Broncos' Dumervil signs one-year, $3 million tender

[Denver Native (Carol)]

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_15294822

Along with his uncanny ability to sack the quarterback, Broncos outside linebacker Elvis Dumervil understands $3.168 million is a much better contract starting point than $630,000.

Dumervil signed his first- and third-round, restricted free agent tender around noon today, assuring that he would make a $3.168 million salary. Had he not signed his tender in protest of not getting a multiyear contract from the team, Dumervil's salary could have been reduced to 10 percent above what he made last year, which would have come out to roughly $630,000.

After leading the NFL with 17 sacks last year, and recording 43 sacks in four years while making a combined $2.015 million, Dumervil is hoping to become among the league's five highest-paid pass rushers. That means a contract of around $40 million in guarantees. The Broncos and Dumervil's agent Gary Wichard continue to negotiate a new deal.

Signing the tender essentially closes the controversy surrounding a second letter the Broncos sent to Dumervil last week that carried the reminder that his salary would be cut by the Tuesday deadline if he didn't sign his tender.

[NightTrainLayne]

I hope they continue working on a deal. I'm not sure exactly how to take this news.

[ikillz0mbies]

Negotiations would still be ongoing, but at least the possible distraction of a hold out, bitterness between the two sides, tender being cut, or what have you is over. Dumervil can be focused on this upcoming season and IMO deserves to get a pay raise for the way he handled himself throughout this situation.

[Denver Native (Carol)]

I hope they continue working on a deal. I'm not sure exactly how to take this news.

Hopefully what is said in the article is correct - i.e. his agent and the Broncos continue to negotiate a new deal

[Tned]

It makes it a lot tougher to reach a long term deal now. I think the Broncos were unwise to force this tender signing.

[T.K.O.]

just goes to show that there are still players in the nfl that are'nt "all about ME" guy's.
i have ZERO doubt that he and the FO will come to terms on a contract that makes both sides happy !
:elefant::defense::salute:

[Denver Native (Carol)]

just goes to show that there are still players in the nfl that are'nt "all about ME" guy's.
i have ZERO doubt that he and the FO will come to terms on a contract that makes both sides happy !
:elefant::defense::salute:

I agree. I believe what happened today is just assurance that he will be with the Broncos this year, and I believe a long term contract will come.

[T.K.O.]

It makes it a lot tougher to reach a long term deal now. I think the Broncos were unwise to force this tender signing.

do tell ?
how did the broncos "force" this....?
it's league rules and schedules both parties are sticking to.

and how will it be tougher now that they have months to work out the deal ?

i think you are making a good thing (as in doom did,nt feel the need to force the broncos hand on the lowering of his salary to 110% of 09')
into a possibly bad thing. sounds like the kind of stuff you read at pft.

[camdisco24]

I think this is great news. Now lets pay the man what he deserves.
IMO this just shows Doom isn't an idiot and knows good and well that $3 Mil is a good starting point for an ongoing negotiation.

[Northman]

I think this is great news. Now lets pay the man what he deserves.
IMO this just shows Doom isn't an idiot and knows good and well that $3 Mil is a good starting point for an ongoing negotiation.

This^

Doom has been the consumate team guy and done everything asked of him. Now its time for Denver to reward him for it.

[TXBRONC]

It makes it a lot tougher to reach a long term deal now. I think the Broncos were unwise to force this tender signing.

IIRC he was planning on signing the tender anyway I have to believe he and his agent know what the implications are.

[Tned]

do tell ?
how did the broncos "force" this....?
it's league rules and schedules both parties are sticking to.


While I am willing to stand corrected, I don't believe it was a league rule. Instead, the Broncos were 'allowed' to change their tender offer from the $3+ million to 10% above last years salary. As I said, I could be wrong on this, but in previous conversations with the beat reporters covering the Broncos, they told me that the tender could remain out there indefinitely.

So, based on that assumption, the Broncos 'forced' Doom to sign it by saying they could, or would, exercise their right to rescind the $3+ million tender.


and how will it be tougher now that they have months to work out the deal ?

Prior to signing the tender, the 30% rule wasn't in play. Meaning, the Broncos and Doom could come up with any contract that worked for both sides. For instance, they could give him $6 million a year salary, plus a $10 million signing bonus, plus a $10 million roster bonus in 2012 (just as an example).

Now, the 30% rule comes into play and they are limited to 30% increases each year on his salary.
2010 $3.1 million
2011 $4.03
2012 $5.2
2013 $6.8
2014 $8.8


i think you are making a good thing (as in doom did,nt feel the need to force the broncos hand on the lowering of his salary to 110% of 09')
into a possibly bad thing. sounds like the kind of stuff you read at pft.

That's what happens when you assume motives for a person's post, rather than just asking for clarification like you did in the first part. You make assumptions as to why or what a person is trying to do in their posts.

[Denver Native (Carol)]

The following is from an article about another player, who would not benefit from signing the free agent tender before the deadline tomorrow. However, it explains exactly what the free agent tender is:

http://dc.sbnation.com/2010/6/14/1517871/carlos-rogers-redskins-restricted-free-agent-tender-contract

"As Rich Campbell explains, normally, teams tender restricted free agency tenders that are greater than 110 percent of the players' salary the season before. If the player does not sign that tender by June 15, the offer automatically goes down to exactly 110 percent of the player's previous-year salary."

[T.K.O.]

So, based on that assumption, the Broncos 'forced' Doom to sign it by saying they could, or would, exercise their right to rescind the $3+ million tender.







That's what happens when you assume motives for a person's post, rather than just asking for clarification like you did in the first part. You make dumb ass assumptions as to why or what a person is trying to do in their posts.

actually i did'nt assume anything ...i SAID you ARE making a good thing into a bad thing.
and i stand by it !
but thanks for all your assumptions and of course for throwing in the term "dumb ass"

[Tned]

The following is from an article about another player, who would not benefit from signing the free agent tender before the deadline tomorrow. However, it explains exactly what the free agent tender is:

http://dc.sbnation.com/2010/6/14/1517871/carlos-rogers-redskins-restricted-free-agent-tender-contract

"As Rich Campbell explains, normally, teams tender restricted free agency tenders that are greater than 110 percent of the players' salary the season before. If the player does not sign that tender by June 15, the offer automatically goes down to exactly 110 percent of the player's previous-year salary."

Rich Campell is wrong.

[Tned]

actually i did'nt assume anything ...i SAID you ARE making a good thing into a bad thing.
and i stand by it !
but thanks for all your assumptions and of course for throwing in the term "dumb ass"

How about addressing the part about the Broncos forcing Doom to sign. They held a hammer over his head, rather than continuing to negotiate in good faith.

[T.K.O.]

considering it's obvious that doom's agent and the broncos have yet to hammer out a deal.the best possible scenario today was exactly what happened.
doom signed his tender and both sides have stated they continue to work on a long term deal....this is GOOD news !:elefant:
there is no way for anyone outside of the "negotiations" to know what or where the apparent standoff stems from.
that being said it is again great news that doom appears to be satisfied as to how close the 2 parties are and was willing to sign his tender and have his agent continue the process:salute:

[Northman]

Found this bit interesting.


Collusion suspicions arise regarding tender-reduction lettersJune 13, 2010 9:31 AM ET, by Mike Florio

With the NFL Players Association making a bold move against the league in conjunction with the "lockout insurance" provision in the most recent wave of broadcast-rights deals, a report from Albert Breer of the Boston Globe hints at an eventual attack regarding a potentially more serious violation.

In an item regarding the options currently facing Patriots Pro Bowl guard Logan Mankins, who has received a letter from the team indicating that his restricted free agency tender will plunge from $3.268 million to $1.54 million if he doesn't sign it by Tuesday, Breer states that "the train of thought is that they are a result of a sort of groupthink

on the part of the clubs to strengthen their negotiating positions."

In other words, collusion.

Given the plain language of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, the mere creation of the letters suggests that the league office has made some sort of communication regarding the proper protocol. Indeed, nothing in Article XIX, Section (h)(i)(i) requires teams to communicate in advance an intention to reduce the tender offer from the initial value to 110 percent of the player's 2009 base salary. Says the CBA on this point: "If the player's Qualifying Offer is greater than 110% of the player's Paragraph 5 salary (with all other terms of his prior year contract carried forward unchanged), the Club may withdraw the Qualifying Offer on June 15 and retain its rights . . ., so long as the Club immediately tenders the player a one year Player Contract of at least 110% of this Paragraph 5 Salary (with all other terms of his prior year contract carried forward unchanged)."

Thus, everyone already is on notice regarding the rules that apply, and it would make no more sense to send a written warning of a coming reduction in a tender offer than it would to send a written warning in February that a tender will be applied in the first place.

So from where, if anywhere, does the obligation to send the warning letter come? Possibly, it's contained in a separate internal NFL operations manual, potentially as a suggested device for ensuring that the player can't later claim that he had no clue that the number could drop (which could happen if his agent doesn't his ass from a loophole in the CBA). It also could be a P.R. ploy, bracing the media and the fans for what otherwise could be viewed as a jarring act of disrespect against a valued player.

Or it could be aimed at squeezing the players by prompting as many voices in the media as possible to declare how utterly stupid it would be to not sign the tender before June 15. (Count us among those voices.)

If the rule regarding the sending of a warning letter appears nowhere within the league's various procedures and manuals, then the mass sending of such missives would seem to be the result of coordinated action. Whether that amounts to collusion in the forbidden sense remains to be seen. As time passes, however, we suspect that the union eventually will drop a comprehensive collusion bomb on the league, pointing to every shred of evidence that arguably supports the idea that the teams have agreed to tighten the belts in 2010, in the hopes of building up the league's lockout fund, and in turn minimizing the money that players will have if/when the work goes away in 2011.

[T.K.O.]

How about addressing the part about the Broncos forcing Doom to sign. They held a hammer over his head, rather than continuing to negotiate in good faith.

how about the part where McD publicly stated that the letter was a formality and neither side took it as a "hammer" as YOU say.
and that he is confident that elvis and his agent KNEW it was not going to interfere with current contract negotiations.
i form my opinions on what i hear from the source .....not speculation and MB puffery

[LTC Pain]

considering it's obvious that doom's agent and the broncos have yet to hammer out a deal.the best possible scenario today was exactly what happened.
doom signed his tender and both sides have stated they continue to work on a long term deal....this is GOOD news !:elefant:
there is no way for anyone outside of the "negotiations" to know what or where the apparent standoff stems from.
that being said it is again great news that doom appears to be satisfied as to how close the 2 parties are and was willing to sign his tender and have his agent continue the process:salute:

Where you getting the "apparent standoff" part?

[Tned]

considering it's obvious that doom's agent and the broncos have yet to hammer out a deal.the best possible scenario today was exactly what happened.
doom signed his tender and both sides have stated they continue to work on a long term deal....this is GOOD news !:elefant:
there is no way for anyone outside of the "negotiations" to know what or where the apparent standoff stems from.
that being said it is again great news that doom appears to be satisfied as to how close the 2 parties are and was willing to sign his tender and have his agent continue the process:salute:

So, you think the Broncos threatening to pull the tender offer, and replace it with 110% of last year's salary was "negotiating in good faith" or more specifically, to the part of my post you questioned, you don't believe that they "forced" him to sign the $3.1 million tender? :confused:

[T.K.O.]

Where you getting the "apparent standoff" part?

there has been no contract done......therefore there is a standoff. in other words both parties have yet to come to an agreement.

[pnbronco]

I don't understand all the business/contract side of football, actually there's a lot I don't understand if I were being honest. All I can hope is that this is only the first step of making a long term contract with Elvis and leaves it on the burner to do right by him, but maybe put it to back so the house does not catch on fire for this week anyway.

Elvis has done everything that management has asked of him. He has displayed over and over what a team player and class act he it. I want him to stay here for a long time so I hope that a long term solution is worked out to keep him here in Denver.

[TXBRONC]

considering it's obvious that doom's agent and the broncos have yet to hammer out a deal.the best possible scenario today was exactly what happened.
doom signed his tender and both sides have stated they continue to work on a long term deal....this is GOOD news !:elefant:
there is no way for anyone outside of the "negotiations" to know what or where the apparent standoff stems from.
that being said it is again great news that doom appears to be satisfied as to how close the 2 parties are and was willing to sign his tender and have his agent continue the process:salute:

I'm really trying to gang up on you but I haven't seen anything that says that Dumervil signing his tender means they are close to a new long term contract. In fact, over the weekend it was speculated that Dumervil was planning to sign his tender as good faith gesture. That doesn't mean by any stretch that they close to a deal. What you're saying is an assumption. You might be correct but he still assumption atp.

[Tned]

I don't understand all the business/contract side of football, actually there's a lot I don't understand if I were being honest. All I can hope is that this is only the first step of making a long term contract with Elvis and leaves it on the burner to do right by him, but maybe put it to back so the house does not catch on fire for this week anyway.

Elvis has done everything that management has asked of him. He has displayed over and over what a team player and class act he it. I want him to stay here for a long time so I hope that a long term solution is worked out to keep him here in Denver.

I agree with all you said, but that's also why I am disappointed that the Broncos threatened to rescind the $3.1 million tender if he didn't sign today. Since he has done everything right, and has given no indication he would hold out, why threaten him? :confused:

[Denver Native (Carol)]

http://cbs4denver.com/broncos/denver.broncos.elvis.2.1751134.html

ENGLEWOOD, Colo. (CBS4) ―

Linebacker Elvis Dumervil signed his restricted free agent tender as expected Monday. The 1-year deal assures Dumervil will earn $3.168 million in the coming season.

Monday was a deadline for Dumervil. Had he not signed when he did, the Broncos would have been required to pay him only 10% above his 2009 salary, which was $540,000.

Dumervil addressed the issue during the Broncos mandatory mini-camp that concluded over the weekend.

"Football has a business side to it and to me there's a fun side, which is playing football," Dumervil said. "That's the side I love. As far as the business side, it is what it is. There's nothing I could really do about it."

Dumervil had 17 sacks in 2009 and became the first player in Broncos history to lead the NFL in that category. He was selected to his first Pro Bowl.

Dumervil said he didn't want to have his contract situation play out in public, and he doesn't feel the need to campaign for more money.

"I know my value. The stats speak for themselves so I'm not going to jump on the Elvis Dumervil bandwagon," he said. "I'm not that type of guy. I don't need to say much.

NOTE:

'If the above article on cbs4 is accurate, the key is - "the Broncos would have been required to pay him only 10% above his 2009 salary, which was $540,000."

[Tempus Fugit]

Of interesting note, at least to me, it seems that this sort of heated discussion is happening on board after board across the country. The Dumervil situation is nothing special.

Now, if people want to see this situation playing out where it's actually an issue, go read up on the Logan Mankins (Patriots) press conference.

[Northman]

http://cbs4denver.com/broncos/denver.broncos.elvis.2.1751134.html

ENGLEWOOD, Colo. (CBS4) ―

Linebacker Elvis Dumervil signed his restricted free agent tender as expected Monday. The 1-year deal assures Dumervil will earn $3.168 million in the coming season.

Monday was a deadline for Dumervil. Had he not signed when he did, the Broncos would have been required to pay him only 10% above his 2009 salary, which was $540,000.

Dumervil addressed the issue during the Broncos mandatory mini-camp that concluded over the weekend.

"Football has a business side to it and to me there's a fun side, which is playing football," Dumervil said. "That's the side I love. As far as the business side, it is what it is. There's nothing I could really do about it."

Dumervil had 17 sacks in 2009 and became the first player in Broncos history to lead the NFL in that category. He was selected to his first Pro Bowl.

Dumervil said he didn't want to have his contract situation play out in public, and he doesn't feel the need to campaign for more money.

"I know my value. The stats speak for themselves so I'm not going to jump on the Elvis Dumervil bandwagon," he said. "I'm not that type of guy. I don't need to say much.

NOTE:

'If the above article on cbs4 is accurate, the key is - "the Broncos would have been required to pay him only 10% above his 2009 salary, which was $540,000."


Unfortuantely, i cant find any article that stats it is a requirement. Although ive seen articles that say many teams are doing something like that it also says its just an option. So at this point im not sure if its actually in stone or just up to the teams in general. Its good that Doom signed the tender so he would get the full amount he needs but it is pretty tacky to forcefully make him sign it UNLESS it is actually required and that was a league wide deadline which hasnt been confirmed yet.

[Tned]

http://cbs4denver.com/broncos/denver.broncos.elvis.2.1751134.html

ENGLEWOOD, Colo. (CBS4) ―

Linebacker Elvis Dumervil signed his restricted free agent tender as expected Monday. The 1-year deal assures Dumervil will earn $3.168 million in the coming season.

Monday was a deadline for Dumervil. Had he not signed when he did, the Broncos would have been required to pay him only 10% above his 2009 salary, which was $540,000.

Dumervil addressed the issue during the Broncos mandatory mini-camp that concluded over the weekend.

"Football has a business side to it and to me there's a fun side, which is playing football," Dumervil said. "That's the side I love. As far as the business side, it is what it is. There's nothing I could really do about it."

Dumervil had 17 sacks in 2009 and became the first player in Broncos history to lead the NFL in that category. He was selected to his first Pro Bowl.

Dumervil said he didn't want to have his contract situation play out in public, and he doesn't feel the need to campaign for more money.

"I know my value. The stats speak for themselves so I'm not going to jump on the Elvis Dumervil bandwagon," he said. "I'm not that type of guy. I don't need to say much.

NOTE:

'If the above article on cbs4 is accurate, the key is - "the Broncos would have been required to pay him only 10% above his 2009 salary, which was $540,000."

Underlined or not, it wasn't a requirement. Check out North's post, which comes directly from the CBA, the club has the OPTION to rescind the offer on June 15th. It is not automatic unless the Broncos wanted it to be so.

[TXBRONC]

Of interesting note, at least to me, it seems that this sort of heated discussion is happening on board after board across the country. The Dumervil situation is nothing special.

Now, if people want to see this situation playing out where it's actually an issue, go read up on the Logan Mankins (Patriots) press conference.

For 31 other teams no it's nothing special them but it is for Denver.

[Tned]

Unfortuantely, i cant find any article that stats it is a requirement. Although ive seen articles that say many teams are doing something like that it also says its just an option. So at this point im not sure if its actually in stone or just up to the teams in general. Its good that Doom signed the tender so he would get the full amount he needs but it is pretty tacky to forcefully make him sign it UNLESS it is actually required and that was a league wide deadline which hasnt been confirmed yet.

I've read the CBA, it's optional.

Here is the section from the CBA:


(i)(i) In the event that a Restricted Free Agent has not signed a Player
Contract with a Club within the Signing Period in the League Year following
the expiration of his last Player Contract, and if the Prior Club by June
1 tenders to the Restricted Free Agent a one year Player Contract of at least
110% of his Paragraph 5 Salary (with all other terms of his prior year contract
carried forward unchanged) or extends the player’s Qualifying Offer,
whichever is greater (the “June 1 Tender”), the Prior Club shall be the only
Club with which the player may negotiate or sign a Player Contract during
the period from June 1 until the Tuesday following the tenth week of
the regular season, at 4:00 p.m. New York time. If the player’s Qualifying
Offer is greater than 110% of the player’s Paragraph 5 Salary (with all other
terms of his prior year contract carried forward unchanged), the Club
may withdraw the Qualifying Offer on June 15 and retain its rights under
the preceding sentence, so long as the Club immediately tenders the player
a one year Player Contract of at least 110% of his Paragraph 5 Salary (with
all other terms of his prior year contract carried forward unchanged) (the
“June 15 Tender”).

[Tempus Fugit]

For 31 other teams no it's nothing special them but it is for Denver.

It's nothing special in Denver. Dumervil is signed and still working on a contract. It's special in New England, where Mankins is calling out the front office and calling to be traded.

[Ravage!!!]

Collusion suspicions arise regarding tender-reduction lettersJune 13, 2010 9:31 AM ET, by Mike Florio

With the NFL Players Association making a bold move against the league in conjunction with the "lockout insurance" provision in the most recent wave of broadcast-rights deals, a report from Albert Breer of the Boston Globe hints at an eventual attack regarding a potentially more serious violation.

In an item regarding the options currently facing Patriots Pro Bowl guard Logan Mankins, who has received a letter from the team indicating that his restricted free agency tender will plunge from $3.268 million to $1.54 million if he doesn't sign it by Tuesday, Breer states that "the train of thought is that they are a result of a sort of groupthink

on the part of the clubs to strengthen their negotiating positions."

In other words, collusion.

Given the plain language of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, the mere creation of the letters suggests that the league office has made some sort of communication regarding the proper protocol. Indeed, nothing in Article XIX, Section (h)(i)(i) requires teams to communicate in advance an intention to reduce the tender offer from the initial value to 110 percent of the player's 2009 base salary. Says the CBA on this point: "If the player's Qualifying Offer is greater than 110% of the player's Paragraph 5 salary (with all other terms of his prior year contract carried forward unchanged), the Club may withdraw the Qualifying Offer on June 15 and retain its rights . . ., so long as the Club immediately tenders the player a one year Player Contract of at least 110% of this Paragraph 5 Salary (with all other terms of his prior year contract carried forward unchanged)."

Thus, everyone already is on notice regarding the rules that apply, and it would make no more sense to send a written warning of a coming reduction in a tender offer than it would to send a written warning in February that a tender will be applied in the first place.

So from where, if anywhere, does the obligation to send the warning letter come? Possibly, it's contained in a separate internal NFL operations manual, potentially as a suggested device for ensuring that the player can't later claim that he had no clue that the number could drop (which could happen if his agent doesn't his ass from a loophole in the CBA). It also could be a P.R. ploy, bracing the media and the fans for what otherwise could be viewed as a jarring act of disrespect against a valued player.

Or it could be aimed at squeezing the players by prompting as many voices in the media as possible to declare how utterly stupid it would be to not sign the tender before June 15. (Count us among those voices.)

If the rule regarding the sending of a warning letter appears nowhere within the league's various procedures and manuals, then the mass sending of such missives would seem to be the result of coordinated action. Whether that amounts to collusion in the forbidden sense remains to be seen. As time passes, however, we suspect that the union eventually will drop a comprehensive collusion bomb on the league, pointing to every shred of evidence that arguably supports the idea that the teams have agreed to tighten the belts in 2010, in the hopes of building up the league's lockout fund, and in turn minimizing the money that players will have if/when the work goes away in 2011.

This needs to be posted again, great find.

[Northman]

Of interesting note, at least to me, it seems that this sort of heated discussion is happening on board after board across the country. The Dumervil situation is nothing special.

Now, if people want to see this situation playing out where it's actually an issue, go read up on the Logan Mankins (Patriots) press conference.

As i pointed out it is league wide where teams are forcing players to sign tenders so i get your point there. But, i still havent seen anything that says they HAVE to do it and what the actual deadline (if it exists in writing) is. From what im reading from McD is that he just wants his players to be under contract going into TC. But it doesnt specify if its mandatory or not by league standards. Do you have any links or anything that can shed a light on this?

[Tned]

Further, I posed this question to Frank Schwab of the Colorado Springs Gazzette earlier, and he said this:


@fs3142 Not required, just had the option after June 15 RT @BroncosForums Did Denver HAVE to reduce Doom's Tender to 110% or was it choice?

He followed up with this Tweet:


@fs3142: Former Packers cap guy (who I used to cover many moons ago) on the RFA 110% issue. Explains it well RT @adbrandt http://bit.ly/agZxmo

In that article, Andrew Brandt said:


Welcome to the unhappy world of the NFL Restricted Free Agents (RFAs). In a year that has not gone well for the players side, we have now reached the date where teams can further their advantage by reducing tender offers made to unsigned RFAs from the amount of their tenders – some over $3 million -- to 110% of the player’s 2009 salary, often a much smaller amount.

In other words, for players engaging in mild forms of disobedience due to their discontent with a tender offer instead of a real contract, well guess what? That tender offer is going to look real good compared to 110% of last year’s salary.

In my nine years with the Packers, I never reduced a tender offer. This is a tactic that, until this time, has rarely if ever been used. That, however, was then. This is now, the year of no cap and no good news for the player side of the equation.

The summer of RFA discontent is upon us.

Check out the rest of the article here (http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Restricted-free-agents-truly-restricted.html):

[Northman]

I've read the CBA, it's optional.

Here is the section from the CBA:

Thanks Tned.

[Ravage!!!]

I've read the CBA, it's optional.

Here is the section from the CBA:


(i)(i) In the event that a Restricted Free Agent has not signed a Player
Contract with a Club within the Signing Period in the League Year following
the expiration of his last Player Contract, and if the Prior Club by June
1 tenders to the Restricted Free Agent a one year Player Contract of at least
110% of his Paragraph 5 Salary (with all other terms of his prior year contract
carried forward unchanged) or extends the player’s Qualifying Offer,
whichever is greater (the “June 1 Tender”), the Prior Club shall be the only
Club with which the player may negotiate or sign a Player Contract during
the period from June 1 until the Tuesday following the tenth week of
the regular season, at 4:00 p.m. New York time. If the player’s Qualifying
Offer is greater than 110% of the player’s Paragraph 5 Salary (with all other
terms of his prior year contract carried forward unchanged), the Club
may withdraw the Qualifying Offer on June 15 and retain its rights under
the preceding sentence, so long as the Club immediately tenders the player
a one year Player Contract of at least 110% of his Paragraph 5 Salary (with
all other terms of his prior year contract carried forward unchanged) (the
“June 15 Tender”).

Same with this. Its interesting, nice find.

[T.K.O.]

So, you think the Broncos threatening to pull the tender offer, and replace it with 110% of last year's salary was "negotiating in good faith" or more specifically, to the part of my post you questioned, you don't believe that they "forced" him to sign the $3.1 million tender? :confused:

Gee T,
i dont know?
how many rfa's signed their tenders today?
i am only saying if you want to look at the fact that doom pretty much made a career decision to stay with the broncos today,and come away with the opinion that that is a bad thing....go ahead don't let my little bit of sun shine on your rain parade.
but i refuse to take every move by the team as some kind of indicator that we are heading down a path of destruction as a franchise.
just don't roll that way....
and no nobody FORCED anything. doom is a grown ass man and if he wanted to HOLD OUT he could have. but he did'nt and that likely is because the 2 parties are close to a deal that works for both:salute:

[BigBroncLove]

While I am willing to stand corrected, I don't believe it was a league rule. Instead, the Broncos were 'allowed' to change their tender offer from the $3+ million to 10% above last years salary. As I said, I could be wrong on this, but in previous conversations with the beat reporters covering the Broncos, they told me that the tender could remain out there indefinitely.

So, based on that assumption, the Broncos 'forced' Doom to sign it by saying they could, or would, exercise their right to rescind the $3+ million tender.



Prior to signing the tender, the 30% rule wasn't in play. Meaning, the Broncos and Doom could come up with any contract that worked for both sides. For instance, they could give him $6 million a year salary, plus a $10 million signing bonus, plus a $10 million roster bonus in 2012 (just as an example).

Now, the 30% rule comes into play and they are limited to 30% increases each year on his salary.
2010 $3.1 million
2011 $4.03
2012 $5.2
2013 $6.8
2014 $8.8



That's what happens when you assume motives for a person's post, rather than just asking for clarification like you did in the first part. You make dumb ass assumptions as to why or what a person is trying to do in their posts.

I wish it was so easy for Dumervil and the Broncos Tned. The 30% rule applies to the last capped year salary. Not any salary achieved there after. Therefor the salary that requires a continual 30% increase is not the tender he just recieved. It is his salary in 2009, which was a base of 538k or around there. However I do believe for adding into the 30% rule it can also be applied to his entire salary for 2009, not just the base, which would include performance based and other bonuses, which puts Dooms salary near 2 mil IIRC. That's how they were able to give Kuper the 15 mil salary he achieved since his base salary was 535k last year.

Don't take my guess on Doom's overall 2009 salary to the bank but his tender absolutely will not be what the 30% rule will be applied to. His 2009 salary will be the salary it is applied to.

http://www.askthecommish.com/salarycap/faq.asp


The "30% Rule" governs veteran contracts that are entered into in a capped year and extend into the final year of the CBA. The rule states that these contracts cannot have an annual increase of more than 30% of the salary, excluding amounts treated as a signing bonus, provided for in the FINAL CAPPED YEAR. If the CBA is not extended, then 2009 will be the final capped year

All that said, signing an RFA tender will IMO will not exasperate contract negotiations whatsoever. The only hurdle is the 30% rule and the only way to overcome it is to give Doom a lot of signing bonuses. there are plenty being used right now such as supersede signing bonuses (bonuses that have certain criteria that must be met before given), completion bonuses (bonuses that are given at the end of the year only if the player does not holdout or renegotiate), contract escalator option bonuses (performance based bonus), and normal signing bonuses.

[Tempus Fugit]

As i pointed out it is league wide where teams are forcing players to sign tenders so i get your point there. But, i still havent seen anything that says they HAVE to do it and what the actual deadline (if it exists in writing) is. From what im reading from McD is that he just wants his players to be under contract going into TC. But it doesnt specify if its mandatory or not by league standards. Do you have any links or anything that can shed a light on this?

No, but I'll look for one to see if I can help out. It was never something I worried about, frankly, since I figured that pretty much every player would sign. The only players I expected to hold out were those for whom the 110% situation was a non-issue due to what they were already making in comparison to the tender.

My only point here has been that Dumervil's situation isn't unusual around the league, and has been without hostility to date. I think the RFAs have gotten screwed, especially those who would have been UFAs had the owners not opted out of the CBA, and the evidence suggests to me that there's been collusion amongst the teams. Far too many good players could have been had for picks that would have made sense for opposing teams (Gaither in Baltimore is a good example, IMO) for me to think that this has all been just random coincidence.

I'm not bagging on anyone for following this. If that's how I seemed to come off, I apologize.

[Tned]

Gee T,
i dont know?
how many rfa's signed their tenders today?
i am only saying if you want to look at the fact that doom pretty much made a career decision to stay with the broncos today,and come away with the opinion that that is a bad thing....go ahead don't let my little bit of sun shine on your rain parade.
but i refuse to take every move by the team as some kind of indicator that we are heading down a path of destruction as a franchise.
just don't roll that way....
and no nobody FORCED anything. doom is a grown ass man and if he wanted to HOLD OUT he could have. but he did'nt and that likely is because the 2 parties are close to a deal that works for both:salute:

First, the first two thirds of your post are complete bull shit, because you are inferring that I "take every move by the team as some kind of indicator that we are heading down a path of destruction as a franchise", which I don't.

However, there is NO WAY to interpret the Broncos move in THIS case as anything other than FORCING Doom to sign his tender. They didn't have to threaten to reduce the tender offer from $3.1 million to $600k or so, they chose to do so has a bargaining leverage.

If you want to 'pretend' that it wasn't a move made to force Doom to sign and wasn't a hammer held over his head, then there isn't much that I or anyone can say, other than I hope life in Mr. Roger's Neighborhood is nice.

[Tned]

I wish it was so easy for Dumervil and the Broncos Tned. The 30% rule applies to the last capped year salary. Not any salary achieved there after. Therefor the salary that requires a continual 30% increase is not the tender he just recieved. It is his salary in 2009, which was a base of 538k or around there. However I do believe for adding into the 30% rule it can also be applied to his entire salary for 2009, not just the base, which would include performance based and other bonuses, which puts Dooms salary near 2 mil IIRC. That's how they were able to give Kuper the 15 mil salary he achieved since his base salary was 535k last year.

Don't take my guess on Doom's overall 2009 salary to the bank but his tender absolutely will not be what the 30% rule will be applied to. His 2009 salary will be the salary it is applied to.

http://www.askthecommish.com/salarycap/faq.asp



All that said, signing an RFA tender will IMO will not exasperate contract negotiations whatsoever. The only hurdle is the 30% rule and the only way to overcome it is to give Doom a lot of signing bonuses. there are plenty being used right now such as supersede signing bonuses (bonuses that have certain criteria that must be met before given), completion bonuses (bonuses that are given at the end of the year only if the player does not holdout or renegotiate), contract escolator option bonuses (performance based bonus), and normal signing bonuses.

The commish's answer is correct except for one thing, Doom didn't enter into a contract in a capped year, and until today wasn't under a contract period, so therefore the 30% rule didn't apply.

Now, while I am not as certain as I was about the 'optional' nature of the tender reduction, based on what I have read, the 30% rule didn't apply to Tender guys until after they sign their tenders. The 2009 salary doesn't come into play, because guys that haven't signed a tender aren't under contract, so they don't have a capped year contract extending into uncapped/last league year.

The 'only' part I am not sure of is whether the 30% rule doesn't apply after the tender is signed, like it didn't before the tender was signed.

[Denver Native (Carol)]

Underlined or not, it wasn't a requirement. Check out North's post, which comes directly from the CBA, the club has the OPTION to rescind the offer on June 15th. It is not automatic unless the Broncos wanted it to be so.

I started out by saying - IF the article is ACCURATE ??????????????

[NightTrainLayne]

Unfortuantely, i cant find any article that stats it is a requirement. Although ive seen articles that say many teams are doing something like that it also says its just an option. So at this point im not sure if its actually in stone or just up to the teams in general. Its good that Doom signed the tender so he would get the full amount he needs but it is pretty tacky to forcefully make him sign it UNLESS it is actually required and that was a league wide deadline which hasnt been confirmed yet.


Underlined or not, it wasn't a requirement. Check out North's post, which comes directly from the CBA, the club has the OPTION to rescind the offer on June 15th. It is not automatic unless the Broncos wanted it to be so.

It's poor phrasing in the article. It should read that the Broncos are not required to keep an offer of more than 110% on the table, instead of saying the the Broncos are required to lower the offer to 110%.

[Tned]

No, but I'll look for one to see if I can help out. It was never something I worried about, frankly, since I figured that pretty much every player would sign. The only players I expected to hold out were those for whom the 110% situation was a non-issue due to what they were already making in comparison to the tender.

My only point here has been that Dumervil's situation isn't unusual around the league, and has been without hostility to date. I think the RFAs have gotten screwed, especially those who would have been UFAs had the owners not opted out of the CBA, and the evidence suggests to me that there's been collusion amongst the teams. Far too many good players could have been had for picks that would have made sense for opposing teams (Gaither in Baltimore is a good example, IMO) for me to think that this has all been just random coincidence.

I'm not bagging on anyone for following this. If that's how I seemed to come off, I apologize.

Since Doom has handled it like a professional. Shown up to all the practices, etc. Why threaten him with a tender reduction, rather than just continue to negotiate in good faith?

[Tned]

It's poor phrasing in the article. It should read that the Broncos are not required to keep an offer of more than 110% on the table, instead of saying the the Broncos are required to lower the offer to 110%.

And standard shoddy reporting. One reporter says "automatic" and other reporters quote the same thing. You see that so often, one early report gets it wrong, and they all use the same, incorrect quote/information.

[T.K.O.]

First, the first two thirds of your post are complete bull shit, because you are inferring that I "take every move by the team as some kind of indicator that we are heading down a path of destruction as a franchise", which I don't.

However, there is NO WAY to interpret the Broncos move in THIS case as anything other than FORCING Doom to sign his tender. They didn't have to threaten to reduce the tender offer from $3.1 million to $600k or so, they chose to do so has a bargaining leverage.
If you want to 'pretend' that it wasn't a move made to force Doom to sign and wasn't a hammer held over his head, then there isn't much that I or anyone can say, other than I hope life in Mr. Roger's Neighborhood is nice.

do you have ANY proof that the broncos ever said they WOULD reduce his offer?
or is it not only possible but likely that the team sent out what basically amounts to a form letter advising elvis and his agent of their RIGHT to do so.
i think it is just as fair and reasonable to ASSUME that your speculation is no better than mine....the difference being that mine does not call into question the integrity and proffessionalism of the broncos organization!
so you can throw terms like "dumb ass" and B.S. around all you want.
won't make you right....sorry

[BigBroncLove]

The commish's answer is correct except for one thing, Doom didn't enter into a contract in a capped year, and until today wasn't under a contract period, so therefore the 30% rule didn't apply.

Now, while I am not as certain as I was about the 'optional' nature of the tender reduction, based on what I have read, the 30% rule didn't apply to Tender guys until after they sign their tenders. The 2009 salary doesn't come into play, because guys that haven't signed a tender aren't under contract, so they don't have a capped year contract extending into uncapped/last league year.

The 'only' part I am not sure of is whether the 30% rule doesn't apply after the tender is signed, like it didn't before the tender was signed.

I think you're correct on that, regarding the fact Doom wasn't under any contractual obligation until the Tender is signed. don't know hwo I missed that. Whoops!

Good catch. I do believe though, under my knowledge of the rules governing the uncapped year, that all contracts signed in the uncapped year are subject to the 30% regardless to avoid spiraling backloaded contracts. That said, with the calculations based upon his tender that puts him in the 36 or so million dollar contract, which isn't a bad number at all. Especially given that Patrick Willis was only able to get 23 million in contract base salary due to the 30% rule. So that number shouldn't handcuff the Broncos in their ability to negotiate a proper and team fair numbers for bonuses without having to put to large a sum in guaranteed money to satisfy what Doom's median worth is on the market (not top worth he would see in an FA year in which they would likely be looking at over 40mil guaranteed).

[NightTrainLayne]

The Broncos could hold that offer open, but how could any player anywhere trust that it wouldn't be yanked at any point. If the rules say that they can reduce it on June 15th, then as a player or an agent, I wouldn't trust any team to not change their mind and revoke the offer.

Is it a hammer to force Doom to sign? Sure, but Doom would be crazy to trust the Broncos, or any organization to keep an offer open in such a situation. There's nothing there besides their promise to force them to keep the offer on the table. I can't imagine just trusting any organization to stand by something like that in the middle of a contract negotiation.

So, the upshot to me is that it's a non-issue in terms of the negotiation. The real news is that they have been unable to come together on a contract up to now, and it is less and less likely that they will get a long-term deal done.

[BigBroncLove]

The Broncos could hold that offer open, but how could any player anywhere trust that it wouldn't be yanked at any point. If the rules say that they can reduce it on June 15th, then as a player or an agent, I wouldn't trust any team to not change their mind and revoke the offer.

Is it a hammer to force Doom to sign? Sure, but Doom would be crazy to trust the Broncos, or any organization to keep an offer open in such a situation. There's nothing there besides their promise to force them to keep the offer on the table. I can't imagine just trusting any organization to stand by something like that in the middle of a contract negotiation.

So, the upshot to me is that it's a non-issue in terms of the negotiation. The real news is that they have been unable to come together on a contract up to now, and it is less and less likely that they will get a long-term deal done.

I just don't see why you, or a great many others (making me the minority which is never a good sign I suppose), think this will hinder current contract negotiations for Dumervil. This will put a cap on the salary the Broncos can pay Doom over the life of his contract, but so long as sufficient money is payed in terms of signing bonuses (or other bonuses) achieving the near 10mil average per year set by the Ware contract is fairly easily done and would pay Doom top dollar on the market depending on the length of contract.

[Tned]

do you have ANY proof that the broncos ever said they WOULD reduce his offer?
or is it not only possible but likely that the team sent out what basically amounts to a form letter advising elvis and his agent of their RIGHT to do so.
i think it is just as fair and reasonable to ASSUME that your speculation is no better than mine....the difference being that mine does not call into question the integrity and proffessionalism of the broncos organization!
so you can throw terms like "dumb ass" and B.S. around all you want.
won't make you right....sorry

I removed the "dumb ass" from "dumb ass assumption", even though you were clearly taking a dig at me and trying to make my factual comment into a McD hating thing (as you have done in subsequent comments), which is ridiculous.

I apologize for that comment and shouldn't have done it.

As to the other, the Broncos were under no obligation to send that letter, and were under no obligation to reduce, or threaten to reduce, the offer on June 15th. In fact it is very unusual for clubs to do this, as evidenced by the article I posted from the Green Bay guy and North's PFT article.

Now the Broncos aren't alone in doing it this year, but to pretend this isn't a strong-arm tactic by the Broncos and other teams is ridiculous.

As a side note, why do you have to infer, or out right state, in every response that I am somehow disrespecting the Broncos by discussing what has been done? :confused:

First, it is 100% incorrect and you are making assumptions as to my motives that are so far off base that you would be more accurate if you called me a liberal than you would be to keep inferring that my comments are based on McD hate or an attempt to disrespect the organization. Second, even if it were true, it has nothing to do with the subject at hand, other than to try and disparage the opinion or posts of someone you disagree with, rather than to discuss or debate the topic at hand.

/soapboxrant

[Bosco]

Prior to signing the tender, the 30% rule wasn't in play. Meaning, the Broncos and Doom could come up with any contract that worked for both sides. For instance, they could give him $6 million a year salary, plus a $10 million signing bonus, plus a $10 million roster bonus in 2012 (just as an example).

Now, the 30% rule comes into play and they are limited to 30% increases each year on his salary.
2010 $3.1 million
2011 $4.03
2012 $5.2
2013 $6.8
2014 $8.8 Granted I am not a cap expert, but to my understanding that rule can be circumvented by having the player sign an extension that wraps the tender up into it. I believe that's how the Broncos and Dolphins got around the rule with Kuper and Marshall.

[Tned]

I think you're correct on that, regarding the fact Doom wasn't under any contractual obligation until the Tender is signed. don't know hwo I missed that. Whoops!

Good catch. I do believe though, under my knowledge of the rules governing the uncapped year, that all contracts signed in the uncapped year are subject to the 30% regardless to avoid spiraling backloaded contracts. That said, with the calculations based upon his tender that puts him in the 36 or so million dollar contract, which isn't a bad number at all. Especially given that Patrick Willis was only able to get 23 million in contract base salary due to the 30% rule. So that number shouldn't handcuff the Broncos in their ability to negotiate a proper and team fair numbers for bonuses without having to put to large a sum in guaranteed money to satisfy what Doom's median worth is on the market (not top worth he would see in an FA year in which they would likely be looking at over 40mil guaranteed).

I agree that all contracts signed in the uncapped year have the 30% rule in play, my point is what that initial value is. If he signed to 2010 salary of $600k, it would go from there, if $3.1, it would go from there, if $8 million, it would go from there.

Since he doesn't have a contract, the 30% rule can't limit him, until he has one. So, if they signed a contract with a 2010 salary of $8 million, then the 30% rule would be in play for subsequant years starting at $8 million.

Now, I can't be 100% sure that this is how it works, but based on everything I have read to date, I am close to 100% sure.

[Denver Native (Carol)]

By signing, he will receive $3.168 million, versus $540,000. So, that is the first step - not a bad first step.

My question now is, if a new contract is negotiated in the near future, does he still receive the $3.168 million this year, with the new contract effective next year, or does the new contract override the $3.168 tender?

[Tned]

By signing, he will receive $3.168 million, versus $540,000. So, that is the first step - not a bad first step.

My question now is, if a new contract is negotiated in the near future, does he still receive the $3.168 million this year, with the new contract effective next year, or does the new contract override the $3.168 tender?

That's completely up to what they negotiate.

[BigBroncLove]

I agree that all contracts signed in the uncapped year have the 30% rule in play, my point is what that initial value is. If he signed to 2010 salary of $600k, it would go from there, if $3.1, it would go from there, if $8 million, it would go from there.

Since he doesn't have a contract, the 30% rule can't limit him, until he has one. So, if they signed a contract with a 2010 salary of $8 million, then the 30% rule would be in play for subsequant years starting at $8 million.

Now, I can't be 100% sure that this is how it works, but based on everything I have read to date, I am close to 100% sure.

Well the 30% rule was instated largely so that salaries couldn't be back loaded in the uncapped year and that FA contract size wouldn't get out of hand in the final uncapped year. It would be completely foolish if the NFL, by rules stated for the final year, didn't offer similar protection from ridiculous spending in 2010 by instating the 30% rule to all contracts. If you look into Brandon Marshall's contract for example, since he had to sign his tender before the Broncos could trade him, the Dolphins did some pretty inventive bonuses to give him the money he wanted, which is why his overall signing bonus was so massive. From my understanding the 30% rule applies to all contracts from 2009 on.

[T.K.O.]

I removed the "dumb ass" from "dumb ass assumption", even though you were clearly taking a dig at me and trying to make my factual comment into a McD hating thing (as you have done in subsequent comments), which is ridiculous.

I apologize for that comment and shouldn't have done it.

As to the other, the Broncos were under no obligation to send that letter, and were under no obligation to reduce, or threaten to reduce, the offer on June 15th. In fact it is very unusual for clubs to do this, as evidenced by the article I posted from the Green Bay guy and North's PFT article.

Now the Broncos aren't alone in doing it this year, but to pretend this isn't a strong-arm tactic by the Broncos and other teams is ridiculous.

As a side note, why do you have to infer, or out right state, in every response that I am somehow disrespecting the Broncos by discussing what has been done? :confused:

First, it is 100% incorrect and you are making assumptions as to my motives that are so far off base that you would be more accurate if you called me a liberal than you would be to keep inferring that my comments are based on McD hate or an attempt to disrespect the organization. Second, even if it were true, it has nothing to do with the subject at hand, other than to try and disparage the opinion or posts of someone you disagree with, rather than to discuss or debate the topic at hand.

/soapboxrant

wrong on so many levels.i never said you continually do anything i said "I dont look at every move as a negative" if you took that to mean you do?then YOU assumed wrong again,not me
again even your article which you use to support your THEORY says that teams don't reduce their offers NOT they dont send letters notifying players of their right to do so.
i completely agree that it would be a VERY bad thing for the broncos to say if you don't sign we WILL reduce your salary to 110% of your 09' wages.
but what i AM saying is YOU have no proof that was done !you used the phrase "So, you think the Broncos threatening to pull the tender offer,"
and that the broncos were "unwise to force dumervil to sign his tender"
you have ZERO proof that happened.
do you see the difference?
and T i dont have any personal vendetta with you,i do get tired of the negative spin on most moves by the team,not from you necessarily but in general.
so i like to exercise my right to voice an opposing viewpoint.

[GEM]

For 31 other teams no it's nothing special them but it is for Denver.

I think what he meant is that there are many other teams going through the same situation. I get a feel that the teams talked amongst themselves and appropriated that the best way to handle the situation is that all would react the same, send the letter and hope to work the deal.

[Tned]

Well the 30% rule was instated largely so that salaries couldn't be back loaded in the uncapped year and that FA contract size wouldn't get out of hand in the final uncapped year. It would be completely foolish if the NFL, by rules stated for the final year, didn't offer similar protection from ridiculous spending in 2010 by instating the 30% rule to all contracts. If you look into Brandon Marshall's contract for example, since he had to sign his tender before the Broncos could trade him, the Dolphins did some pretty inventive bonuses to give him the money he wanted, which is why his overall signing bonus was so massive. From my understanding the 30% rule applies to all contracts from 2009 on.

That is my understanding as well. My only real point of question is the starting point. I am relatively certain, that players that have not signed their tenders (or pure free agents) have no restriction on their 2010 salary, and the 30% rule would only apply in subsequent years. This belief largely comes from the fact that players that aren't under contract have no salary to apply the 30% rule to, until AFTER they sign their tender.

In Marshall's case, he signed the tender, and then they did a renegotiation/extension, which the 30% rule specifically applies to.

[Tned]

and T i dont have any personal vendetta with you,i do get tired of the negative spin on most moves by the team,not from you necessarily but in general.
so i like to exercise my right to voice an opposing viewpoint.

I get tired of it as well, which is why I don't do it. I also get tired of every discussion getting almost immediately derailed with "you only say that because you're a hater" or "you only say that, because you believe McDaniels can do no wrong".

Everyone is so quick to focus on what they 'believe' other people's motives are, that they just further the petty feuds, derail the threads.

Just a pet peeve of mine, and since I post neither out of my glowing love for McDaniels, nor my hate for him, I don't like being put in either category. I prefer to have my posts stand on their merits (and have no problem and welcome differing opinions) rather than having them attacked based on 'presumptions' of what my motives might be (that's a general statement, not just about what happened in this thread).

[Tned]

I think what he meant is that there are many other teams going through the same situation. I get a feel that the teams talked amongst themselves and appropriated that the best way to handle the situation is that all would react the same, send the letter and hope to work the deal.

As of a few hours ago, there were quite a few big name RFA's that hadn't caved to the threat from their clubs.

[BigBroncLove]

That is my understanding as well. My only real point of question is the starting point. I am relatively certain, that players that have not signed their tenders (or pure free agents) have no restriction on their 2010 salary, and the 30% rule would only apply in subsequent years. This belief largely comes from the fact that players that aren't under contract have no salary to apply the 30% rule to, until AFTER they sign their tender.

In Marshall's case, he signed the tender, and then they did a renegotiation/extension, which the 30% rule specifically applies to.

Exactly. I think were basically agreeing with each other, just not understanding we are agreeing and saying things of varying nature (this does not count my big whoops first post). :beer:

[broncophan]

let's get the season started so we all can stop bickering back and forth about contracts, tender's, and all the other bs.....at least if we were bickering about the previous game.....it would seem almost worthwhile...

[Tned]

let's get the season started so we all can stop bickering back and forth about contracts, tender's, and all the other bs.....at least if we were bickering about the previous game.....it would seem almost worthwhile...

Would it be out of line to bicker about what we are bickering about? :D

[broncophan]

Would it be out of line to bicker about what we are bickering about? :D

My wife and I do enough of that.....so I try to get on here to "escape" all that stuff.....:D

[Tned]

My wife and I do enough of that.....so I try to get on here to "escape" all that stuff.....:D

In Arkansas, wives are only allowed to be barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen, not to talk back, so I have to get on BF to bicker! :lol:



j/k ladies, don't kill me!

[T.K.O.]

OK this has been in print well before doom signed so for what it's worth......
with the sole intention of clearing the air and hopefully squelching the idea that the broncos are trying to "force" anything .
i respectfully submit exhibit A);)

"The Broncos sent the 2009 NFL sacks leader a letter informing him of the deadline. Dumervil has a restricted free agent tender worth $3.168 million on the table. If he doesn't sign by Monday, the team can reduce the amount to 110 percent of his 2009 salary, which was $540,000.

Even though he's not under contract, Dumervil practiced with the team Friday and planned to attend all three days of the Broncos' weekend minicamp.

"Football has a business side to it and to me there's a fun side, which is playing football," Dumervil said. "That's the side I love. As far as the business side, it is what it is. There's nothing I could really do about it."

Denver coach Josh McDaniels said the team isn't playing hardball with Dumervil, and sending the letter was part of the process.

"It's a normal policy and procedure in the CBA," McDaniels said. "We're certainly not unique in that at all. There are so many teams that have done that. We'd like to have all our players under contract in training camp. There's certainly no message sent with that at all."

:D:beer::salute:

[Tned]

However, as the articles that North and I posted say (including one by the Packers former Capologist), it has never been a normal part of the process, nor a CBA requirement to send the letters.

[T.K.O.]

However, as the articles that North and I posted say (including one by the Packers former Capologist), it has never been a normal part of the process, nor a CBA requirement to send the letters.

and as your well aware we are not dealing in "normal" times when it comes to contracts and negotiations.;)

[Tned]

and as your well aware we are not dealing in "normal" times when it comes to contracts and negotiations.;)

Yes, but as you are aware, the Broncos didn't have to send the letter, and were under no obligation to reduce Doom's tender. They could have left him unsigned until they reached a long term agreement, or decided they were unable to do so.

[Bosco]

Yes, but as you are aware, the Broncos didn't have to send the letter, and were under no obligation to reduce Doom's tender. They could have left him unsigned until they reached a long term agreement, or decided they were unable to do so.

They could have, but why would they?

[Tned]

They could have, but why would they?

Because he did everything right. Showed up to mini-camps and OTA's, even though unsigned (most unsigned RFA's don't). He's been the ultimate professional during all of this and the employed a strong-arm tactic.

[T.K.O.]

Yes, but as you are aware, the Broncos didn't have to send the letter, and were under no obligation to reduce Doom's tender. They could have left him unsigned until they reached a long term agreement, or decided they were unable to do so.

and AGAIN there is no proof that they intended to reduce the offer,also maybe they would have kept the 3.18 mil on the table but doom wanted to ensure that if negotiations went south he was covered and would make 3+ mil regardless. so his signing was as much (or more) to protect himself.
not an indictment of the teams contract offers thus far.
but lets just let this die i have given ample evidence to support my opinion.
take it or leave it. matters not to me.
what does matter is doom will be a bronco in 2010 and none of knows if there will be nfl football in 2011.
so this is good news........for now !:salute:

[Bosco]

Because he did everything right. Showed up to mini-camps and OTA's, even though unsigned (most unsigned RFA's don't). He's been the ultimate professional during all of this and the employed a strong-arm tactic.

The fact that Dumervil has been all class doesn't preclude the Broncos from making the smart move to protect their own financial interests in the matter, especially when the two sides have had all offseason to come to an agreement.

Ultimately it will be moot though, as Dumervil is going to get a long term that will pay him an AAV in the top 5 of his position.

[BigBroncLove]

Well heres an article from Andrew Brandt, a past GM for the packers. He writes for the National Football Post and during his 9 year tenure with GB he never reduced an RFA tenders money to the 110% minimum of the previous years salary. In fact he's very interested in if the chargers will stick to their guns and follow through with their letters (which are not required to notify players from my understanding though some teams do it only out of perceived obligatory notions)

Here is a great article on it. Largely tried to stay outta that discussion but had to include this.

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Restricted-free-agents-truly-restricted.html

[Tned]

The fact that Dumervil has been all class doesn't preclude the Broncos from making the smart move to protect their own financial interests in the matter, especially when the two sides have had all offseason to come to an agreement.

Ultimately it will be moot though, as Dumervil is going to get a long term that will pay him an AAV in the top 5 of his position.

There was no change to their financial interests. Doom can still holdout during training camp until he gets a long term deal (however, he has shown no indications that he would do so). There was no protection of the financial interests, it simply forced Doom to sign the tender, rather than hold out for a long term contract. Now, it has to be done in two steps -- sign and extend.

[Tned]

Well heres an article from Andrew Brandt, a past GM for the packers. He writes for the National Football Post and during his 9 year tenure with GB he never reduced an RFA tenders money to the 110% minimum of the previous years salary. In fact he's very interested in if the chargers will stick to their guns and follow through with their letters (which are not required to notify players from my understanding though some teams do it only out of perceived obligatory notions)

Here is a great article on it. Largely tried to stay outta that discussion but had to include this.

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Restricted-free-agents-truly-restricted.html

Good find (I won't mention the fact I posted this a couple pages ago ;))

[BigBroncLove]

Good find (I won't mention the fact I posted this a couple pages ago ;))

I cant keep up with this stupid thread! j/k

[Tned]

I cant keep up with this stupid thread! j/k

The article was worth posting again for anyone that missed it the first time. As you say, he points out how unusual this hard ball stance is that teams have taken this year.

[Tempus Fugit]

Since Doom has handled it like a professional. Shown up to all the practices, etc. Why threaten him with a tender reduction, rather than just continue to negotiate in good faith?

You're making an erroneous assumption about what it means to negotiate in good faith. That's going to be a sticking point in any conversation on the subject.

[Denver Native (Carol)]

And there is also a possibility that Dumervil's agent told him to sign the tender today, as they were very close to wrapping up a long term deal.

[T.K.O.]

Well heres an article from Andrew Brandt, a past GM for the packers. He writes for the National Football Post and during his 9 year tenure with GB he never reduced an RFA tenders money to the 110% minimum of the previous years salary. In fact he's very interested in if the chargers will stick to their guns and follow through with their letters (which are not required to notify players from my understanding though some teams do it only out of perceived obligatory notions)

Here is a great article on it. Largely tried to stay outta that discussion but had to include this.

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Restricted-free-agents-truly-restricted.html

yes that article was already posted....it says that green bay never reduced a tender offer it does not say that teams have'nt sent the letter about their rights to do so.
in this case the letter(s) were accompanied by a public statement by the coach that the letter was only a formality and was not intended as a "strong arm" tactic

[BigBroncLove]

yes that article was already posted....it says that green bay never reduced a tender offer it does not say that teams have'nt sent the letter about their rights to do so.
in this case the letter(s) were accompanied by a public statement by the coach that the letter was only a formality and was not intended as a "strong arm" tactic

Yeah, Tned pointed out it was posted in the past. It said GB never did it while Brandt was with them, not GB never did it. However it makes very obvious indications that reducing RFa tenders after the deadline has not been the regular way of doing business in the past. Obviously this is a different type of year and the article delves into that fact.

Also I said in the last post some teams have sent out those letters as a means of perceived obligatory notion that they must inform the player of the breadth of their options. None the less, they are not required from my understanding.

[roomemp]

It makes it a lot tougher to reach a long term deal now. I think the Broncos were unwise to force this tender signing.

I disagree. I would read it as Doom signed his tender so there are no hard feelings involved. Both sides are still negotiating and making progress.

[Tned]

I disagree. I would read it as Doom signed his tender so there are no hard feelings involved. Both sides are still negotiating and making progress.

Broncos to Doom, "sign today and you get $3.1 million, sign tomorrow and you get $600k". I would read that as Doom was given a "sign, or else".

Dumervil's response to the ultimatum letter: "Being here, going on my fifth year, I've seen a lot, so I'm not surprised by anything, really," he said.

[Tned]

You're making an erroneous assumption about what it means to negotiate in good faith. That's going to be a sticking point in any conversation on the subject.

Oh, pray tell, what is my erroneous assumption?

[T.K.O.]

Yeah, Tned pointed out it was posted in the past. It said GB never did it while Brandt was with them, not GB never did it. However it makes very obvious indications that reducing RFa tenders after the deadline has not been the regular way of doing business in the past. Obviously this is a different type of year and the article delves into that fact.

.

exactly and if you read through the thread you will see that on multiple occasions i have tried to point out that the broncos also have NOT reduced anyone's offer !
they are not "doing business" that way either to date.
and we will never know if they would have.as doom has signed his tender

[camdisco24]

Broncos to Doom, "sign today and you get $3.1 million, sign tomorrow and you get $600k". I would read that as Doom was given a "sign, or else".

Dumervil's response to the ultimatum letter: "Being here, going on my fifth year, I've seen a lot, so I'm not surprised by anything, really," he said.

It's not like they told him to sign "or else" today. They gave him time to think about it and possibly work out a contract.

I think you can look at the entire situation in a positive OR negative light. For all we know, Doom could sign a 30+ million contract tomorrow morning and this was just the first step. No one knows Dooms feelings or whats going on behind closed doors... that quote of his could be taken many different ways.

Just my opinion..

[NightTrainLayne]

However, as the articles that North and I posted say (including one by the Packers former Capologist), it has never been a normal part of the process, nor a CBA requirement to send the letters.

Even so, the Broncos are hardly alone in doing it. I can understand a gripe if we were the only team doing it, but we're not.

[T.K.O.]

There was no change to their financial interests. Doom can still holdout during training camp until he gets a long term deal (however, he has shown no indications that he would do so). There was no protection of the financial interests, it simply forced Doom to sign the tender, rather than hold out for a long term contract. Now, it has to be done in two steps -- sign and extend.

how is signing a 3.2 mil 1 year contract instead of risking a drop to 630K not protecting his fiscal butt?
oh nevermind i'm done with this.....

[NightTrainLayne]

Oh, pray tell, what is my erroneous assumption?

You are not a party to the negotiations. For all we know Doom could be asking for $1 billion dollars (reductio ad absurdum).

[Tned]

It's not like they told him to sign "or else" today. They gave him time to think about it and possibly work out a contract.

I think you can look at the entire situation in a positive OR negative light. For all we know, Doom could sign a 30+ million contract tomorrow morning and this was just the first step. No one knows Dooms feelings or whats going on behind closed doors... that quote of his could be taken many different ways.

Just my opinion..

I take it as the Broncos doing business, and using their leverage. This all got started by someone getting offended by me saying the Broncos "forced" Doom to sign the tender, which I should ad is consistent with most media coverage of the various players/teams in the same situation as Broncos/Doom.

Not too many people are saying, "The Broncos, Chargers, etc. sent letters saying 'they could' reduce the tenders, but that the teams had no plans to do so".

I'm just curious why you guys think the Broncos (and other clubs) sent a letter which is completely unusual and not required by the CBA?

To draw a comparison, you work in a "right to work" state, and your boss asks you to work this weekend. You say, I have other plans. Your boss replies with, "well, things are tight, we might have to let some people go on Monday. I'm sorry, did you say you were free this weekend to work."

No, it isn't a "work this weekend or you're fired", but it is a "work this weekend or you're fired".

Again, if it wasn't a sign or we will reduce your tender, WHY was the letter sent to Doom?

[NightTrainLayne]

I take it as the Broncos doing business, and using their leverage. This all got started by someone getting offended by me saying the Broncos "forced" Doom to sign the tender, which I should ad is consistent with most media coverage of the various players/teams in the same situation as Broncos/Doom.

Not too many people are saying, "The Broncos, Chargers, etc. sent letters saying 'they could' reduce the tenders, but that the teams had no plans to do so".

I'm just curious why you guys think the Broncos (and other clubs) sent a letter which is completely unusual and not required by the CBA?

To draw a comparison, you work in a "right to work" state, and your boss asks you to work this weekend. You say, I have other plans. Your boss replies with, "well, things are tight, we might have to let some people go on Monday. I'm sorry, did you say you were free this weekend to work."

No, it isn't a "work this weekend or you're fired", but it is a "work this weekend or you're fired".

Again, if it wasn't a sign or we will reduce your tender, WHY was the letter sent to Doom?

Because the CBA is expiring, and all teams seem to be working to protect their long-term interests in contract negotiations. None of them know the future, or what rules they will be operating under in a year or two, so they are understandably trying to avoid taking unnecessary risks.

[Tned]

Because the CBA is expiring, and all teams seem to be working to protect their long-term interests in contract negotiations. None of them know the future, or what rules they will be operating under in a year or two, so they are understandably trying to avoid taking unnecessary risks.

I don't dispute that or even have a major problem with a club using leverage (I have mixed feelings about it considering his handling of it in terms of minicamps, ota's, etc.). That post was to the people stating that the Broncos weren't giving him a "sign or else" ultimatum. They are contending that they sent the letter, but it wasn't a threat (lack of a better word) that if he didn't sign today, they would reduce his tender to 110% of last year's salary.

If they weren't trying to put pressure on him to sign, with a thread of pulling the tender, why send the letter?

[NightTrainLayne]

I don't dispute that or even have a major problem with a club using leverage (I have mixed feelings about it considering his handling of it in terms of minicamps, ota's, etc.). That post was to the people stating that the Broncos weren't giving him a "sign or else" ultimatum. They are contending that they sent the letter, but it wasn't a threat (lack of a better word) that if he didn't sign today, they would reduce his tender to 110% of last year's salary.

If they weren't trying to put pressure on him to sign, with a thread of pulling the tender, why send the letter?

I totally understand your point. At the same time, in my line of work we often send letters or have conversations of a similar manner (don't have any more claims or there might be adverse consequences. . .paraphrased), and it can certainly be viewed as a threat, but from my perspective as their agent/representative, it is simply making sure that everyone is on the same page and understands the potential consequences of their actions.

[Tned]

I totally understand your point. At the same time, in my line of work we often send letters or have conversations of a similar manner (don't have any more claims or there might be adverse consequences. . .paraphrased), and it can certainly be viewed as a threat, but from my perspective as their agent/representative, it is simply making sure that everyone is on the same page and understands the potential consequences of their actions.

No question, in business you often have to fire a shot across the bow (or far worse) in order to have meaningful discussion. However, it is still a shot across the bow. This was a shot across the bow, but some keep claiming it wasn't.

[Tned]

P.S. Anyway, this was beat to death. We have cleared up that it was NOT (just because I like to underline/bold things) an automatic tender reduction (to 110%) as some were saying and some were reporting. Beyond that, it's a bunch of arguing over not much of anything.

[Denver Native (Carol)]

Last year, Dumervil's salary was $540,980, unless a new contract is negotiated, he will make 3.168 mil - pretty damn good raise. Some could say that he will still be underpaid, which may be true, but he was certainly given MUCH more this year, than he was making under his old contract.

[T.K.O.]

for anyone who missed the memo...........
Denver coach Josh McDaniels said the team isn't playing hardball with Dumervil, and sending the letter was part of the process.

"It's a normal policy and procedure in the CBA," McDaniels said. "We're certainly not unique in that at all. There are so many teams that have done that. We'd like to have all our players under contract in training camp. There's certainly no message sent with that at all."


so if you could just be sure to attach the cover sheets to your T.P.S. reports.....that would be grrrrrreeeeeaaaaaat!

http://stepupmedia.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/17582_thumb.jpg

[NightTrainLayne]

P.S. Anyway, this was beat to death. We have cleared up that it was NOT (just because I like to underline/bold things) an automatic tender reduction (to 110%) as some were saying and some were reporting. Beyond that, it's a bunch of arguing over not much of anything.

Arguing about not much at all is what the best arguments are made of! ;)

[dogfish]

I just don't see why you, or a great many others (making me the minority which is never a good sign I suppose), think this will hinder current contract negotiations for Dumervil. This will put a cap on the salary the Broncos can pay Doom over the life of his contract, but so long as sufficient money is payed in terms of signing bonuses (or other bonuses) achieving the near 10mil average per year set by the Ware contract is fairly easily done and would pay Doom top dollar on the market depending on the length of contract.


Well the 30% rule was instated largely so that salaries couldn't be back loaded in the uncapped year and that FA contract size wouldn't get out of hand in the final uncapped year. It would be completely foolish if the NFL, by rules stated for the final year, didn't offer similar protection from ridiculous spending in 2010 by instating the 30% rule to all contracts. If you look into Brandon Marshall's contract for example, since he had to sign his tender before the Broncos could trade him, the Dolphins did some pretty inventive bonuses to give him the money he wanted, which is why his overall signing bonus was so massive. From my understanding the 30% rule applies to all contracts from 2009 on.

i think you answered your own question-- some teams may not be willing to get inventive with the bonuses like that. . . specifically in terms of singing bonus, which is guaranteed money. . . you're absolutely correct that it doesn't prevent a long-term deal from being signed, but it does present an added difficulty. . .

from the little i've read about it, it's my understanding that reluctance to committ the necessary amount of guaranteed money has been one of the reasons that the titans haven't negotiated a new deal with chris johnson. . .

we'll see. . . i'm sure everyone knows by now how badly i want to see this get done. . . not sure if i should expect it or not, though. . . this is the first time the mcxanders regime has been faced with a potential top-dollar contract like this, so there's no real basis for prediction. . . i'll be disappointed if we don't get something long-term done before the season, but not especially surprised. . .

[dogfish]

I get tired of it as well, which is why I don't do it. I also get tired of every discussion getting almost immediately derailed with "you only say that because you're a hater" or "you only say that, because you believe McDaniels can do no wrong".

Everyone is so quick to focus on what they 'believe' other people's motives are, that they just further the petty feuds, derail the threads.

Just a pet peeve of mine, and since I post neither out of my glowing love for McDaniels, nor my hate for him, I don't like being put in either category. I prefer to have my posts stand on their merits (and have no problem and welcome differing opinions) rather than having them attacked based on 'presumptions' of what my motives might be (that's a general statement, not just about what happened in this thread).

abso*******lutely. . .

:salute:

i get so sick of it. . . there are a few committed extremists who actually deserve the labels, but this place would be so much more relaxed and have a much higher level of discussion if we could just stick to the issues and forget the agendas. . .

although, that IS a bit difficult when certain knuckleheads insist on perpetuating said agendas. . . :tsk:

[dogfish]

I totally understand your point. At the same time, in my line of work we often send letters or have conversations of a similar manner (don't have any more claims or there might be adverse consequences. . .paraphrased), and it can certainly be viewed as a threat, but from my perspective as their agent/representative, it is simply making sure that everyone is on the same page and understands the potential consequences of their actions.

see? you just made T's point. . . you're a big corporate bully, just like the broncos. . . .


:D

[Tned]

for anyone who missed the memo...........
Denver coach Josh McDaniels said the team isn't playing hardball with Dumervil, and sending the letter was part of the process.

"It's a normal policy and procedure in the CBA," McDaniels said. "We're certainly not unique in that at all. There are so many teams that have done that. We'd like to have all our players under contract in training camp. There's certainly no message sent with that at all."


so if you could just be sure to attach the cover sheets to your T.P.S. reports.....that would be grrrrrreeeeeaaaaaat!

http://stepupmedia.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/17582_thumb.jpg

That's all great, the only problems is that it isn't part of the normal process. It's part of the 'process' that the Broncos 'chose' to employe with Doom this year, but certainly NOT a normal CBA procedure. Instead, it is a procedure that the CBA 'allows' the Broncos to employ. Big difference.

[Tned]

see? you just made T's point. . . you're a big corporate bully, just like the broncos. . . .


:D

For the record, I like corporate bullies. I just like to call a bully a bully and give them the respect they deserve for their bullyness.

[Denver Native (Carol)]

http://www.gazette.com/sports/tender-100241-agent-dumervil.html

FRANK SCHWAB
THE GAZETTE

Over the past two offseasons, the Broncos have had their share of drama. They avoided another combustible issue Monday when outside linebacker Elvis Dumervil signed his free-agent tender.

Denver could have revoked Dumervil’s restricted free-agent tender offer of $3.168 million today, per the collective-bargaining agreement, and replaced it with an offer of 110 percent of last year’s salary. Dumervil made about $540,000 in 2009.

Negotiations could have grown contentious if Denver cut Dumervil’s tender offer, but now both sides can continue to hammer out a long-term deal. Dumervil’s agent Gary Wichard confirmed in an e-mail that the two sides will continue to negotiate, but didn’t offer further comment.

Both sides have handled the negotiations with mutual respect. Coach Josh McDaniels has said often that the Broncos want Dumervil in Denver for many years. Dumervil said, even when he was sent letters last week reminding him the Broncos could slash his tender offer, that he understands the business of the game.

“Football has a business side to it and to me there’s a fun side, which is playing football,” Dumervil said Friday. “That’s the side I love. As far as the business side, it is what it is.”

Other teams were not so fortunate with their restricted free agents. Patriots guard Logan Mankins told media outlets he won’t sign his tender and wants to be traded. The Chargers didn’t announce that tackle Marcus McNeill or receiver Vincent Jackson, a Widefield High School graduate, signed their tenders. Some teams have been reluctant to give long-term deals because of labor uncertainty beyond 2010.

[TXBRONC]

and AGAIN there is no proof that they intended to reduce the offer,also maybe they would have kept the 3.18 mil on the table but doom wanted to ensure that if negotiations went south he was covered and would make 3+ mil regardless. so his signing was as much (or more) to protect himself.
not an indictment of the teams contract offers thus far.
but lets just let this die i have given ample evidence to support my opinion.
take it or leave it. matters not to me.
what does matter is doom will be a bronco in 2010 and none of knows if there will be nfl football in 2011.
so this is good news........for now !:salute:

So the front office sending an offical letter that says they could reduce his salary doesn't show intent? There's no reason for them to send that letter unless they are willing to care out the threat. I would have a hard time sending a letter that just an empty threat.

From what I've read Dumervil signed the tender as gesture of good will.

[Lonestar]

Much ado about nothing the hate Josh crowd is makinga hissy fit becuase Doom wants to keep it amicable. Just how is that wrong.

I suspect the letter was mailed out as courtesy. IIRC. A few years back Rice was not allowed to become a FA because his agent forgot to make a deadline.

Might have been anothr player but he was real high profile. And a REAL FUBAR by the agent.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

[Denver Native (Carol)]

So the front office sending an offical letter that says they could reduce his salary doesn't show intent? There's no reason for them to send that letter unless they are willing to care out the threat. I would have a hard time sending a letter that just an empty threat.

From what I've read Dumervil signed the tender as gesture of good will.

According to this, the players should already know the situation - i.e. what was written in the letter:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/06/13/collusion-suspicions-arise-regarding-tender-reduction-letters/

Given the plain language of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, the mere creation of the letters suggests that the league office has made some sort of communication regarding the proper protocol. Indeed, nothing in Article XIX, Section (h)(i)(i) requires teams to communicate in advance an intention to reduce the tender offer from the initial value to 110 percent of the player's 2009 base salary. Says the CBA on this point: "If the player's Qualifying Offer is greater than 110% of the player's Paragraph 5 salary (with all other terms of his prior year contract carried forward unchanged), the Club may withdraw the Qualifying Offer on June 15 and retain its rights . . ., so long as the Club immediately tenders the player a one year Player Contract of at least 110% of this Paragraph 5 Salary (with all other terms of his prior year contract carried forward unchanged)."

Thus, everyone already is on notice regarding the rules that apply

[dogfish]

Much ado about nothing the hate Josh crowd is makinga hissy fit becuase Doom wants to keep it amicable. Just how is that wrong.

I suspect the letter was mailed out as courtesy. IIRC. A few years back Rice was not allowed to become a FA because his agent forgot to make a deadline.

Might have been anothr player but he was real high profile. And a REAL FUBAR by the agent.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

you're thinking of terrell owens. . . .

[TXBRONC]

According to this, the players should already know the situation - i.e. what was written in the letter:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/06/13/collusion-suspicions-arise-regarding-tender-reduction-letters/

Given the plain language of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, the mere creation of the letters suggests that the league office has made some sort of communication regarding the proper protocol. Indeed, nothing in Article XIX, Section (h)(i)(i) requires teams to communicate in advance an intention to reduce the tender offer from the initial value to 110 percent of the player's 2009 base salary. Says the CBA on this point: "If the player's Qualifying Offer is greater than 110% of the player's Paragraph 5 salary (with all other terms of his prior year contract carried forward unchanged), the Club may withdraw the Qualifying Offer on June 15 and retain its rights . . ., so long as the Club immediately tenders the player a one year Player Contract of at least 110% of this Paragraph 5 Salary (with all other terms of his prior year contract carried forward unchanged)."

Thus, everyone already is on notice regarding the rules that apply

This has nothing to do with what I said.

As it's been pointed out several times Carol the team chose to send the letter, it wasn't mandatory.

[Denver Native (Carol)]

This has nothing to do with what I said.

As it's been pointed out several times Carol the team chose to send the letter, it wasn't mandatory.

From article:

the mere creation of the letters suggests that the league office has made some sort of communication regarding the proper protocol.

Based on that statement, we don't know if it was mandatory or not.

[TXBRONC]

From article:

the mere creation of the letters suggests that the league office has made some sort of communication regarding the proper protocol.

Based on that statement, we don't know if it was mandatory or not.

Yes we do know it's was their choice.

Here's relevant portion:


http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...ction-letters/

Indeed, nothing in Article XIX, Section (h)(i)(i) requires teams to communicate in advance an intention to reduce the tender offer from the initial value to 110 percent of the player's 2009 base salary.

This is the very next line after your excerpt. The teams can just exercise this right without even informing the player ahead of time. Use of the word intention signifies they have a choice. Denver sent a letter reminding Dumervil they have this as an option they have at disposal. It called playing hardball.

That aside it's also been reported that Dumervil was going to sign his tender as a gesture of good will.

[Broncolingus]

Bottom line...I'm just glad they signed him.

Doom handled this like a true professional during this ENTIRE process...:salute:

[Tned]

Bottom line...I'm just glad they signed him.

Doom handled this like a true professional during this ENTIRE process...:salute:

Here, here. That pretty much sums it up. :salute:

[Tned]

Much ado about nothing the hate Josh crowd is makinga hissy fit becuase Doom wants to keep it amicable. Just how is that wrong.

Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

What an insightful, and completely surprising perspective. Great point. :eek:

[TXBRONC]

Bottom line...I'm just glad they signed him.

Doom handled this like a true professional during this ENTIRE process...:salute:

Now hopefully they get long term deal done a.s.a.p.

[roomemp]

Broncos to Doom, "sign today and you get $3.1 million, sign tomorrow and you get $600k". I would read that as Doom was given a "sign, or else".

Dumervil's response to the ultimatum letter: "Being here, going on my fifth year, I've seen a lot, so I'm not surprised by anything, really," he said.

I would read it as McDaniels does not give any special treatment to any one player

[Tned]

I would read it as McDaniels does not give any special treatment to any one player

It's not special treatment. Prior to this year, clubs, including the Broncos, didn't send out letters threatening to reduce tender offers and they didn't actually reduce tender offers.

Threatening to reduce the tender offer, was in fact, special treatment (depending on your definition of 'special').

[Elevation inc]

It makes it a lot tougher to reach a long term deal now. I think the Broncos were unwise to force this tender signing.

i dont think so at all.....it just makes it that much easier to tact on a extension to the tender rather than create a entirely new deal....i would expect a 4-5 year extension in the near future for doom....

IMO im glad he signed for this year, and this is should be full proof for any doubter doom has handled his situation with more class than any player in the NFL right now outside of kyle orton.....

if the broncos dont pay doom, they are fools and i will glady tout the idiocracy stemming from that decision as a sign that the FO doesnt have a clue.....

the situation looks resolved for now, but if the denver FO doesnt pony up....they dont deserve to have elvis in denver long term its that simple....and they should be shunned across the league for being fools...

doesnt matter if he is a 1 trick pony, that 1 trick is premium in the pros right now....i didnt think he was worth a exuberant amount of money untill i saw more this year, but his classy actions are enough to show me he deserves it no matter, becasue he went about his situation the right way...

[Lonestar]

you're thinking of terrell owens. . . .

Thanks for clarifying who it was.

Again I suspect that was the impetus of why the teams send PLAYERS the warning so there are no surprises/bad feelings, if an agent drops the ball.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

[Tned]

i dont think so at all.....it just makes it that much easier to tact on a extension to the tender rather than create a entirely new deal....i would expect a 4-5 year extension in the near future for doom....

IMO im glad he signed for this year, and this is should be full proof for any doubter doom has handled his situation with more class than any player in the NFL right now outside of kyle orton.....

if the broncos dont pay doom, they are fools and i will glady tout the idiocracy stemming from that decision as a sign that the FO doesnt have a clue.....

the situation looks resolved for now, but if the denver FO doesnt pony up....they dont deserve to have elvis in denver long term its that simple....and they should be shunned across the league for being fools...

doesnt matter if he is a 1 trick pony, that 1 trick is premium in the pros right now....i didnt think he was worth a exuberant amount of money untill i saw more this year, but his classy actions are enough to show me he deserves it no matter, becasue he went about his situation the right way...

Again, the issue is the 30% rule. By signing the tender, there are much greater restrictions on what that extension could be, vs. just signing a 5 year deal out right. Now, the team will have to put more money in the form of signing bonus vs. salary, to reach the same total value. OR, claim they can't give $x.xx because the 30% rule won't allow it, which could prevent a long term deal.

Nobody, had come up with ANY reason why forcing Doom to sign the tender helps them reach a long term deal.

[Lonestar]

Nobody, had come up with ANY reason why forcing Doom to sign the tender helps them reach a long term deal.

In your opinion and that will never be changed because of your dislike for Josh the evil little one.

That is JMHO.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

[Tned]

In your opinion and that will never be changed because of your dislike for Josh the evil little one.

That is JMHO.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums


I have no dislike for Josh and have stated over and over again how I have liked almost everything Josh has done since coming to Denver and that I hope he is the coach here for many years to come.

If you want to go around ranting about haters and such, and bringing Mikey up in every thread (only you do that), that's your choice. However, when you cross the line to making intentional misstatements/lies/mischaracterizations about what I have said, I will call you on it.

[broncofaninfla]

Dooms shown a lot of class during this process, I hope he has a big year and improves on his run defense and I hope he gets rewarded for doing so.

[Northman]

Dooms shown a lot of class during this process, I hope he has a big year and improves on his run defense and I hope he gets rewarded for doing so.

I hope he gets some help around him. Would be nice for a change.

[TXBRONC]

Dooms shown a lot of class during this process, I hope he has a big year and improves on his run defense and I hope he gets rewarded for doing so.

Have a full year in the same system already under his belt and defensive line that should be big improvement over last year's model it's possible barring anything unforeseeable. However there are a few people that say Dumervil has to have more passes defended even he's rushing the quarterback 90% of the time.

[TXBRONC]

I hope he gets some help around him. Would be nice for a change.

If the defensive line is improved like we think it will be that should be big help. It also would hurt to have at least one more guy who could get between 8 to 10 sacks.

[broncobryce]

Doom needs more rushing td's to see some real cash.

[TXBRONC]

Doom needs more rushing td's to see some real cash.

That still wouldn't be enough. He also has start producing interceptions.