the owners with hefty financial liabilities even though the Union didn't negotiate it and the player agrees to it. If the Union thought it was important and had the leverage, as the player's representatives, they need to pursue that.

[Nadine]

And this is Colts related because...

good point, please do say how this is colts related

[MAC]

A contract is supposed to bind two parties legally as the old honor system of a handshake wasn't enough any more. In my mind it's much worse for the organization terminating it because they were the one requiring it in the first place and would take action if the player tried to hold out. I'm not a legal eagle but if a handshake won't work, a contract should otherwise how is an agreement ever to be honored?

To add to what others have said, don't forget that the organizations right to terminate a contract is SO much a part of the game, and so accepted by all parties that when negotiating a contract the "bonus" amount is negotiated separately, and in many respects is far more important than the total dollar amount or any other term. The player often gets an immediate check upon signing representing a ridiculous percentage of the contract, and that's his to keep. It doesn't matter if he falls over a railing leaving the office and never plays again. It doesn't matter if his character is such that he never again plays as hard as he did in previous years. He gets the check, and the team has to gamble that he will be able to perform. A healthy percentage of players simply don't, and that's a human failing that wasn't even listed amongst the options - despite it being a far better example of a party asking for "honor" than the others.

The way that I was raised, I suspect that we agree completely about the worth of these human values, but I don't think that they are relevant to number two at all - and they certainly aren't relevant to anything that the Colts have done. It isn't like Irsay tried to put a stop payment on Manning's $26 MILLION dollar bonus check last August when his condition turned out to be far worse than either party believed, or sue him to have it returned. He never complained for a second. I would say that all he asked is that Peyton do his best to recover as quickly as possible - but of course he didn't need to ask, because Peyton has no shortage of honor himself. These are both good men whom I consider ourselves lucky to have had affiliated with our favorite club.