Ray R
Club Member
Correct.
Should Xavien be traded for draft capital?
- Thread starter Phinprimetime
- Start date
-
- Tags
- xavien howard
Correct.
Respectfully, I disagree. The Dolphins would lose far more if they give in the X. I am confident that the players Flo wants understand this. Don't underestimate Flores to communicate directly and honestly. Players actually respect that. The best outcome is if X plays and plays well, or that we trade him for a 1st or 2nds.
TheRevoltingBlob
Club Member
Add in that just like we can't know what X is asking for, we don't know how the other players feel about him holding out.
They could have his back, think he's being unreasonable, or somewhere in between. We are making assumptions if we think we know what's going on in the locker room.
Kamelion4291
Active Roster
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2017
- Messages
- 5,306
- Reaction score
- 9,236
Which is also just a technicality.
If you want to run a business by cheap skating your best talent, you won't go far. That's been true since the beginning of time.
Technicality? No, it's a legally binding contract, that doesn't stray from the mainstream in any way.
It's also not a matter of being cheap. The Phins will spend to their cap obligations, the same as all other franchises.
You may disagree with how they choose to allocate resourses, but your actual arguements here are flawed.
Kamelion4291
Active Roster
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2017
- Messages
- 5,306
- Reaction score
- 9,236
Inside the legally binding contract is language that allows him to sit out and do what he's doing.
And maybe cheap isn't the word then. They can absolutely choose to do things like refuse to give X more money while simultaneously wasting money on guys like Jordan Howard to get to their cap obligations, so a better word might just be "dumb".
Don't conflate the two different contracts.
One contract is between the team, and an individual player. There is no "language" allowing a player to hold out.
The second contract is between the NFL as a whole (corporate), and the NFLPA. This contract spells out the punative actions allowed in the case of a player not fulfilling his contractual obligations.
Ray R
Club Member
Only dictators consider laws and contracts mere "technicalities".
May I make a recommendation - SPK ENGRISH!
Know and understand what the words you use mean and don't try to "use a semantic argument" to change their meaning or intent with someone who knows what the words mean. It will expose any character flaws in the person trying to make the argument.
Kamelion4291
Active Roster
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2017
- Messages
- 5,306
- Reaction score
- 9,236
Not realistic, without a complete overhaul of the system, and also not relavent to the immediate situation with "X".
Ray R
Club Member
Kamelion4291
Active Roster
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2017
- Messages
- 5,306
- Reaction score
- 9,236
Fun fact: It's illegal in the state of Florida to partially conceal your face and walk down a street. I'm sure that one was enforced within the past year during Covid, right?
In Kansas it's illegal to screech your tires for any reason so I'm sure a lot of people trying to avoid accidents by slamming on the brakes have been arrested for trying to do so.
In Gainesville, Georgia it's illegal to eat fried chicken with a knife and fork.
Look, I'm sure you might think it's fun to show up and get on your pedestal and act intellectually superior, but you shouldn't pick fights by being so obtuse or you risk looking like an idiot. Words of advice: Talk like a normal human being so it isn't so cringeworthy.
I have zero idea why you guys are debating the merit of law when there is a contract between two private parties. You can terminate the contract at either point unless otherwise specified within the bounds of the contract. Both parties reserve the right to forfeit on the contract and in doing so there are penalties within the contract for doing so. There is no law to prevent either side from doing so outside of the Equal Opportunities Act which is clearly NOT at play here.
Some obscure law from the dark ages has no bearing at all in the contract talks between a player and the organization.
Some obscure law from the dark ages has no bearing at all in the contract talks between a player and the organization.
Kamelion4291
Active Roster
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2017
- Messages
- 5,306
- Reaction score
- 9,236
There are 25 pages of bUt He SiGnEd tHe cOnTrAcT so I'm not sure why you would decide to ask now when the entire basis of this thread is based on Xavien Howard's apparent flippant attitude towards a "legally" binding document.
What the thread is really about is a selfishness of the fans who want the team to be marginally better through salary "deals" at the expense of the players' financial wellbeing because most people's attitudes are, "He gets paid enough (i.e. more than me), stop complaining and get to work."
It's just hypocritical drivel.
Why? People are discussing screeching tires and eating chicken with a fork and knife. Nonsense.
You have zero idea what the actual terminology is or isn't in X's contract in terms of "forfeit", only the team, X and his agent know that. First of all a criminal court would never even hear this case, if it went anywhere beyond the bounds of the NFL its a civil matter at best and it wouldn't even make it that far. To use criminal law as comparison is just ridiculous here.