PDA

View Full Version : What Happens if Marshall doesnt sign his tender?



claymore
03-19-2010, 03:20 PM
Im curious on what leverage the Broncos truly have.

If Marshall doesnt sign it, and he sits out the whole year. Can the Broncos slap another Tender on him? Can they Franchise him?

Does anyone know???

Tned
03-19-2010, 03:26 PM
Im curious on what leverage the Broncos truly have.

If Marshall doesnt sign it, and he sits out the whole year. Can the Broncos slap another Tender on him? Can they Franchise him?

Does anyone know???

I believe there is a window where other teams can sign him to an offer sheet, after which he can either accept the Broncos tender or hold out. I believe those are the only options.

claymore
03-19-2010, 03:29 PM
I believe there is a window where other teams can sign him to an offer sheet, after which he can either accept the Broncos tender or hold out. I believe those are the only options.

What are the Broncos options next year if Marshall doesnt sign it? Do they own his rights in any way?

dogfish
03-19-2010, 03:44 PM
What Happens if Marshall doesnt sign his tender?


the earth's gravitational force reverses?



i wouldn't sweat it-- he'll sign it. . .

they all will-- they might bitch and moan, drag their feet, issue idle threats, etc. . . and fans will waste tons of time crying about it, and people will lose their minds. . . and when all's said and done, the vast likelihood is that every single RFA in the league will sign their tenders. . .

nobody's gonna pass on a couple million bucks when they might get locked out next year. . .

Lancane
03-19-2010, 03:44 PM
What are the Broncos options next year if Marshall doesnt sign it? Do they own his rights in any way?

They own his rights unless he A) Signs his tenure and plays or he could, B) Retire for one year from the time the league makes it official and unretire and be free of his obligation...however, the league could still fine him if they felt he did this just in order to escape the said obligation, even maybe returning his rights to his original team.

claymore
03-19-2010, 03:45 PM
Is Marshall an UFA in 2011 if he doesnt sign his tender, and sits out 2010?

claymore
03-19-2010, 03:46 PM
the earth's gravitational force reverses?



i wouldn't sweat it-- he'll sign it. . .

they all will-- they might bitch and moan, drag their feet, issue idle threats, etc. . . and fans will waste tons of time crying about it, and people will lose their minds. . . and when all's said and done, the vast likelihood is that every single RFA in the league will sign their tenders. . .

nobody's gonna pass on a couple million bucks when they might get locked out next year. . .
I wouldnt risk a 50 million dollar contract to play for 2.5 mill.

They own his rights unless he A) Signs his tenure and plays or he could, B) Retire for one year from the time the league makes it official and unretire and be free of his obligation...however, the league could still fine him if they felt he did this just in order to escape the said obligation, even maybe returning his rights to his original team.

I dont think he has to retire. He can just sit out the season.

Northman
03-19-2010, 03:47 PM
If Brandon doesnt sign the tender the world will end.

claymore
03-19-2010, 03:50 PM
You guys are almost as much help as my google searches. :D

Ziggy
03-19-2010, 03:52 PM
If he doesn't come in by week 11, he gets no credit for the season, and has to pay fines. I really doubt that he can afford either, with a possible lockout next year. The biggest factor is that he won't get credit for a season accrued. That would hurt him the most, since it would make him a RFA again next season instead of an UFA. He would lose all leverage because the Broncos could just tender him again next season instead of having to franchise him and pay him some serious cash or let him go.

Tned
03-19-2010, 03:54 PM
They own his rights unless he A) Signs his tenure and plays or he could, B) Retire for one year from the time the league makes it official and unretire and be free of his obligation...however, the league could still fine him if they felt he did this just in order to escape the said obligation, even maybe returning his rights to his original team.

You sure about the retirement aspect? I thought if he retired (or for that matter held out), when he returned, as his "years of service" would not have increased, the Broncos would still own his rights.

Lancane
03-19-2010, 03:54 PM
I wouldnt risk a 50 million dollar contract to play for 2.5 mill.


I dont think he has to retire. He can just sit out the season.

He can sit out the season, but his rights would still belong to the Broncos, or that is my opinion. But to me, that is like saying a copyright is not legal and binding just because the company that used it did not use it on any printed material for an entire year...lol.

SmilinAssasSin27
03-19-2010, 03:54 PM
We own him regardless. Unles he actually retires, we can franchise him if necessary.

Lancane
03-19-2010, 03:54 PM
If he doesn't come in by week 11, he gets no credit for the season, and has to pay fines. I really doubt that he can afford either, with a possible lockout next year. The biggest factor is that he won't get credit for a season accrued. That would hurt him the most, since it would make him a RFA again next season instead of an UFA. He would lose all leverage because the Broncos could just tender him again next season instead of having to franchise him and pay him some serious cash or let him go.

So I am right, correct Ziggy...we retain his rights if he refuses?

claymore
03-19-2010, 03:55 PM
If he doesn't come in by week 11, he gets no credit for the season, and has to pay fines. I really doubt that he can afford either, with a possible lockout next year. He also won't get credit for a season accrued. That would hurt him the most, since it would make him a RFA again next season instead of an UFA. He would lose all leverage because the Broncos could just tender him again next season instead of having to franchise him and pay him some serious cash or let him go.

Thats what I want to know. I cant find that in writing though.

Ziggy
03-19-2010, 03:55 PM
You sure about the retirement aspect? I thought if he retired (or for that matter held out), when he returned, as his "years of service" would not have increased, the Broncos would still own his rights.

You're right Tned, retirement won't help him.

underrated29
03-19-2010, 03:57 PM
You're right Tned, retirement won't help him.



Is not that what happened with barry sanders. he wanted out from the lions, they said nay so he retired, but was unable to come back as he would have been a lion still.

Lancane
03-19-2010, 03:57 PM
You sure about the retirement aspect? I thought if he retired (or for that matter held out), when he returned, as his "years of service" would not have increased, the Broncos would still own his rights.

I really am not sure on that aspect, like I said the RFA Guidelines read like legal papers!

:shocked:

Northman
03-19-2010, 03:57 PM
You guys are almost as much help as my google searches. :D

Honestly, ive given up worrying about Marshall. I love his talent but the reason that he is in this situation is because of his choices leading up to this point. Right now i would just rather concentrate on other areas of this team and if he's still a Bronco great, if not, try to get the best value for him. I think Denver is doing the right thing by holding onto him until they feel the right offer comes along. Sucks for Brandon as he has earned a new payday by his on the field play but since off the field behavior goes into contracts as well he is just a victim of his own circumstances and accord. Either way, if he sits and pouts so be it. This team will move on without him.

Ziggy
03-19-2010, 03:59 PM
Thats what I want to know. I cant find that in writing though.

Lemme do some digging, I'll find it again.

dogfish
03-19-2010, 04:00 PM
I wouldnt risk a 50 million dollar contract to play for 2.5 mill.


I dont think he has to retire. He can just sit out the season.

nope. . . like ziggy said, if he sits out the entire season he doesn't get credit for another accrued season, and remains an RFA next year (assuming that the CBA is the same as the one they're operating under now-- if that changes with a new labor agreement, all bets are off and no one can answer your question). . .


also, if he sits out this year, there's zero chance in hell anyone is paying him fifty million dollars. . . no way. . .

i know someone will always take a chance on talent, but brandon's already developed enough of a reputation as a head case and loose cannon that plenty of teams will be backing away from him. . . he skips a year, there will be so many questions regarding his committment and reliability (not to mention conditioning, etc), i highly doubt even dan snyder or jerruh jones would pay him anywhere near that range. . . he's going to have enough problems NOW getting the kind of deal he wants without putting way more of it in non-guaranteed money like roster bonuses than almost any other player of his caliber. . .

if his agent lets him risk something stupid like retiring, they both need their heads examined-- preferrably with something big and sharp. . . .


i think you're just letting your mcdaniels phobia run wild and come up with the most unlikely and disastrous scenarios you can come up with because it's friday and you don't feel like working. . . . :D

Ziggy
03-19-2010, 04:00 PM
If a player retires before his contract expires, the team that had his rights before still owns them. That's why the Jets had to trade for Favre when he came back out of retirement the 1st or 2nd, or 3rd........time.

claymore
03-19-2010, 04:01 PM
Honestly, ive given up worrying about Marshall. I love his talent but the reason that he is in this situation is because of his choices leading up to this point. Right now i would just rather concentrate on other areas of this team and if he's still a Bronco great, if not, try to get the best value for him. I think Denver is doing the right thing by holding onto him until they feel the right offer comes along. Sucks for Brandon as he has earned a new payday by his on the field play but since off the field behavior goes into contracts as well he is just a victim of his own circumstances and accord. Either way, if he sits and pouts so be it. This team will move on without him.
I am geniuinley interested strictly from a NFL "legal" standpoint. Id take a 2nd for Marshall. Im opver that part of it. I just want to see what leverage the NFL truly has over players in this scenario.

dogfish
03-19-2010, 04:01 PM
Thats what I want to know. I cant find that in writing though.

it's 100% correct-- i'm not gonna bother to dig for a link, but trust me. . . .

Ziggy
03-19-2010, 04:04 PM
2010 NFL Free Agency Q & A
Posted Mar 5, 2010

a a 2010 NFL FREE AGENCY QUESTIONS & ANSWERS


Q. When can players start being signed in the 2010 free agency signing period?


A. Beginning at 12:01 AM ET on Friday, March 5.


Q. What are the categories of free agency?


A. Players are either "restricted" or "unrestricted" free agents. Within the categories are also "transition" and "franchise" players.


Q. What is the time period for free agency signings this year?


A. For restricted free agents, from March 5 to April 15. For unrestricted free agents who have received the June 1 tender from their prior Club, from March 5 to July 22 (or the first scheduled day of the first NFL training camp, whichever is later). For franchise players, from March 5 until the Tuesday after the 10th week of the regular-season (November 16). If he does not sign by November 16, he must sit out the season. There are no transition player designations this year.


Q. What is the difference between a restricted free agent and an unrestricted free agent?


A. In the 2010 League Year, players become restricted free agents when they complete three, four or five accrued seasons and their contract expires. Unrestricted free agents have completed six or more accrued seasons. An unrestricted free agent is free to sign with any club with no compensation owed to his old club.


Q. What constitutes an "accrued season?"


A. Six or more regular-season games on a club's active/inactive, reserved-injured or "physically unable to perform" lists.
Q. Other than accrued seasons, what determines a restricted free agent?


A. He has received a "qualifying" offer (a salary level predetermined by the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the league and its players) from his old club. He can negotiate with any club through April 15. If the restricted free agent accepts an offer sheet from a new club, his old club can match the offer and retain him because it has the "right of first refusal." If the old club does not match the offer, it can possibly receive draft-choice compensation depending on the amount of its qualifying offer. If an offer sheet is not executed, and the player receives the June 1 tender from his old club, the player’s rights revert exclusively to his old club on June 1.


Q. What determines an unrestricted free agent?


A. A player with six or more accrued seasons whose contract has expired. He is free to sign with any club, with no compensation owed to his old club, through July 22 (or the first scheduled day of the first NFL training camp, whichever is later). At that point, his rights revert to his old club if it made a "tender" offer (110 percent of last year's salary) to him by June 1. His old club then has until the Tuesday after the 10th week of the season (November 16) to sign him. If he does not sign by November 16, he must sit out the season. If no tender is offered by June 1, the player can be signed by any club at any time throughout the season.


Q. What determines a transition player?


A. A transition player must be offered a minimum of the average of the top 10 salaries of the prior season at the player’s

position or 120 percent of the player’s prior year’s salary, whichever is greater. A transition player designation gives

the club a first-refusal right to match within seven days an offer sheet given to the player by another club after his

contract expires. If the club matches, it retains the player. If it does not match, it receives no draft pick compensation

from that club. In 2010, a club may designate a franchise player or a transition player in lieu of a franchise player, as

well as one additional transition player.


Q. What determines a franchise player?


A. The salary level offer by a player's club determines what type of franchise player he is. An "exclusive" franchise player -- not free to sign with another club -- is offered a minimum of the average of the top five salaries at the player's position for the current year as of April 15, or 120 percent of the player's previous year's salary, or the average of the top five salaries at his position as of the end of last season -- whichever of the three is greater. If a player is offered a minimum of the average of the top five salaries of last season at his position, or 120 percent of the player’s previous year’s salary, he becomes a “non-exclusive” franchise player and can negotiate with other clubs. His old club can match a new club's offer, or receive two first-round draft choices if it decides not to match.


Q. Can a club decide to withdraw its franchise or transition designations on a player?


A. Yes


Q. Can a club then use them on other players?


A. Not in the 2010 season.A club can withdraw its franchise or transition designations and the player then automatically becomes an unrestricted free agent either immediately or when his contract expires.


_ _ _ _ _ _


CBA-RELATED QUESTIONS & ANSWERS


Q. When does the CBA expire should there be no extension to the agreement?


A. In March of 2011.


Q. Will there be a college draft in 2011?


A. Yes.


Q. What is the “Final League Year” in the current agreement?


A. The “Final League Year” is the term used in the CBA to refer to the last year of the agreement, which is 2010. The 2010 League Year begins on March 5.


Q. What are the differences between the “Final League Year” and any other “League Year?”


A. The principal differences are that in the “Final League Year” there is no salary cap and there are substantial additional restrictions on player free agency and reductions in player benefits.


Q. Are current player benefits affected in the Final League Year?


A. We expect the amount of current player benefits to decline in the Final League Year. The union agreed that in the Final League Year, clubs would be relieved of obligations regarding numerous benefit programs. Examples include second career savings (401K), player annuity, health reimbursement arrangement, severance pay and performance-based pay. The total league-wide contributions to such plans in 2009, the last capped year, were in excess of $335 million or more than $10 million per club.


Q. Are retired player benefits affected in the Final League Year?


A. Commissioner Goodell has stated in a letter to the NFL Alumni Association Board of Directors that there will be no reduction in pension or disability payments to retired players during the Final League Year (2010). Since at least the fall of 2007, NFL owners have consistently agreed and planned that they will not reduce the funding for pension or disability benefits for retired players, nor will they change qualifications on payments to players under the 88 Plan during the Final League Year.


Q. What determines an unrestricted free agent in the Final League Year (2010)?


A. In capped seasons, a player whose contract has expired becomes an unrestricted free agent if he has four or more accrued seasons. In the Final League Year (2010), a player whose contract has expired becomes an unrestricted free agent only if he has six or more accrued seasons. An unrestricted free agent is free to sign with any club with no compensation owed to his old club.


Q. What determines whether a player is a restricted free agent in the “Final League Year?”


A. In capped seasons, a player whose contract expires becomes a restricted free agent if he has three accrued seasons. In the Final League Year (2010), a player whose contract expires becomes a restricted free agent if he has three, four or five accrued seasons.


Q. In addition to the right to designate a franchise (or transition) player each capped year, can clubs designate additional players in the Final League Year?


A. Yes, one additional player can be tagged. In capped years, a club may designate a franchise player or a transition player in lieu of a franchise player. In the final league year (2010), the above rule also applies, however, a club may also designate one additional transition player. A transition player must be offered a minimum of the average of the top 10 salaries of the prior season at the player’s position or 120 percent of the player’s prior year’s salary, whichever is greater. A transition player designation gives the club a first-refusal right to match within seven days an offer sheet given to the player by another club after his contract expires. If the club matches, it retains the player. If it does not match, it receives no draft pick compensation from that club.


Q. What is the Final Eight Plan?


A. During the Final League Year, the eight clubs that make the Divisional Playoffs in the previous season have additional restrictions that limit their ability to sign unrestricted free agents from other clubs. In general, the four clubs participating in the championship games are limited in the number of unrestricted free agents that they may sign; the limit is determined by the number of their own unrestricted free agents signing with other clubs. They cannot sign any UFAs unless one of theirs is signed by another team.


For the four clubs that lost in the Divisional Playoffs, in addition to having the ability to sign unrestricted free agents based on the number of their own unrestricted free agents signing with other clubs, they may also sign players based on specific financial parameters. Those four only will be permitted to sign one unrestricted free agent for $5,807,475 million or more in year one of the contract, plus the number of their UFAs who sign with another team. They also can sign any unrestricted free agents for no more than $3,861,823 million in year one of the contract with limitations on the per year increases.


In the case of all final eight teams, the first year salary of UFAs they sign to replace those lost cannot exceed the first year salary of the player lost with limitations on the per year increases.


Q. Is there an Entering Player Pool in the Final League Year?


A. Yes. The CBA provides that the league has the right to keep the rookie pool in the Final League Year.


Q. Is there a Minimum Team Salary in the Final League Year?


A. There is no Minimum Team Salary in the Final League Year.


Q. Are there individual player minimum salaries in the Final League Year?


A. Yes, but they rise at a rate somewhat slower than player minimum salaries rise in capped years.


Q. Do any player contract rules from capped years remain in place for the Final League Year?


A. Yes. Some rules like the “30% increase rule” are still in effect in the Final League Year for player contracts signed in capped years. That rule restricts salary increases from 2009 to 2010 and beyond. For example: a player with a $500,000 salary in 2009 would be limited to annual salary increases of $150,000 ($500,000 x 30%) beginning in 2010.

Lancane
03-19-2010, 04:08 PM
Thanks Ziggy, now I have a bigger headache...;)

It still does not explain in detail the differences and what not, such as the team owning a players rights and so on. But thanks for posting that Q&A.

Tned
03-19-2010, 04:21 PM
it's 100% correct-- i'm not gonna bother to dig for a link, but trust me. . . .

Ok, just because it's the kind of ass I am, I will throw one wrinkle in this.

If he doesn't sign, and effectively holds out for the year, under the current CBA, he will remain an RFA, because he will still only have four years of accrued service time (you don't get a year of service for sitting out).

Now, if the players and NFL sign a new CBA before next year, and change free agency back to where it was last year, which is that a player with four years of service is a UFA, what will Brandon be?

I think he would be an unrestricted FA, if a new CBA is signed before next season and they go back to the old free agency rules.

Short of that, he remains Broncos property.

Lonestar
03-19-2010, 04:32 PM
If he doesn't come in by week 11, he gets no credit for the season, and has to pay fines. I really doubt that he can afford either, with a possible lockout next year. The biggest factor is that he won't get credit for a season accrued. That would hurt him the most, since it would make him a RFA again next season instead of an UFA. He would lose all leverage because the Broncos could just tender him again next season instead of having to franchise him and pay him some serious cash or let him go.

As you posted above the 6 years of playing has to be met one way or the other.


Ok, just because it's the kind of ass I am, I will throw one wrinkle in this.

If he doesn't sign, and effectively holds out for the year, under the current CBA, he will remain an RFA, because he will still only have four years of accrued service time (you don't get a year of service for sitting out).

Now, if the players and NFL sign a new CBA before next year, and change free agency back to where it was last year, which is that a player with four years of service is a UFA, what will Brandon be?

I think he would be an unrestricted FA, if a new CBA is signed before next season and they go back to the old free agency rules.

Short of that, he remains Broncos property.


This all depends on how the new CBA is written. They can negotiate anything under this new one. Like if you have any child support payments that are not paid we can flog you at the south stands each week until your current. :D

Ziggy
03-19-2010, 04:46 PM
Ok, just because it's the kind of ass I am, I will throw one wrinkle in this.

If he doesn't sign, and effectively holds out for the year, under the current CBA, he will remain an RFA, because he will still only have four years of accrued service time (you don't get a year of service for sitting out).

Now, if the players and NFL sign a new CBA before next year, and change free agency back to where it was last year, which is that a player with four years of service is a UFA, what will Brandon be?

I think he would be an unrestricted FA, if a new CBA is signed before next season and they go back to the old free agency rules.

Short of that, he remains Broncos property.

Even with that, unless they get rid of the franchise tag, the Broncos can still retain his rights.

Ravage!!!
03-19-2010, 04:46 PM
The CBA isn't going to just let the owners pick everything they want. The Owners are losing money without the CBA in place, compared to it in place. They need the CBA as much as the players need the owners to sign.

As it was last year, a player could sit out TEN games and still have it count as 'accrued' season. The team can't just deny him back on the team, and have it not count. So if Marshall decides to sit out ten games, then it very well could count for a season... unless that has changed. Has that changed?

Tned
03-19-2010, 04:47 PM
The CBA isn't going to just let the owners pick everything they want. The Owners are losing money without the CBA in place, compared to it in place. They need the CBA as much as the players need the owners to sign.

As it was last year, a player could sit out TEN games and still have it count as 'accrued' season. The team can't just deny him back on the team, and have it not count. So if Marshall decides to sit out ten games, then it very well could count for a season... unless that has changed.

How are the owners losing money with no CBA?

Lonestar
03-19-2010, 04:48 PM
The CBA isn't going to just let the owners pick everything they want. The Owners are losing money without the CBA in place, compared to it in place. They need the CBA as much as the players need the owners to sign.

As it was last year, a player could sit out TEN games and still have it count as 'accrued' season. The team can't just deny him back on the team, and have it not count. So if Marshall decides to sit out ten games, then it very well could count for a season... unless that has changed.


Just how are the owners losing money?

If marshall sets out for ten games can he afford to give up 63% of his money this year plus any incentives that are built in?

Tned
03-19-2010, 04:51 PM
Just how are the owners losing money?

If marshall sets out for ten games can he afford to give up 63% of his money this year plus any incentives that are built in?

I could live on a $900k salary, I'm sure he can manage. It would still be almost double the salary he has had three of his four years in the league.

Ravage!!!
03-19-2010, 04:51 PM
How are the owners losing money with no CBA?

I cou ldn't repeat to you how they were explaining it.. but let me rephrase.

They are losing money compared to the money they make WITH the CBA. I don't mean to imply that they are going in the red this season. But the CBA is as much a benefit to the owners, and profit, as it is to the players.

Ravage!!!
03-19-2010, 04:54 PM
I could live on a $900k salary, I'm sure he can manage. It would still be almost double the salary he has had three of his four years in the league.

Not to mention taking a chance on hurting himself before the next contract.

This is where I wouldn't want to play if I were Marshall. They want him to take all the risk of getting injured and never getting his big pay. No player ever wants to feel they lost out on that.

Ask Sterling Sharpe what being the "good guy" did for him when he was playing for peanuts. This was a guy that people couldn't decide if he or Jerry Rice was better..... and he played out his contract without renegotiating... and got hurt. Never earning the money that he well deserved compared to the talent in the league. I wonder what advice he would give to players in that same situation now?

Lonestar
03-19-2010, 04:54 PM
I cou ldn't repeat to you how they were explaining it.. but let me rephrase.

They are losing money compared to the money they make WITH the CBA. I don't meant to imply that they are going in the red, this season. But the CBA is as much a benefit to the owners, and profit, as it is to the players.

Next year they get paid TV money, even if they have a lock out.

They have no extraordinary expenses this year so I do not see how they could make any more money than they are now.

Sorry but I'm not buying this answer.

Ravage!!!
03-19-2010, 04:56 PM
Next year they get paid TV money, even if they have a lock out.

They have no extraordinary expenses this year so I do not see how they could make any more money than they are now.

Sorry but I'm not buying this answer.

I don't care :shrug:

Tned
03-19-2010, 04:56 PM
I cou ldn't repeat to you how they were explaining it.. but let me rephrase.

They are losing money compared to the money they make WITH the CBA. I don't meant to imply that they are going in the red, this season. But the CBA is as much a benefit to the owners, and profit, as it is to the players.

I'll have to research this, because I am under the impression that in many cases clubs are owning more, because they don't have to honor the minimum team salary thresholds (60% of NFL revenues going to player salaries), can cut players without consequence to get out of bad contracts (no cap hit, because there is no cap), and are saving money by having players that would be UFA's, being RFA's for two more years.

Ravage!!!
03-19-2010, 04:59 PM
I'll have to research this, because I am under the impression that in many cases clubs are owning more, because they don't have to honor the minimum team salary thresholds (60% of NFL revenues going to player salaries), can cut players without consequence to get out of bad contracts (no cap hit, because there is no cap), and are saving money by having players that would be UFA's, being RFA's for two more years.

Its possible the interview I heard earlier today will be out on some podcast, and I'll find it so I can review what was said. I'm at work, so its in the backround and I normally can just catch pieces.

But basically they weree explaining that the perception is that the players need the CBA more than the owners do, and this guy was explaining that, financially, its by far best for both parties. If it wasn't, you would never see the owners agree to the CBA at all and everything would go back to the days before FA. But thats not how the owners want it because of the profits.

dogfish
03-19-2010, 05:13 PM
Ok, just because it's the kind of ass I am, I will throw one wrinkle in this.

If he doesn't sign, and effectively holds out for the year, under the current CBA, he will remain an RFA, because he will still only have four years of accrued service time (you don't get a year of service for sitting out).

Now, if the players and NFL sign a new CBA before next year, and change free agency back to where it was last year, which is that a player with four years of service is a UFA, what will Brandon be?

I think he would be an unrestricted FA, if a new CBA is signed before next season and they go back to the old free agency rules.

Short of that, he remains Broncos property.

i would GUESS that they would keep that rule, but it would be just that-- a guess. . . who knows?

JR's right. . . i suppose they can re-write it however they want-- they could write entirely different rules, although i really don't think they would. . . and as ziggy said, in that case we could always use the franchise tag. . .

of course, we're one of the teams with the strongest groups of RFAs. . . it really worked well in our favor THIS year, but the organization has to be mindful that it could just as easily turn around in the next season, whenever that is. . . because if what we're talking about does happen, and (cap or no cap) we go back to a CBA that grants unrestricted free agency after four accrued seasons, all of a sudden we're going to have brandon marshall, elvis dumervil, champ bailey, ryan harris, chris kuper and kyle orton ALL hit unrestricted free agency. . .

BAM!

ouch. . . it's one of the reason that i really wanted us to sign doom to an extension (and still, with some reservations, wouldn't mind seeing marshall extended if he and the FO actually thought they could get along). . . i'm very well aware that few teams are signing anyone to extensions, and i don't need someone to explain why that is. . . i get it, i understand that this is a unique situation because of the labor uncertainty. . . but teams ARE still signing contracts, even if it's not happening with RFAs. . . the cowboys did sign ware to a huge deal when they could have franchised him, and obviously the bears were willing to give an aging peppers huge cash. . .

i wouldn't do this with marshall, but with doom i wouldn't be afraid to front-load the contract some, so that if the salary cap does come back, we could significantly ease the cap hit of signing the guy to a big deal by getting in one of the expensive years instead of the low salary (base, not bonuses) the first few years. . .

just sayin'. . .

it's great that we're able to hold onto these guys on the cheap, and it could prove to be a great extended evaluation period for guys like orton and marshall-- or in orton's case, possibly a way to buy another year for JMFMCD to develop another QB if that's the route he chooses. . .

but it could really suck if half of them walk for nothing next year. . . that's probably an exaggeration, but. . . if we did sign one or two of them now, assuming the CBA is somewhat similar we'd be able to retain one of them through the franchise tag in the following season, and at least get the right to match any offer for a second through the transition tag if it's still around. . . and of course we always have a chance to re-sign any of them as UFAs, but the price typically goes up and guys get a chance to look at other towns and other teams. . .

and really, if you're in favor of-- or open to-- trading marshall, the chance to move him now for picks or players and leave us with one less expiring contract to worry about does have some appeal. . .

it's going to be veeeery interesting for us no matter how it works out. . . and the situation just adds even more pressure to get better, quicker results out of this year's draft class. . .

Denver Native (Carol)
03-19-2010, 05:13 PM
this article was posted about 1 year ago

http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d80868b78&template=without-video&confirm=true

What are the issues?

A collective bargaining agreement has to work for both sides. If the agreement provides inadequate incentives to invest in the future, it will not work for management or labor. And, in the context of a professional sports league, if the agreement does not afford all clubs an opportunity to be competitive, the league can lose its appeal.

The NFL earns very substantial revenues. But the clubs are obligated by the CBA to spend substantially more than half their revenues – almost $4.5 billion this year alone -- on player costs. In addition, as we have explained to the union, the clubs must spend significant and growing amounts on stadium construction, operations and improvements to respond to the interests and demands of our fans. The current labor agreement does not adequately recognize the costs of generating the revenues of which the players receive the largest share; nor does the agreement recognize that those costs have increased substantially -- and at an ever increasing rate -- in recent years during a difficult economic climate in our country. As a result, under the terms of the current agreement, the clubs’ incentive to invest in the game is threatened.

There are substantial other elements of the deal that simply are not working. For example, as interpreted by the courts, the current CBA effectively prohibits the clubs from recouping bonuses paid to players who subsequently breach their player contacts or refuse to perform. That is simply irrational and unfair to both fans and players who honor their contracts. Also irrational is that in the current system some rookies are able to secure contracts that pay them more than top proven veterans.

Our objective is to fix these problems in a new CBA, one that will provide adequate incentives to grow the game, ensure the unparalleled competitive balance that has sustained our fans’ interest, and afford the players fair and increasing compensation and benefits.

silkamilkamonico
03-19-2010, 05:15 PM
The owners do not lose money.

They still get the revenue from the TV contract, but the revenue they lose from attendance is by far made up from the lack of costs they spend on operations that no longer go on without a season, not to mention a lot of the owners will rent their facility out in other means of making money.

The players are the ones that really lose out. The owners can still make a profit.

Ravage!!!
03-19-2010, 05:23 PM
again.. not 'lose' money.. but not as profitable as they are with the CBA.... if I understood correctly. I'll be lookign for the podcast of the interview if its available.

silkamilkamonico
03-19-2010, 05:28 PM
Well, without a CBA, there are no games period. I think that's just common knowledge. If owners profited more without a CBA, you would no longer have an NFL because it wouldn't be in the best business interest of the owners.

Hardwired
03-19-2010, 07:57 PM
Next year they get paid TV money, even if they have a lock out.

They have no extraordinary expenses this year so I do not see how they could make any more money than they are now.

Sorry but I'm not buying this answer.

I read they may get paid TV money next year, but if there are no games "The league would have to pay it back over time, probably by charging those networks less in future years". So the TV money becomes a warchest this year but they pay for it in coming years.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/sc-spt-0314-farmer-nfl--20100313,0,3926312.story

dogfish
03-19-2010, 08:28 PM
I wouldnt risk a 50 million dollar contract to play for 2.5 mill.


I dont think he has to retire. He can just sit out the season.

oh, and here's the other thing about that-- if he doesn't sign his tender, we can't trade him, and. . . i'm not a hundred percent, somebody correct me if i'm wrong on this one, but-- i don't think any team can sign him to an offer sheet until his tender is signed, either. . .

so unless he's going to hold out and insist that denver and denver only is going to be the team to give him his long term deal-- which you and i and everyone else knows he's NOT going to do-- then he has to put pen to paper on that thing at some point. . .

Ravage!!!
03-19-2010, 08:43 PM
oh, and here's the other thing about that-- if he doesn't sign his tender, we can't trade him, and. . . i'm not a hundred percent, somebody correct me if i'm wrong on this one, but-- i don't think any team can sign him to an offer sheet until his tender is signed, either. . .

so unless he's going to hold out and insist that denver and denver only is going to be the team to give him his long term deal-- which you and i and everyone else knows he's NOT going to do-- then he has to put pen to paper on that thing at some point. . .

That, or he doesn't sign until things are agreed upon with he and his agent that something has been, or will be, worked out with someone interested.

So they might not be able to sign the trade sheet, but talks can still be going on. That is what I fear may happen. Marshall just doesn't sign his tender.. thus forcing Denver to work a deal out with soeone, then signs with it being understood that the signing is for the purpose of trading.

claymore
03-19-2010, 09:13 PM
Ok, just because it's the kind of ass I am, I will throw one wrinkle in this.

If he doesn't sign, and effectively holds out for the year, under the current CBA, he will remain an RFA, because he will still only have four years of accrued service time (you don't get a year of service for sitting out).

Now, if the players and NFL sign a new CBA before next year, and change free agency back to where it was last year, which is that a player with four years of service is a UFA, what will Brandon be?

I think he would be an unrestricted FA, if a new CBA is signed before next season and they go back to the old free agency rules.

Short of that, he remains Broncos property.


Even with that, unless they get rid of the franchise tag, the Broncos can still retain his rights.

And this kinda sums up my point. Why risk a season at 2.5 million. Lets say his knees burst into flames and are destroyed forever, he will have lost his potential payday either with a Franchise tag (like 10-14 mil) or his 50 million dollar contract.

Only leverage they have that I know over Marshall is that he might have to be a RFA 2 years in a row. Which I just cant fathom as being legal. That is borderline slavery, or indentured servant type stuff.

Tned
03-19-2010, 09:18 PM
oh, and here's the other thing about that-- if he doesn't sign his tender, we can't trade him, and. . . i'm not a hundred percent, somebody correct me if i'm wrong on this one, but-- i don't think any team can sign him to an offer sheet until his tender is signed, either. . .

so unless he's going to hold out and insist that denver and denver only is going to be the team to give him his long term deal-- which you and i and everyone else knows he's NOT going to do-- then he has to put pen to paper on that thing at some point. . .

You don't think we can trade his rights? I assumed we could trade his rights to another team, which would then essentially transfer the unsigned tender to them. However, this is an assumption on my part based on how player rights can be traded in other situations.

topscribe
03-19-2010, 09:48 PM
but trust me. . . .

:vroam:


-----

Lancane
03-19-2010, 10:50 PM
You don't think we can trade his rights? I assumed we could trade his rights to another team, which would then essentially transfer the unsigned tender to them. However, this is an assumption on my part based on how player rights can be traded in other situations.

Actually I don't believe we can, if that was the case then why did Whitehurst have to sign his tender before before being traded to Seattle. He could have just been traded and then discussed a contract with the Seahawks, instead he signed his tender agreement and then was traded, and only then did they finalize a new contract.

dogfish
03-19-2010, 11:19 PM
Actually I don't believe we can, if that was the case then why did Whitehurst have to sign his tender before before being traded to Seattle. He could have just been traded and then discussed a contract with the Seahawks, instead he signed his tender agreement and then was traded, and only then did they finalize a new contract.

yep-- they have to sign the tender before they can be traded. . .

Davii
03-19-2010, 11:37 PM
Thats what I want to know. I cant find that in writing though.

If he sits out the year, even if he retires and comes back, we still own his rights.

Anyone remember a halfway decent running back named Barry Sanders?

He did just that to the Lions, and was never able to come back to the league simply because he would still have owed the Lions the balance of years on that contract when he walked away, and the Lions were adamant about not letting him play anywhere else.

Lonestar
03-20-2010, 12:07 AM
If he sits out the year, even if he retires and comes back, we still own his rights.

Anyone remember a halfway decent running back named Barry Sanders?

He did just that to the Lions, and was never able to come back to the league simply because he would still have owed the Lions the balance of years on that contract when he walked away, and the Lions were adamant about not letting him play anywhere else.


under the current system we own his rights until after he plays for us for 6 years full years or on IR.

So setting out will not get it.

He is hooked, screwed and tattoted. Until a new CBA is in place. then if he has not signed an offer sheet with someone he gets franchised. Which is cheaper than giving him up front money. He would actually have to work for it week after week.

Ravage!!!
03-20-2010, 09:59 AM
He can sit out 10 games and it still count, according to last year's rules. Has that changed?

JDL
03-20-2010, 10:40 AM
He can sit out 10 games and it still count, according to last year's rules. Has that changed?

That should still be accurate and then when he comes back to practice... OWWWWW pulled hamstring.

You guys do realize that when you treat players that way OTHER players see that and no longer want to play for that organization. You have the Bengals or Browns who have major PR issues and have had to overpay to get players there... same thing for years here in Arizona ('armpit of the NFL' - Simeon Rice)

Nothing wrong with offering him a reasonable contract. I don't particularly want him on the team anymore (fantastic player but you can't have guys around who quit on their teams in the playoff chase.) He's shown up his teammates twice too often. Can't keep that type of attitude... but you don't want to give him away... which isn't the same thing as saying... ohhh we're going to get the 6th pick who can we get with the 6th pick... lmfao... collectively Broncos fans seem to need to pull their heads out of their arses... and understand that if you can get a 1st rd pick for Marshall... or some reasonable compensation (starting caliber players) you should strongly consider taking it. Teams are generally very unwilling to part with those picks and I would accept a pick if as an organization you had someone identified that should be around at that pick that you feel will be a longterm starter (I suspect some teams don't think even that far ahead... just ooohhh draft picks yay.) I would like to see us get some combination of McClain, Iupati, D.Williams plus maybe a Brandon Graham. Starting all-pro centers are routinely found late in drafts, OGs are not (i've posted the numbers before), so Pouncey seems like a waste other than he can start right away... a Matt Tennant is perfectly fine and comparable as a better Dan Koppen... maybe could be as good as Nalen, but not sure he is quite as strong and in the right system to become THAT good... but you don't need your centers to be physically dominating, they need to be good, agile but most importantly of all... SMART!!! they are calling the OL assignments often cases... they are bracketed by two big guards and so typically they get a ton of help regardless of how good they are when they are stacked (which is rare... they usually are the help defender inside on DTs.)

That pretty much covers the front 7 and OL... beyond that... you look at anyone and everything...but getting a 2nd 1st would help to fill our front 7 needs and/OR OL needs. It creates an issue at WR... but it also solves an issue at WR. If McD is serious about having the 'right' people then BM is simply not that we've seen it too often. Now if you can't help a major need by trading him you don't... I suspect teams will overvalue players at the trade deadline this year heading into a strike season. Veteran teams in contention will push hard to get over the top... what if Reggie Wayne blows out his ACL? Sydney Rice/Harvin get injured? you don't know... 2 years is a long time for teams with lot's of veterans ... they won't be the same team... so you can't really risk an unknown like the strike year (which will probably be similar to 1987 imo) Maybe in that situation a team will give up a 1st. And in an uncapped year perhaps it is set up where you can eat any signing you give him and make his contract more attractive (it wouldn't be that big mind you, he'd have roster bonuses and other bonuses that added large to his value in future years. probably a split signing bonus could be used though and then a new team doesn't even have to worry about that... for a year.) Why not, Marshall doesn't have much leverage...if any... he could get a big deal that is structured in a way that Denver can still move him.

All I'm saying is that he isn't the right fit long-term, but giving him a new contract doesn't mean you are committing to him long-term if it is structured appropriately... and not committing long-term doesn't mean you cut or give assets away... though you don't sit around and dream of 6th or 2nd overall picks...lol.

Ravage!!!
03-20-2010, 11:02 AM
I don't think he quit on his team in the playoffs any more than the coach did...but I'm not going down that argument again.

I do agree that you can't continue to treat a top-player (and their contract) with disrespect. PLayers play for the money, and, want to be treated fairly. If you don't, players, agents, and everyone else talks about how your team treats you. No one wants to play for a guy that will treat you like crap, even when you are playing at elite levels.

There is a couple problems. You can't really expect to sign him to a contract that isn't long term because that would mean no up-front money. Marshall has been playing FAR below market value, and is looking for his up-front money. He's already put his career in danger, and knows he was just "this close" to being too hurt to ever get his contract. Then he was told last year he would have to 'prove' it again. From his perspective, I can see very much whey he would absolutely want the up-front money in order to sign a contract. We are just are talking about TOO much money, here.

So how do you give him fair-up front money, without signing him long term? People want to point out that he declined a 9.5 million dollar one-year contract last year. He did that because it would be stupid to play for that kind of money, risk injury, and ruin the chance to make much more.

Northman
03-20-2010, 11:08 AM
Problem is Marshall is being disrespected. Why you guys keep claiming that is beyond me.

Lancane
03-20-2010, 11:32 AM
Problem is Marshall is being disrespected. Why you guys keep claiming that is beyond me.

North, he is being disrespected...sometimes fans act like all football players should want to play for their respected teams, not just here...but nationally. If the sport was allowed to go in that direction, then some teams would have no players at all. It's a business as well as a sport, but if these owners, coaches and general managers treat it like a college program: 'it's about the team' and 'you have to continue to prove yourself to get what you want' and so on and so forth, then athletes will look elsewhere.

Look at it from Brandon Marshall's veiwpoint, he loses a friend and no less he is right there, not in a different state and blames himself, trouble is brewing with the old head coach, then the team hires a new head coach...but they still refuse to pay him his due, even though he is one of the best young offensive weapons in the league; they then disrupt the bonds you have by trading one of your closest friends and your trusted quarterback, there seems to be no job security and so on. Yes, he made mistakes, he did some stupid crap, but maybe...just maybe he had enough, when your life is strained, and it does not matter if he has more money then the average man...but when stressed or strained you tend to snap and do more stupid things. That is why I get all worked up over the venomous retorts and comments about Marshall, people forget he is human! He deserves to be paid, if they are not willing to, fine...make the team worse and trade him to someone that will appreciate what he brings and will pay him.

Northman
03-20-2010, 11:43 AM
North, he is being disrespected...sometimes fans act like all football players should want to play for their respected teams, not just here...but nationally. If the sport was allowed to go in that direction, then some teams would have no players at all. It's a business as well as a sport, but if these owners, coaches and general managers treat it like a college program: 'it's about the team' and 'you have to continue to prove yourself to get what you want' and so on and so forth, then athletes will look elsewhere.

Incorrect. Although McDaniels does preach the "team" philosphy this isnt about why Marshall isnt getting his upfront money. Ive pointed to this numerous times that its more than just the stats that goes into a players contract. Marshall has a history of being a malcontent and thus making it very difficult for a team to just show him the money when it could put the team at risk. Not going to happen. Many players on this team loved Dwill and are very saddened that he is gone but they arent having meltdowns and other off the field issues in the process.


Look at it from Brandon Marshall's veiwpoint, he loses a friend and no less he is right there, not in a different state and blames himself, trouble is brewing with the old head coach, then the team hires a new head coach...but they still refuse to pay him his due, even though he is one of the best young offensive weapons in the league; they then disrupt the bonds you have by trading one of your closest friends and your trusted quarterback, there seems to be no job security and so on. Yes, he made mistakes, he did some stupid crap, but maybe...just maybe he had enough, when your life is strained, and it does not matter if he has more money then the average man...but when stressed or strained you tend to snap and do more stupid things. That is why I get all worked up over the venomous retorts and comments about Marshall, people forget he is human! He deserves to be paid, if they are not willing to, fine...make the team worse and trade him to someone that will appreciate what he brings and will pay him.

Dude seriously, save me the sob story. I can point to numerous players who had hardships growing up and been through just as tough times who dont fall off the ledge every year. Losing Dwill doesnt equate to acting like a child in practice, it doesnt equate to getting into physical altercations with your past and current girlfriends. You guys are nothing but excuses and the problem with your theory is that he had these issues LONG before Dwill died. Sorry, its weak sauce dude.

Lancane
03-20-2010, 12:17 PM
Incorrect. Although McDaniels does preach the "team" philosphy this isnt about why Marshall isnt getting his upfront money. Ive pointed to this numerous times that its more than just the stats that goes into a players contract. Marshall has a history of being a malcontent and thus making it very difficult for a team to just show him the money when it could put the team at risk. Not going to happen. Many players on this team loved Dwill and are very saddened that he is gone but they arent having meltdowns and other off the field issues in the process.



Dude seriously, save me the sob story. I can point to numerous players who had hardships growing up and been through just as tough times who dont fall off the ledge every year. Losing Dwill doesnt equate to acting like a child in practice, it doesnt equate to getting into physical altercations with your past and current girlfriends. You guys are nothing but excuses and the problem with your theory is that he had these issues LONG before Dwill died. Sorry, its weak sauce dude.


Really, I guess you must be perfect then...

And the psychologists must be wrong that certain traumatic events effect others differently, that's just them trying to sell their hourly bullshit, right?

I should say no more, because I am liable to really go off on the pretentious statement you just made. So I will simply say to you to believe what you want, and I doubt your ass has ever even known someone who was murdered, let alone in front of your eyes!

Northman
03-20-2010, 12:25 PM
Really, I guess you must be perfect then...

And the psychologists must be wrong that certain traumatic events effect others differently, that's just them trying to sell their hourly bullshit, right?

I should say no more, because I am liable to really go off on the pretentious statement you just made. So I will simply say to you to believe what you want, and I doubt your ass has ever even known someone who was murdered, let alone in front of your eyes!


Ive seen traumatic events and have been in traumatic events myself so your totally offbase with your comment there but thanks for playing. No one is perfect and ive never eluded to such a moronic statement on your part. But you simply do not throw millions of dollars to someone who has problems like that until they have gotten help to deal with them. Thus far Brandon has not gotten the help and to simply throw him the money would be like giving a unlimited supply of crack to a crack addict. You just dont do it and you wouldnt be doing them any favors. If indeed Brandon is still not coping with Dwill's death as you would elude too (although again he has had problems long before Dwill) than he needs to step back from football and get the help he needs. Simply throwing money at him doesnt benefit him or the Broncos.

Lancane
03-20-2010, 12:40 PM
Ive seen traumatic events and have been in traumatic events myself so your totally offbase with your comment there but thanks for playing. No one is perfect and ive never eluded to such a moronic statement on your part. But you simply do not throw millions of dollars to someone who has problems like that until they have gotten help to deal with them. Thus far Brandon has not gotten the help and to simply throw him the money would be like giving a unlimited supply of crack to a crack addict. You just dont do it and you wouldnt be doing them any favors. If indeed Brandon is still not coping with Dwill's death as you would elude too (although again he has had problems long before Dwill) than he needs to step back from football and get the help he needs. Simply throwing money at him doesnt benefit him or the Broncos.

North, you act like he is the only one...that kills me, seriously. If you actually looked into the past of all the players in the NFL with issues off the field, or have by immaturity or by other actions caused issues for the team, you would be looking at a very long list. Irving, Owens, Moss, Bryant, Chad Ocho-dumbshit, Henry, Incognito and the list goes on and on. Some deserve a second chance, some do not...but either way they deserved to be paid for their skillset, it is a business. Marshall has not done half of what others have, maybe Rod Smith did not deserve another chance nor to get paid? I mean after all he put himself into some dumb situations that caused issues for himself and the team, same with Romanowski. I think fans just want to hate Marshall because he is an easy target at this point, he has been made a villain by both the media and fans are tagging right along.

Personally I hope we trade him...I am really to that point, I hope he goes somewhere gets his life back on track and I also hope that when we face him he shows us up for the maturity level it seems that many lack and the unfounded hate towards him.

Northman
03-20-2010, 01:07 PM
North, you act like he is the only one...that kills me, seriously. If you actually looked into the past of all the players in the NFL with issues off the field, or have by immaturity or by other actions caused issues for the team, you would be looking at a very long list. Irving, Owens, Moss, Bryant, Chad Ocho-dumbshit, Henry, Incognito and the list goes on and on. Some deserve a second chance, some do not...but either way they deserved to be paid for their skillset, it is a business. Marshall has not done half of what others have, maybe Rod Smith did not deserve another chance nor to get paid? I mean after all he put himself into some dumb situations that caused issues for himself and the team, same with Romanowski. I think fans just want to hate Marshall because he is an easy target at this point, he has been made a villain by both the media and fans are tagging right along.

Personally I hope we trade him...I am really to that point,

I hope we trade him too. As for Smith, the guy learned from his mistake whereas Brandon is not. Thats what im trying to convey to you. Its one thing when a guy actually gets it and learns from something. Its something totally different when they do not and then expect to be rewarded for it. Yes, Brandon is a hell of a player and it is a business. Its a business for Denver too.

Character issues are part of today's NFL contract agreements and when your a high risk (which Brandon is) than as a organization you have to be smart with your money. So while i can see Brandon wanting to get paid i also understand why Denver is not paying him upfront money. The only thing that Ocho and TO have done is act like baffoons on the field and in the media so really Brandon has done "worse" than them when it comes to his own issues. I have been wanting Brandon to snap out of it for the last 2 years and when he goes public and says he is learning from those mistakes only to do them again and again as a fan i get frustrated. It would be nice if he lived up to his own words for once but it has gotten to the point where he would be better off starting a new at a new location.