Howard is going to hold out if he isnt the highest paid corner | Page 21 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Howard is going to hold out if he isnt the highest paid corner

Cool! If you think Landry was going to help us beat the Bills(2x), Patriots, Broncos, Seattle etc. Then i'm not going to waste anymore time exchanging post with you.
Except for the Bills, we were competitive in those foue games we lost. We almost made a come back against Denver. Dame right, if we had Landry, he would've made a difference.

My point is, don't cheap out.
Reward good players.
 
Are you seriously comparing those events, and situations to contract disputes of multi millionaire players, and multi billionaire owners.

Keep a little contextually realistic perspective.

The fact is there are well defined contracts, and a mechanism of arbitration for settling disputes.

Or were you just being arguementative?
Not compare, but as example. The op stated that the its the contract law and players have to obey it no matter what. I pointed out its not always that black and white. And I gave example.
 
Not compare, but as example. The op stated that the its the contract law and players have to obey it no matter what. I pointed out its not always that black and white. And I gave example.
I see.

The example you gave, though, is so extreme, that it comes off as ridiculous.

The poster is correct. A contract is a binding agreement. Good, or bad, the player has a choice l to sign, or not sign.

He is free to hold out, but I don't see how X comes out ahead, in this case.
 
guys he also said he wants to be the top paid on the team. so he may not go for the 20+ mil. I think he will push for it ,but if he gets 18-19 mil i don't think he will hold out
 
The money part, to me isn't a big deal. I'm viewing this as a "let's see your character " moment. Grier/Flo gets him paid as number 1 BEFORE he shows out.

Then he shows he's top 2 for sure this year. The same year we made another corner Number 1, coincidentally.

As a player, you have a choice. Be a team guy. Ask for a bonus for your great year and keep playing. If you perform like that again next year, ask for a 2 year extension and get all the guaranteed money you want. Or, a me guy. Flores and Grier have shown great respect to the players regarding granting trade requests.

I hope smarter, reasonable heads prevail, and some communication between X and the FO happen before the media decides it first.
 
guys he also said he wants to be the top paid on the team. so he may not go for the 20+ mil. I think he will push for it ,but if he gets 18-19 mil i don't think he will hold out
I don't think he will hold out anyway.

It's hard to recoup a prime earning year for a player of his stature.
 
The money part, to me isn't a big deal. I'm viewing this as a "let's see your character " moment. Grier/Flo gets him paid as number 1 BEFORE he shows out.

Then he shows he's top 2 for sure this year. The same year we made another corner Number 1, coincidentally.

As a player, you have a choice. Be a team guy. Ask for a bonus for your great year and keep playing. If you perform like that again next year, ask for a 2 year extension and get all the guaranteed money you want. Or, a me guy. Flores and Grier have shown great respect to the players regarding granting trade requests.

I hope smarter, reasonable heads prevail, and some communication between X and the FO happen before the media decides it first.
All this is media driven speculation at this point. Perhaps some $hit leaked by his agent for leverage purposes, but you have to take that for what it is.
 
I see.

The example you gave, though, is so extreme, that it comes off as ridiculous.

The poster is correct. A contract is a binding agreement. Good, or bad, the player has a choice l to sign, or not sign.

He is free to hold out, but I don't see how X comes out ahead, in this case.
You said ridiculous, I say its appropriate.
Under contract law, there is a condition terms unfair contract.
In this case, one party has an out, 'cut player' without fulfilling the duration of the contract. Now you say the player must fulfill his term but the other side does not have to. Its an unfair contract.
And that bring to the example that I used, to point out unfair law. And you don't have to go that far back. There are unfair law thru out the history... child labor, environmental exception for big companies.

The point is, a contract is not so black and white. If it is, there will be no contract court.
 
You said ridiculous, I say its appropriate.
Under contract law, there is a condition terms unfair contract.
In this case, one party has an out, 'cut player' without fulfilling the duration of the contract. Now you say the player must fulfill his term but the other side does not have to. Its an unfair contract.
And that bring to the example that I used, to point out unfair law. And you don't have to go that far back. There are unfair law thru out the history... child labor, environmental exception for big companies.

The point is, a contract is not so black and white. If it is, there will be no contract court.
Ok. Give me one example, over the last half century, where an athlete endef up in court over a contract dispute.

There isn't one. You know why there isn't one?

Because both sides have highly paid, and highly qualified attourneys negotioating these deals. Then there is the NFLPA, with legions of lawyers to protect the interests of players.

Yes, the player can be cut, but the way contracts are structured, and agreed to by both parties, with amortized signing bonuses, all of these possibilities are known at the outset. Many times, even if a team cuts a player, they may still be paying part of the contract years later.

It not as one sided as you are making it out to be.
 
Ok. Give me one example, over the last half century, where an athlete endef up in court over a contract dispute.

There isn't one. You know why there isn't one?

Because both sides have highly paid, and highly qualified attourneys negotioating these deals. Then there is the NFLPA, with legions of lawyers to protect the interests of players.

Yes, the player can be cut, but the way contracts are structured, and agreed to by both parties, with amortized signing bonuses, all of these possibilities are known at the outset. Many times, even if a team cuts a player, they may still be paying part of the contract years later.

It not as one sided as you are making it out to be.
Love to continue the academic discussion with you. I am at work and don't want my employer to use unfair labor law to fire me...lol.
I call it a day on this topic.
 
Love to continue the academic discussion with you. I am at work and don't want my employer to use unfair labor law to fire me...lol.
I call it a day on this topic.
Ok. Give me one example, over the last half century, where an athlete endef up in court over a contract dispute.

There isn't one. You know why there isn't one?

Because both sides have highly paid, and highly qualified attourneys negotioating these deals. Then there is the NFLPA, with legions of lawyers to protect the interests of players.

Yes, the player can be cut, but the way contracts are structured, and agreed to by both parties, with amortized signing bonuses, all of these possibilities are known at the outset. Many times, even if a team cuts a player, they may still be paying part of the contract years later.

It not as one sided as you are making it out to be.
Ricky Williams lost his court case over his contract.
 
Ricky Williams lost his court case over his contract.
Good example.

In that case though (IIRC), he had lost in arbitration for money he had already been paid. The court case was only for collection purposes.

It had nothing to do with breach from a holdout. I don't remember the specifics of the contract structure, but I think it had to do with his failed drug tests as the reason the Dolphins were able to get the money back, with interest.
 
Good example.

In that case though (IIRC), he had lost in arbitration for money he had already been paid. The court case was only for collection purposes.

It had nothing to do with breach from a holdout. I don't remember the specifics of the contract structure, but I think it had to do with his failed drug tests as the reason the Dolphins were able to get the money back, with interest.
Exact details fail me, but they do serve as a grounds to understand that failure to perform and complete a player contract will results in forfeiture of future earnings and prorated bonuses.

A player simply can't not play. It not only leads to fines and salary penalties, it can ultimately lead to recoupment of previously paid bonuses.

It constitutes a breach of contract and the precedent that players simply can't decide to not play and not be punished.

Ultimately, the team holds the cards when a player refuses to play.
 
Exact details fail me, but they do serve as a grounds to understand that failure to perform and complete a player contract will results in forfeiture of future earnings and prorated bonuses.

A player simply can't not play. It not only leads to fines and salary penalties, it can ultimately lead to recoupment of previously paid bonuses.

It constitutes a breach of contract and the precedent that players simply can't decide to not play and not be punished.

Ultimately, the team holds the cards when a player refuses to play.
100% correct.
 
When be singed his contract in 2019 be was the second highest paid CB. I don't want to hear his bullshit two years later. He's still 6th on the list.
 
Back
Top Bottom