Question of the Day - 07/20

[sb41champs]

With the new collective bargaining agreement firmly in place this summer - which was supposed to make protracted rookie contract negotiations a thing of the past - are you surprized it took the Colts SO long to get QB Andrew Luck signed to his rookie contract ??

[oldunclemark]

No....I think his agent just wanted to get him (and himself) everything he could.

If he's as good as everybody says.... 5.5 mil is a bargain

If he's not..or if he gets hurt...it doesnt break the franchise... so its great for the Colts...

But I think agents are frustrated with the new rookie salary rules.

They cant con super-bucks out of a gullible owner for an unproven boy .

[FightLikeSin]

Not surprised at all. They needed him signed before camp...and they did. it doesn't have any impact until camp starts...so there wasn't anything to worry about unless he was still unsigned when rookies report on the 25th (I believe).

[Smonroe]

It made sense to wait until RG3 had his done. Wouldn't have looked to good if Luck signed and then RG3 got a better deal.

[JustAColtsFan]

The only thing that suprised me was the number of times Ersey said "We are very Close"

[FireJimCaldwell]

All things considered yes I was surprised it took so long.

The $ was slotted and there was 0 chance that RGIII or anyone else for that matter was going to get more $ than Luck, just as it is impossible for 3 to get more than 2, or 4 more than 3, etc. So the money wasn't negotiable based on the CBA and rookie salary scale implemented in the document.

There are three factors that I feel delayed this contract: the offset language, the report of Irsay wanting control of Luck's sponsorship opportunities, and a potential splitting of the signing bonus.

Offset Language:

If a player flakes out within the first 4 years of his contract he doesn't deserve the right to double dip, or to be paid a salary from the team that drafted him and the team offering him a 2nd chance. Luck's contract did not contain offset language, which follows the structure of both Cam Newton's 2011 deal and RGIII's 2011 deal that was signed prior to Luck signing his contract. A possible theory could be that Luck's inexperienced agent and Uncle wanted to wait till RGIII's more experienced agent completed his deal to see the structure that it followed. Both the Redskins and Colts should have insisted on the offset language to protect their interests should a player not meet expectations.

Of course the player will not wanting any limits placed on their deal, but with the contracts of the top 10 players being 100% guaranteed they do not deserve to be paid extra money if they fail with their first team.

If a player is cut after year 3 and he was set to have a 1.5 million base salary for year 4, then his original team will still be paying that. If he signs a 600k 1 year deal with another team then that team should pay him 600k while his original team should pay the remaining 900k. He shouldn't be receiving 2.1 million for year 4. Of course my opinion would be different if I was the player or the agent of the player, but I'm looking at it from both sides and I would have to side with the team in this case.

Sponsorship/Marketing of Andrew Luck

Late last month a report surfaced that Irsay wanted the ability to sign off or veto any marketing/sponsorship opportunities that Luck might find himself involved in. Irsay un-eloquently denied those reports, but we all know how he has been historically. So in my opinion where there is smoke there is fire, and Luck as an individual player should have balked at any deal with such language. Time will tell as more reports trickle out on whether or not his contract contained such language or not. Using Coke v. Pepsi and Ford v. Chevrolet as an example, if Coke & Ford were the official soft drinks and automobiles of the Indianapolis Colts, the Colts & Irsay should not be able to limit Luck or any other player signing with Pepsi & Chevrolet. Just as I have used Eli Manning and his marketing deal with Citizen as an example, the New York Giants and Timex have an agreement where Timex is the sponsor of the Giants practice complex. Manning has a Timex patch on his jersey and still has Citizen ads/commercials.

The player on the other hand has a sponsorship with Citizen.

The NFL limits players from promoting certain sectors, alcohol, tobacco, gambling, etc, and it isn't likely for Andrew Luck or Dez Bryant or anyone else to promote the local strip club, but the team should not have the ability to limit a players off the field earnings potential even if it is in direct conflict with a relationship the team has with a rival company.

Signing Bonus:

When Peyton Manning signed his 2nd contract his signing bonus was split into multiple payments due to the amount of the bonus. It made sense.

Luck reportedly received a signing bonus of 14.5 million and it has yet to come out whether that was in one lump sum or if Irsay & the Colts implemented some form of installment plan. It had been reported that this was a topic that was being discussed/negotiated by both sides.

I can see it from both sides. The longer Irsay holds on to the money the more interest the Colts can earn on it. The same can be said for the rookie, even though he likely needs a portion of it for living expenses. I doubt he deposits 100% of it in a high yield hedge fund. I could see a house/condo, new car, furniture, etc. Even if the bonus is split 50/50, the sooner Luck has access to 100% of it; the better for him due to it will be him that is earning interest on it as opposed to the team.

Out of the three "hang-ups" this is the only one that should really be negotiable, even though I haven't seen any reputable references to an initial signing bonus being split into installments in the past.