HUTCHINSON offer has major poison pill

spanky1

Registered User
Joined
Jan 6, 2004
Posts
4,713
Reaction score
0
Location
Charlotte NC
CardinalChris said:
You can franchise a player as many years in a row as you want. They did it to Walter Jones 2 or 3 years in a row. The only limiting factor is a player makes either A) average of top 5 at his position or B) 120% of last years salary. This is why Mannings Franchice number last year would have been something insane like 16 million.

Now Alexander signed his tender, but made Seattle put a clause that said they could NOT use the tag on him this year. It was special circumstances to keep him from holding out.

I believe that the new CBA has a clause that allows the use of a franchise tag for only two years in succession....after which the player is eligible to be paid at the average of the top 5 highest paid QB's.
 

Crazy Canuck

ASFN Icon
BANNED BY MODERATORS
Joined
May 14, 2002
Posts
10,077
Reaction score
0
Ouchie-Z-Clown said:
i see no application of the ultra vires doctrine. any team has the ability to bind itself to a contractual provision as it relates to the guaranteeability (yes, i made that word up) of a contract. each team possesses that authority. or are you just throwing around legal words?[/QUOTE]

No I'm not. I've got a law degree too. It strikes me that Minn. is adding a clause which accedes the authority (spirit) of the CBA.

What are your thoughts on the issue of this additional provision binding a third party - i.e. Seattle?
 
Last edited:

Redheart

Stack 'em up!
Joined
Aug 9, 2002
Posts
4,391
Reaction score
3
Location
Mesa
Crazy Canuck said:
Ouchie-Z-Clown said:
i see no application of the ultra vires doctrine. any team has the ability to bind itself to a contractual provision as it relates to the guaranteeability (yes, i made that word up) of a contract. each team possesses that authority. or are you just throwing around legal words?[/QUOTE]

No I'm not. I've got a law degree too....

:lawyeralert:
 

CardinalChris

Big Man Himself
Joined
Jul 11, 2002
Posts
3,929
Reaction score
0
Location
Fresno, CA
spanky1 said:
I believe that the new CBA has a clause that allows the use of a franchise tag for only two years in succession....after which the player is eligible to be paid at the average of the top 5 highest paid QB's.

2 year for the same player, or just two years in a row? If that is the case, can they franchise, franchise, transition in successive years?
 

spanky1

Registered User
Joined
Jan 6, 2004
Posts
4,713
Reaction score
0
Location
Charlotte NC
CardinalChris said:
2 year for the same player, or just two years in a row? If that is the case, can they franchise, franchise, transition in successive years?

Same player for 2 years....max allowed on this player. He then gets automatically paid the average of 5 highest QB's (if he hasn't signed a long term contract beforehand).
 

Ouchie-Z-Clown

I'm better than Mulli!
Joined
Sep 16, 2002
Posts
63,518
Reaction score
57,858
Location
SoCal
Crazy Canuck said:
Ouchie-Z-Clown said:
i see no application of the ultra vires doctrine. any team has the ability to bind itself to a contractual provision as it relates to the guaranteeability (yes, i made that word up) of a contract. each team possesses that authority. or are you just throwing around legal words?[/QUOTE]

No I'm not. I've got a law degree too. It strikes me that Minn. is adding a clause which accedes the authority (spirit) of the CBA.

What are your thoughts on the issue of this additional provision binding a third party - i.e. Seattle?

(i didn't mean that phrase to be snotty, i was just curious. sorry if it came off badly)

that's just it, the cba, of which each team is a member, more or less serves as a collection of legally binding contractual provisions. because the cba requires matching (and as i said before, i have no familiarity w/ the nfl's cba, but the nba's cba specifically spells out and defines "matching" in terms of contractual provisions) then a third party is easily bound by the contract terms. it is not so different than assigning a contract to a third party. that third party then becomes legally obligated to meet the conditions/requirements of the original assigning party.
 

Crazy Canuck

ASFN Icon
BANNED BY MODERATORS
Joined
May 14, 2002
Posts
10,077
Reaction score
0
Ouchie-Z-Clown said:
Crazy Canuck said:
(i didn't mean that phrase to be snotty, i was just curious. sorry if it came off badly)

that's just it, the cba, of which each team is a member, more or less serves as a collection of legally binding contractual provisions. because the cba requires matching (and as i said before, i have no familiarity w/ the nfl's cba, but the nba's cba specifically spells out and defines "matching" in terms of contractual provisions) then a third party is easily bound by the contract terms. it is not so different than assigning a contract to a third party. that third party then becomes legally obligated to meet the conditions/requirements of the original assigning party.

I'm still confused as to how one can "assign" a contract obligation to a third party who is not a signatory to the agreement... unless, of course, the language in the CBA's "matching" provisions is so broad as to be construed to allow this form of "poison pil:.

Still, I'm of the opinion, that I could win this case. (lol)

See you in court and don't forget to dress in proper robes... ;)
 

Ouchie-Z-Clown

I'm better than Mulli!
Joined
Sep 16, 2002
Posts
63,518
Reaction score
57,858
Location
SoCal
Crazy Canuck said:
Ouchie-Z-Clown said:
I'm still confused as to how one can "assign" a contract obligation to a third party who is not a signatory to the agreement... unless, of course, the language in the CBA's "matching" provisions is so broad as to be construed to allow this form of "poison pil:.

Still, I'm of the opinion, that I could win this case. (lol)

See you in court and don't forget to dress in proper robes... ;)

wait, i just realized that you're located in quebec. does that mean you follow the napoleanic code? if so, it completely explains your confusion. other than louisiana, we generally follow the common law here in the states. assignment of a contract (including all obligations and responsibilities) is a common occurrence.
 

Crazy Canuck

ASFN Icon
BANNED BY MODERATORS
Joined
May 14, 2002
Posts
10,077
Reaction score
0
Ouchie-Z-Clown said:
Crazy Canuck said:
wait, i just realized that you're located in quebec. does that mean you follow the napoleanic code? if so, it completely explains your confusion. other than louisiana, we generally follow the common law here in the states. assignment of a contract (including all obligations and responsibilities) is a common occurrence.

Well, it's part of my confusion. I was educated in both the Napoleanic Civil Code and Common Law. But, the larger part - is probably that my graduate degree is in Constitutional Law, and my memory of contract law is long dissipated. (lol)

In the end, I would imagine that if Seattle accepts to match the deal and its provisions the point is moot. Notwithstanding, I'd expect they'd declare their intention to appeal under the CBA.
 

SeaChicken

The Other Bird
Joined
Sep 9, 2003
Posts
688
Reaction score
0
Location
Los Angeles, California
spanky1 said:
Same player for 2 years....max allowed on this player. He then gets automatically paid the average of 5 highest QB's (if he hasn't signed a long term contract beforehand).
You're almost correct. The original stories were that in the third year the franchise figure became the average of the top 5 highest paid QBs. When the CBA came out though, it turned out that they said you could franchise tag twice and the third year you could only tranition tag, not franchise. So if we had franchised tagged Hutch, we'd pay $7M this year, $8.4M next year, and still be in this exact same position in two years.

No thanks. Either we can afford him at $7M a year or we can't. Find out this year before you spend the next two years renting him to the tune of $15.4M. Either way, I'd rather have this whole thing over with.
 

Big Deal

Hall of Famer
Joined
Sep 26, 2004
Posts
1,633
Reaction score
81
LOL, yeah right because you wouldn't want one of the best gaurds in football durning his optimal years because you are not able to keep him past that. So if he leaves and you don't make it back to the superbowl in the next two years you might just change your tune. I can't tand it when people act like losing one of their best players isn't going to hurt the team.
 

earthsci

That Rapscallion!!
LEGACY MEMBER
Joined
May 13, 2002
Posts
8,300
Reaction score
1
Location
Phoenix
Big Deal said:
I can't tand it when people act like losing one of their best players isn't going to hurt the team.
You mean like Cardinal fans? Lay off of SeaChicken and MigratingOsprey. They are a good part of this board even if they are Seahawks fans
 

Big Deal

Hall of Famer
Joined
Sep 26, 2004
Posts
1,633
Reaction score
81
Are you trying to instigate an arguement. I can call someone out on a comment if I choose. Go back to 2nd grade if you feel the need to stick your nose in something that is none of your concern.
 

MigratingOsprey

Thank You Paul!
Joined
Jul 20, 2003
Posts
13,906
Reaction score
6,815
Location
Goodyear
thanks earthsci

in seachickens post he made no mention of how it would impact the team - just that this thing was coming to financial difficulties one way with the move

next year his base on a franchise tag would be over $8M - that is a hard cap hit to take for a G so he'd probably be on the open market next year

seattle is either going to pay a lot of money for him or try to find a replacement

it's all about value to the team and in a cap world there are many tough decisions

i've always said he's a very good player and one i'd love to keep - i've also said that it would be hard for the hawks to match a crazy offer - be it this year or next

my final point is that if they must lose him - i'd rather lose him this year - mainly because there are lot of good Gs coming out that they could reasonably take with a late first rounder - then they could use the hutch money on a LB instead of drafting one - not necessarily the best scenario - but you make the best of the situation presented
 

MigratingOsprey

Thank You Paul!
Joined
Jul 20, 2003
Posts
13,906
Reaction score
6,815
Location
Goodyear
Big Deal said:
Are you trying to instigate an arguement. I can call someone out on a comment if I choose. Go back to 2nd grade if you feel the need to stick your nose in something that is none of your concern.


when did this quit acting as a public forum?

why did you feel the need to comment on seachickens post? Why did you make this thread your concern?

Answer that before griping about earthsci making your comments his concern
 
Last edited:

earthsci

That Rapscallion!!
LEGACY MEMBER
Joined
May 13, 2002
Posts
8,300
Reaction score
1
Location
Phoenix
Big Deal said:
Are you trying to instigate an arguement. I can call someone out on a comment if I choose. Go back to 2nd grade if you feel the need to stick your nose in something that is none of your concern.
Loser
 

Crazy Canuck

ASFN Icon
BANNED BY MODERATORS
Joined
May 14, 2002
Posts
10,077
Reaction score
0
Ouchie... FYI

SEATTLE -- The Seahawks' hopes of keeping All-Pro guard Steve Hutchinson will be decided by an arbitration process.

That will delay the Sunday deadline for the team to match an offer to Hutchinson by the Minnesota Vikings.

The NFL Players Association said on Friday that the league has filed a claim on behalf of the Seahawks contending a clause in the offer sheet Hutchinson signed with the Vikings last weekend circumvents the league's labor contract. That would mean that Seattle does not have to match that clause to keep Hutchinson, who is designated as their transition player.

The clause in question would guarantee Hutchinson the entire contract sum if Hutchinson is not the team's highest-paid offensive lineman.

Richard Berthelsen, general counsel for the NFLPA, said the union will argue against the Seahawks' and league's claims.

"They say the clause circumvents our collective bargaining agreement. It is our belief that it does not," Berthelsen said Friday.

The special master will determine during a Saturday telephone conference call if the labor agreement gives him jurisdiction in the case. The league claims it does, Berthelsen said.

NFL spokesman Michael Signora confirmed that the NFL had filed the case.
Berthelsen said if the special master determines he has jurisdiction, he will hold a hearing on Monday in Philadelphia. If not, the case will fall to a non-injury grievance arbiter, who will convene a hearing.

Either way, a decision would come after the Sunday deadline by which the Seahawks have to match Minnesota's offer.

Hutchinson signed a $49 million, seven-year offer sheet with Minnesota last Sunday. It included $16 million guaranteed. The Seahawks believe that is all they have to match.

But a ruling against the NFC champions would require them to also match a provision in the offer that states if Hutchinson is not the team's highest-paid offensive lineman at any time after the first year of the contract, the final six years of the deal becomes guaranteed.

Such a provision is likely a deal breaker. All-Pro left tackle Walter Jones is Seattle's highest-paid offensive linemen, and would remain so even if the Seahawks matched the Hutchinson offer.

Jones, a six-time Pro Bowler, received $54.5 million -- with up to $20 million in a signing bonus and incentives -- over seven years to remain a Seahawk last April.

Berthelsen said the union's interpretation of the issue is that the clause is permitted by the CBA because it is a "principal term" of the agreement.
That is defined in the contract as salary, incentives and individual league honors -- plus "any modifications of and additions to the terms ... requested by the free agent and acceptable to the New Club, that relate to non-compensation terms [including guarantees, no-cut, and no-trade provisions] ..."


The league and the Seahawks are contending that last point.
In 1993, the first year of unrestricted free agency in the NFL, the Indianapolis Colts signed Will Wolford, Buffalo's transition player, to an offer sheet that included a clause that guaranteed he be the team's highest-paid offensive player.


The Bills, who already had quarterback Jim Kelly as their highest-paid offensive player, argued the clause violated the CBA. An arbiter said it did not. The Bills declined to match the offer sheet, and Wolford signed with the Colts to become their highest-paid offensive player.

After that decision, the league and the union amended the CBA. It now states that no team attempting to match an offer sheet for one of its transition players can be required by an escalator clause similar to Wolford's to pay that player more than what the offering team would pay him.
 

Redheart

Stack 'em up!
Joined
Aug 9, 2002
Posts
4,391
Reaction score
3
Location
Mesa
Crazy Canuck said:
...The special master will determine if...he has jurisdiction, he will hold a hearing on Monday in Philadelphia. If not, the case will fall to a non-injury grievance arbiter, who will convene a hearing...

The legal process just make me cringe.

Question: How many lawyers with wierd names does it take to reslove this?
Response: How much money do you have?

Crazy Canuck said:
...amended the CBA. It now states that no team attempting to match an offer sheet for one of its transition players can be required by an escalator clause similar to Wolford's to pay that player more than what the offering team would pay him.

This seems to be the key statement and it would appear that Seattle would be in a good position to match the offer if they can afford it.

Now. How long will it take for a conclusion to this? Every day FA options or solutions are becoming less for both Seattle and Minny; one of them will be paying a big cap hit this year for their guard and one will be left with a big chunk of cap space and a bunch of left-overs FA's to fill it with.
 

SeaChicken

The Other Bird
Joined
Sep 9, 2003
Posts
688
Reaction score
0
Location
Los Angeles, California
Since the other dude has been dealt with, I'll just move on.

Good post, Redheart. While I can't speak for the Vikings, the Seahawks are definitely moving on so to speak. They've worked out a trade agreement with the Jets for John Abraham but that will certainly get ugly too considering Abraham himself has worked out a deal with the Falcons. The Seahawks are also said to be in heavy pursuit of Julian Peterson.

As I said before, I'm quickly getting tired of all of the "intrigue" and would just like some closure soon.
 

Stout

Hold onto the ball, Murray!
Joined
Dec 30, 2002
Posts
39,739
Reaction score
23,887
Location
Pittsburgh, PA--Enemy territory!
SeaChicken said:
Since the other dude has been dealt with, I'll just move on.

Good post, Redheart. While I can't speak for the Vikings, the Seahawks are definitely moving on so to speak. They've worked out a trade agreement with the Jets for John Abraham but that will certainly get ugly too considering Abraham himself has worked out a deal with the Falcons. The Seahawks are also said to be in heavy pursuit of Julian Peterson.

As I said before, I'm quickly getting tired of all of the "intrigue" and would just like some closure soon.

No offense, but I hope Abraham goes to the Falcons and Peterson signs elsewhere :D
 

BACH

Superbowl, Homeboy!
Joined
May 14, 2002
Posts
6,062
Reaction score
1,745
Location
Expat in Kuala Lumpur
slanidrac16 said:
Tells me 2 things. Hutch is greedy and really doesn't like it in Seattle.

Although I'm happy it's happening to Seattle , this deal kind of reeks.
What!!!!

It only tells one thing. Hutch wants to be secure.

The whole issue is that the T-tag garantees Hutch a one-year deal and the Vikings are offering a long-term deal, that will secure him financially for life.

I'm sorry, but you're WAY off on this. You can't blame Hutch for this at all.
 
Last edited:

Big Deal

Hall of Famer
Joined
Sep 26, 2004
Posts
1,633
Reaction score
81
earthsci said:


:biglaugh:

Yes i am the loser, Mr. 2500 + posts. Nice signature, how do you find time to post so much between searching the interent for new 12 sided dice and watching stargate?
 

SeaChicken

The Other Bird
Joined
Sep 9, 2003
Posts
688
Reaction score
0
Location
Los Angeles, California
Stout said:
No offense, but I hope Abraham goes to the Falcons and Peterson signs elsewhere :D
Yeah, that didn't do me a whole lot of good when I was prayin' for Edge to return to Indy... or some other place outside of our division.

:p
 
Last edited:

SeaChicken

The Other Bird
Joined
Sep 9, 2003
Posts
688
Reaction score
0
Location
Los Angeles, California
BACH said:
What!!!!

It only tells one thing. Hutch wants to be secure.

The whole issue is that the T-tag garantees Hutch a one-year deal and the Vikings are offering a long-term deal, that will secure him financially for life.

I'm sorry, but you're WAY off on this. You can't blame Hutch for this at all.
To a lesser degree, you're kind of way off too. It's not like Hutch wasn't being offered a long term contract. He turned down a long term offer that would have averaged him $5.8 million a year and made him the highest averaging guard in the league... he just wanted to hit the market and get more. I don't believe in calling players "greedy" for trying to get maximum value for their services (don't we all?) but I wouldn't go so far as to say "poor Hutch was only being offered a one year deal." That's just not true.
 

SeaChicken

The Other Bird
Joined
Sep 9, 2003
Posts
688
Reaction score
0
Location
Los Angeles, California
Big Deal said:
:biglaugh:

Yes i am the loser, Mr. 2500 + posts. Nice signature, how do you find time to post so much between searching the interent for new 12 sided dice and watching stargate?
I love people who join a message board, and then criticize people for being heavily involved in it. It's like going to a night club, standing against the wall trying to look cool, and laughing at the people out on the dance floor enjoying themselves like they're the ones in the wrong place.

What a toolbag.
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
553,547
Posts
5,407,922
Members
6,317
Latest member
Denmark
Top