Salary issue may stall Ricky's return.

[phinz_fan]

Thats true....he actually deserves about 6 million....we should just be fortunate he's not asking for it.

Nothing is worth any more than what others are willing to pay. As of right now - if we tried to trade Ricky Williams he would be worth nothing. If we released him he would get signed quickly, but no team would give him a large base salary. It would be all incentive driven.

That is Ricky's market value. A low base salary laced with incentives. Period. Giving him $3.6 million just because he wants it is like flushing money down the toilet. He's not in a strong bargaining position. He must accept the best deal available to him - and that is about as good as it is going to get for the 2005 season.

 

[phinz_fan]

Thats true....he actually deserves about 6 million....we should just be fortunate he's not asking for it.

The more and more I read your post the more I am convinced you would make an excellent business partner.

I have a bridge in Brooklyn I think you would be interested in investing in...

 

[GRYPHONK]

Correct, but the argument is by coming back to the team he rectified his breach and is no longer in breach of the contract and therefore the existing contract provisions govern. It is a legal analysis and contract interpretation and obviously his contract is written in a way that one can interpret that bu "un retiring" he is no longer in breach. I would think that he would come back and both Ricky and the Fins would got to binding arbitration on this issue as it appears to be subject to multiple reasonable interpretations.

Not true. In legal terms he breached the contract regardless of coming back.

The specific clause stated that by retiring early or leaving the team during the term of the contract makes it a breach of contract.

Doesn't matter whether he comes back or not.

You guys are reading way too much into lawyers saying they can't do this. It's THEIR JOB.

If it was that cut and dry it would be simple. No one would defend murderers. They do it because it's their job to. They do it because it's their job to find loop holes and to fight for the other side.

Ricky breached his contract. There is nothing he can do to rectify or change that.

MOVING on.

 

[yankeehillbilly]

No way should Ronnie Brown make 3.7 mil as a rookie! We are talking about Ricky Williams salary in this thread.

A dedicated rookie with potential is worth more than a proven loose cannon who has already quit on his team once. If Ricky's contract allows the Phins to take him back to league minimum then thats exactly what they should do. If Ricky doesnt like it he can find another job (if anyone will hire him) to pay back the 8.6 mil.

 

[DonShula84]

If he comes back hopefully his first game back is the Buc game like planned. Im hoping to go to that game and it would be cool if it was also Rickys return date. I dont think Ricky can make many demands though, he is hardly in a position to bargain or negotiate. He should play for the minimum w/ some incentives perhaps.

 

[dean_siu]

Nothing is worth any more than what others are willing to pay. As of right now - if we tried to trade Ricky Williams he would be worth nothing. If we released him he would get signed quickly, but no team would give him a large base salary. It would be all incentive driven.

That is Ricky's market value. A low base salary laced with incentives. Period. Giving him $3.6 million just because he wants it is like flushing money down the toilet. He's not in a strong bargaining position. He must accept the best deal available to him - and that is about as good as it is going to get for the 2005 season.

This post is one of the most hilarous I've read in quite some time. How do we know someone isn't willing to trade for him? I bet many teams have inquired, but the Dolphins have quickly turned them down as Saban knows the talent this kid possesses.

Furthermore, if he were to get released....there would be a bidding war for his services and he would easily make more than $3.6 million this year.

Quit being ridiculous and recognize the fact that you have to pay top dollar for top talent!

 

[yankeehillbilly]

This post is one of the most hilarous I've read in quite some time. How do we know someone isn't willing to trade for him? I bet many teams have inquired, but the Dolphins have quickly turned them down as Saban knows the talent this kid possesses.

Furthermore, if he were to get released....there would be a bidding war for his services and he would easily make more than $3.6 million this year.

Quit being ridiculous and recognize the fact that you have to pay top dollar for top talent!

You have to take his history into account. Regardless of Ricky's talent, the fact is that he is unreliable. A GM would have to be an idiot to give a valuable draft pick or player for Ricky, then give Ricky a large salary/signing bonus. What if he tests positive again? What if he wants to explore the Australian Outback again?
Ricky is damaged goods. His salary and trade value will reflect that.

 

[canesfins13]

Not true. In legal terms he breached the contract regardless of coming back.

The specific clause stated that by retiring early or leaving the team during the term of the contract makes it a breach of contract.

Doesn't matter whether he comes back or not.

You guys are reading way too much into lawyers saying they can't do this. It's THEIR JOB.

If it was that cut and dry it would be simple. No one would defend murderers. They do it because it's their job to. They do it because it's their job to find loop holes and to fight for the other side.

Ricky breached his contract. There is nothing he can do to rectify or change that.

MOVING on.

Well I am a lawyer and you can correct a breach in a contract, it happens all the time. If he comes back he is no longer retired and thus arguably the breach has been cured and the contract is back as it was prior, meaning he is entitled to full contract payment and his bonus, and owes the Fins nothing. If he remained retired he would continue to be in breach of his contract. Since what the clause says. you have read the contract, please provide the exact language of the clause. If you haven't, dont make it out to be like you kno

 

[enigmatics]

Well I am a lawyer and you can correct a breach in a contract, it happens all the time. If he comes back he is no longer retired and thus arguably the breach has been cured and the contract is back as it was prior, meaning he is entitled to full contract payment and his bonus, and owes the Fins nothing. If he remained retired he would continue to be in breach of his contract. Since what the clause says. you have read the contract, please provide the exact language of the clause. If you haven't, dont make it out to be like you kno

Depending on the language of the contract, how can you unbreach a contract that has been terminated from the direct result of a breach? As far as we know there was language in the contract directly stipulating what would happen had Ricky retired. Wouldn't a RECISSION be ruled?
_______________________________________________________________
Rescission
In most contract disputes, a court puts the nonbreaching party in the position he or she would have been in if the contract had not been breached. However, there are times when the court may place the party in the position he or she was in before the contract was executed. This remedy is known as rescission. This remedy may be selected in cases in which one party intentionally misrepresents a material fact, for example. If a party has delivered goods or money to another party who fails to perform his or her duties under the contract, the court may decide simply to order that the goods or money be returned. The nonbreaching party then is in a position to contract with someone else.
_________________________________________________________________

Just seems to me the nonbreaching party would be treated as if the contract was never signed, thereby not having to honor the previous contract due to the breach.

It would make further sense that the nonbreaching party holds all the cards in this deck.

Take for example my health insurance. It's a binding contract. It also contains language that if my payment is not recieved by the 1st of every month, my contract shall be terminated. If I miss that payment, my contract gets terminated. I can be reinstated, but my previous contract is still over with and a new one has to be drawn up, most likely with a slightly higher payment due to non-compliance with my original contract. It's completely up to the insurance company, not me, of whether or not my monthly payment will go back to what it was prior to the breach.

 

[DrAstroZoom]

Depending on the language of the contract, how can you unbreach a contract that has been terminated from direct results of a breach? As far as we know there was language in the contract directly stipulated what would happen had Ricky retired. Wouldn't a RECISSION be ruled?
_______________________________________________________________
Rescission
In most contract disputes, a court puts the nonbreaching party in the position he or she would have been in if the contract had not been breached. However, there are times when the court may place the party in the position he or she was in before the contract was executed. This remedy is known as rescission. This remedy may be selected in cases in which one party intentionally misrepresents a material fact, for example. If a party has delivered goods or money to another party who fails to perform his or her duties under the contract, the court may decide simply to order that the goods or money be returned. The nonbreaching party then is in a position to contract with someone else.
_________________________________________________________________

Just seems to me the nonbreaching party would be treated as if the contract was never signed, thereby not having to honor the previous contract due to the breach.

It would make further sense that the nonbreaching party holds all the cards in this deck.

Take for example my health insurance. It's a binding contract. It also contains language that if my payment is not recieved by the 1st of every month, my contract shall be terminated. If I miss that payment, my contract gets terminated. I can be reinstated, but my previous contract is still over with and a new one has to be drawn up, most likely with a slightly higher payment due to non-compliance with my original contract. It's completely up to the insurance company, not me, of whether or not my monthly payment will go back to what it was prior to the breach.

Good post. This would open the door to fresh negotiation, which I would like to see result in a contract that's just enough above the vet minimum to provide Ricky a little face saving room while not wrecking our cap. (I'm not saying he deserves it, but from a business angle, it would make such a deal palatable to both sides.) Such a deal could be incentive-laden to reward RW for not simply phoning it in.

Again, good post Enigmatics. We don't always see eye to eye, but this seems quite reasonable.

 

[enigmatics]

Good post. This would open the door to fresh negotiation, which I would like to see result in a contract that's just enough above the vet minimum to provide Ricky a little face saving room while not wrecking our cap. (I'm not saying he deserves it, but from a business angle, it would make such a deal palatable to both sides.) Such a deal could be incentive-laden to reward RW for not simply phoning it in.

Again, good post Enigmatics. We don't always see eye to eye, but this seems quite reasonable.

No problem. To me it's simple. We've been hearing all along that the Dolphins protected themselves (contractually speaking of course) in the event of a random Ricky moment - aka abrupt retirement. They assembled language in his contract which would put Ricky in a breach for many oddball things he could be capable of.

This is what shall save them, again contractually speaking, if they are indeed serious about bringing him back. The only way the previous contract would be honored is if it was brought to court again and a judge ordered the parties back into the original contract, which there is no way no chance that happens in this particular caser. An arbitrator already ruled Ricky owed the 8.6 so it's common sense that a judge (a good judge mind you lol) would never enforce the Dolphins to honor his previous contract due to the prior breach in question.

As much as I detest that man ever stepping foot onto a field in a Phins uni, if that travesty were to ocurr I would be in favor of a veteran minimum or slightly above minimum. Course, we'd have to draw up language in a contract determining what "slightly" means to me hahaha j/k

 

[DrAstroZoom]

No problem. To me it's simple. We've been hearing all along that the Dolphins protected themselves (contractually speaking of course) in the event of a random Ricky moment - aka abrupt retirement. They assembled language in his contract which would put Ricky in a breach for many oddball things he could be capable of.

This is what shall save them, again contractually speaking if they are indeed serious about bringing him back. The only way the previous contract would be honored is if it was brought to court again and a judge ordered the parties back into the original contract, which there is no way no chance that happens in this particular caser. An arbitrator already ruled Ricky owed the 8.6 so it's common sense that a judge (a good judge mind you lol) would never enforce the Dolphins to honor his previous contract due to the prior breach in question.

As much as I detest that man ever stepping foot onto a field in a Phins uni, if that travesty were to ocurr I would be in favor of a veteran minimum or slightly above minimum. Course, we'd have to draw up language in a contract determining what "slightly" means to me hahaha j/k

Aww ... now I'm all for klempt. :hug:

Works for me.

 

[canesfins13]

Well the contract was never terminated. The FIns had a remedy for breach of contract which was the $8.6M in damages. The breach can be fixed though and the contract reinstated. A breach does not necessarily mean that the contract is null and void. For instance, if you miss a mortgage payment, you are in breach of the contract with the lender. If the lender assesses a penalty and itnerest but does not foreclose, and you make the mortgage payment up and are thus current, you are no longer in breach of the contract. None of know what the language in the contract states, but just because you are in breach does not mean that the contract is null and void, you can remedy the breach and bring the contract current.

 

[enigmatics]

Well the contract was never terminated. The FIns had a remedy for breach of contract which was the $8.6M in damages. The breach can be fixed though and the contract reinstated. A breach does not necessarily mean that the contract is null and void. For instance, if you miss a mortgage payment, you are in breach of the contract with the lender. If the lender assesses a penalty and itnerest but does not foreclose, and you make the mortgage payment up and are thus current, you are no longer in breach of the contract. None of know what the language in the contract states, but just because you are in breach does not mean that the contract is null and void, you can remedy the breach and bring the contract current.

Are you for sure the contract wasn't voided by the breach? The 8.6 was definately a rememdy, but I'm wondering whether the contract stipulated a void as well as collecting money had Ricky retired.

I hear what you're saying and that could very well be the outcome, it just depends on the language of Ricky's contract. I mean notice the differences in language from my insurance example to your mortgage payment example. It's all relative to the provisions drawn up.

 

[canesfins13]

You are right in that it depends on the language of the contract, but if the contract was voided then Ricky would be a free agent. He is not a free agent, and there is debate on whether he is entitled to the full compensation, so my guess would be it is not void.

What I presume to be the case is that a retirement is a breach of the contract, damages being return of the bonus. The contract is not voided, Ricky remaining property of the Dolphins. The question is whether Ricky's return (contrary to what a retirement implies) thus remedies any breach on retirement. In other words it was a leave of absense, which is not a retirement, and likely not covered under the contract. This is probably why there is question whether the contract is in full force (thus no breach) or his retirement for a year is still a breach, and I would assume a provision in the contract would then apply imposing the veteran minimum if he returns. This is how I read the controversey, but I am pretty sure that the contract is not voided.