Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
karlydee2

NFL Players Union andn Owners should sue Trump for Intentional Interference of Contractual Relations

63 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, MiddleOfTheRoad said:

In no court would someone have to explain why this is not contractual interference.  You have to make the case that Trump interfered with the players executing their part of the labor agreement.  I eagerly await your efforts.

That is untrue -- the simple act of attempting to interfere with the CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT between the PLAYERS and the OWNERS is the tort.

You don't know W T H you are talking about

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mdrunning said:

 

 

NFL players probably need their union more than other sport, yet they have artificially capped salaries, non-guaranteed contracts,

 

 

Untrue, there are some players that have guaranteed contracts --

 

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/contracts/

 

For example Matthew Stafford has a contract for $135 Million -- but $60 million was Guaranteed at signing.

 

Before you say stuff you don't know about -- do some research

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/29/2017 at 7:56 AM, woody said:

Advertisers should cut spending for what they did against flag, anthem and country.

While I agree that such a lawsuit is frivolous, you are mistaken here. You are letting a racist simpleton (Trump) tell you what the protest was about, instead of those actually protesting. It is about how police departments treat black suspects differently from white suspects, and it is about how being black can get you killed in cases where being white would not, and how little ever happens to bad police.

Stop listening to Annoying Orange. It's bad for your mental health.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, karlydee2 said:

Untrue, there are some players that have guaranteed contracts --

 

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/contracts/

 

For example Matthew Stafford has a contract for $135 Million -- but $60 million was Guaranteed at signing.

 

Before you say stuff you don't know about -- do some research

Oh, Jesus, you sound like a real piece of work.

Look more closely at the details of the contract. Look at the cap number and the dead cap, if you even understand how all that works.

Stafford received a $50 million signing bonus, not $60 million. He will then receive a $6.5 million roster bonus on the fifth day of the league year in 2018 (that's March 19, to you and me). Without going into painful detail, most of his subsequent roster bonuses are guaranteed for injury only. Now, look at his cap number and dead cap for 2020. At that point, any pro-rated bonus money which would accelerate against the cap should he be released would still be less than his total cap number for 2020. In other words, Stafford could be unemployed after year three of the contract. And since NFL contracts are mostly air, particularly in the later years, Stafford is still potentially leaving some $75 million on the table, money which he'll probably never collect.

Russell Westbrook just signed an extension with OKC which, when combined with his $28.5 million salary for this season, works out to $233 million over six years. Guess how much is guaranteed? You guessed it, all of it. Now, who would you rather wake up as tomorrow, Matthew Stafford or Russell Westbrook? 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, karlydee2 said:

Nope, they can fail to renew a non-guaranteed contract.

Or they can enact a contract termination based upon performance clauses, or breach of contract by the player.

But they can't FIRE THEM. -- they are not employees

Any NFL team can release a player at anytime. They may still owe guaranteed money to them and still carry their money on the salary cap.

Realeasing a player or cutting them is firing them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mdrunning said:

Oh, Jesus, you sound like a real piece of work.

Look more closely at the details of the contract. Look at the cap number and the dead cap, if you even understand how all that works.

Stafford received a $50 million signing bonus, not $60 million. He will then receive a $6.5 million roster bonus on the fifth day of the league year in 2018 (that's March 19, to you and me). Without going into painful detail, most of his subsequent roster bonuses are guaranteed for injury only. Now, look at his cap number and dead cap for 2020. At that point, any pro-rated bonus money which would accelerate against the cap should he be released would still be less than his total cap number for 2020. In other words, Stafford could be unemployed after year three of the contract. And since NFL contracts are mostly air, particularly in the later years, Stafford is still potentially leaving some $75 million on the table, money which he'll probably never collect.

Russell Westbrook just signed an extension with OKC which, when combined with his $28.5 million salary for this season, works out to $233 million over six years. Guess how much is guaranteed? You guessed it, all of it. Now, who would you rather wake up as tomorrow, Matthew Stafford or Russell Westbrook? 

 

 

 

The other leagues wished they had the CBA of the NFL. Imagine the O's not having to pay Chris Davis $25+ mil a yr.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, karlydee2 said:

That is untrue -- the simple act of attempting to interfere with the CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT between the PLAYERS and the OWNERS is the tort.

You don't know W T H you are talking about

Stop digging.  The hole you’re in is deep enough and now you’re just embarrassing yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, karlydee2 said:

That is untrue -- the simple act of attempting to interfere with the CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT between the PLAYERS and the OWNERS is the tort.

You don't know W T H you are talking about

Let us know how your legal action proceeds. I'm assuming those of us that don't know WTH we are talking about will end up on the correct side of this issue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Rael said:

Let us know how your legal action proceeds. I'm assuming those of us that don't know WTH we are talking about will end up on the correct side of this issue. 

Of course we will.  The NFL is not going to pursue a ridiculous lawsuit and even if they did it has just about no chance of going anywhere.  Hatred of Trump is understandable, letting it affect your common sense is another thing.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

5 hours ago, stevez51 said:

The other leagues wished they had the CBA of the NFL. Imagine the O's not having to pay Chris Davis $25+ mil a yr.

No question. From an ownership standpoint, the NFL collective bargaining agreement is an absolute sweetheart of a deal. The players, however, are sitting at the children's table compared to the other major sports.

Edited by mdrunning

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Rael said:

Let us know how your legal action proceeds. I'm assuming those of us that don't know WTH we are talking about will end up on the correct side of this issue. 

Little dee see has been wrong on just about everything she has ever proclaimed on here in bug bold cap letters .....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I look forward to reading the legal action that "someone" takes. Apparently, it won't be karlydee doing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, karlydee2 said:

That is untrue -- the simple act of attempting to interfere with the CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT between the PLAYERS and the OWNERS is the tort.

You don't know W T H you are talking about

Your understanding of the law continues to provide entertainment for those of us who actually have law degrees.

Just stop embarrassing yourself, you know NOTHING about about contract law.  It's not even my area of expertise but even a 1st year law clerk knows there must (repeat---must---) be an action that takes place as a result of the "attempted" interference and some type of harm must have befallen one party.  Something, anything. 

No owner fired anyone, and no player was denied anything due to him.

You truly are clueless about legal matters, stick to your day job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0