PDA

View Full Version : Broncos the NFL's cheapest team?



broncofaninfla
06-21-2010, 08:27 AM
Broncos the NFL's cheapest team? (http://www.fannation.com/truth_and_rumors/view/198031-broncos-the-nfls-cheapest-team)



07:18 AM ET 06.21 | The offseason tale of Elvis Dumervil (http://www.fannation.com/tags/show_tag/2909) may be exposing the Broncos (http://www.fannation.com/tags/show_tag/7) as penny-pinchers. The good people of Colorado built Broncos (http://www.fannation.com/tags/show_tag/7) owner Pat Bowlen a football stadium so the local NFL team would be a Super Bowl contender forever. But, like pass-rusher [Dumervil], the rest of us are slowly discovering that loyalty in the NFL is often a one-way street. Could it be after all these years of acting the good neighbor, Bowlen and his franchise are now more interested in making money than winning a championship? Maybe Josh McDaniels was hired as coach in Denver to hold down costs, especially with labor strife looming for the NFL just around a dark bend in the road ahead. Dumervil gave his team a league-leading 17 sacks last season. In return, the Broncos (http://www.fannation.com/tags/show_tag/7) have given Dr. Doom the least amount of appreciation possible, leaving the four-year veteran little choice except to sign a $3.168 million tender to give his 110 percent on the field.

tomjonesrocks
06-21-2010, 11:47 AM
Anyone just hear Dumervil on the Jim Rome show this morning?

I really wish I could link this interview--really sounded bad in terms of his contract situation to me...

Am losing a LOT of respect for this franchise fast. Until the team pays someone the "cheap" rap can't be argued. Elvis has been a good soldier. If he went the route of Cutler or Marshall he'd probably have been paid already. That's the lesson.

Northman
06-21-2010, 12:23 PM
Lol, now your going to start a shitstorm dude when the McDites read this.

Tempus Fugit
06-21-2010, 12:57 PM
Tom Brady and Peyton Manning....


Still without contract extensions. Player after player around the league........ forced to sign RFA tenders or to hold out on them a la Mankins/Jackson/etc...


Welcome to the NFL 2010. Singling out the Broncos is just stupid.

Northman
06-21-2010, 01:06 PM
Tom Brady and Peyton Manning....


Still without contract extensions. Player after player around the league........ forced to sign RFA tenders or to hold out on them a la Mankins/Jackson/etc...


Welcome to the NFL 2010. Singling out the Broncos is just stupid.

Well, to be fair Brady and Manning are already getting paid quite well for their services. I suppose if Doom already had a solid contract that might make a lot of sense.

Tempus Fugit
06-21-2010, 01:41 PM
Well, to be fair Brady and Manning are already getting paid quite well for their services. I suppose if Doom already had a solid contract that might make a lot of sense.

Given that Dumervil received the highest possible tender, it's clear that he's already got a solid contract under the circumstances. That doesn't somehow single out the Broncos.

Northman
06-21-2010, 01:43 PM
Given that Dumervil received the highest possible tender, it's clear that he's already got a solid contract under the circumstances. That doesn't somehow single out the Broncos.

His tender is no way fair compensation for what he has achieved at his position. Come on now.

dogfish
06-21-2010, 01:48 PM
His tender is no way fair compensation for what he has achieved at his position. Come on now.

that tender is a damn good contract!

he can shut up and like it. . . .

Tempus Fugit
06-21-2010, 01:50 PM
His tender is no way fair compensation for what he has achieved at his position. Come on now.

That's irrelevant to my point. Under present circumstances, he's a RFA. Given that, he's being paid at the highest level. That's a solid contract under those circumstances.

Again, this stuff has happened throughout the league. The Patriots have Mankins who won't even sign. The Chargers have 2 players who wouldn't sign. Team after team used the RFA situation to lock players in for lesser salaries. Singling out the Broncos on this is ridiculous, because they've obviously not been the only team working the RFA tenders. Dumervil's no more worthy of a new deal than a Vincent Jackson, Logan Mankins, etc....

Northman
06-21-2010, 01:51 PM
that tender is a damn good contract!

he can shut up and like it. . . .

Your dead to me.

BroncoWave
06-21-2010, 01:58 PM
Anyone who actually thinks Bowlen is trying to give cheap contracts because he is struggling financially really doesn't know how the NFL money structure works. Each NFL team makes MORE than enough money every year to be able to pay their players. As long as there is revenue sharing in the NFL, every team will more than be able to afford to pay their players.

dogfish
06-21-2010, 02:03 PM
That's irrelevant to my point. Under present circumstances, he's a RFA. Given that, he's being paid at the highest level. That's a solid contract under those circumstances.

Again, this stuff has happened throughout the league. The Patriots have Mankins who won't even sign. The Chargers have 2 players who wouldn't sign. Team after team used the RFA situation to lock players in for lesser salaries. Singling out the Broncos on this is ridiculous, because they've obviously not been the only team working the RFA tenders. Dumervil's no more worthy of a new deal than a Vincent Jackson, Logan Mankins, etc....

and detroit loses double digit games every year-- so it must be okay because other teams are doing it, right?

i think at this point we ALL understand the realities of the current labor situation. . . most of us also know that some guys are getting paid around the league-- brandon marshall, demeco ryans, patrick willis, etc. . . labor uncertainty is a stumbling block to new contracts, but it's far from completely prohibitive. . .

it makes me happy that san diego and new england are in conflict with some of their top players-- it DOESN'T however, make me want to emulate them in any way. . .

we have the right to make doom play under the RFA tener, no question-- that doesn't make it a "good" contract, though. . . and no amount of saying that it is will change that. . . players with comparable production are averaging in the range of ten million per year-- paying him three and then hiding behind labor unrest to pretend that's a good contract because it happens to be the highest RFA tender is pissing down his leg and telling him it's raining, and it's obvious that he's not dumb enough to buy it. . .

Tempus Fugit
06-21-2010, 02:13 PM
and detroit loses double digit games every year-- so it must be okay because other teams are doing it, right?

i think at this point we ALL understand the realities of the current labor situation. . . most of us also know that some guys are getting paid around the league-- brandon marshall, demeco ryans, patrick willis, etc. . . labor uncertainty is a stumbling block to new contracts, but it's far from completely prohibitive. . .

it makes me happy that san diego and new england are in conflict with some of their top players-- it DOESN'T however, make me want to emulate them in any way. . .

we have the right to make doom play under the RFA tener, no question-- that doesn't make it a "good" contract, though. . . and no amount of saying that it is will change that. . . players with comparable production are averaging in the range of ten million per year-- paying him three and then hiding behind labor unrest to pretend that's a good contract because it happens to be the highest RFA tender is pissing down his leg and telling him it's raining, and it's obvious that he's not dumb enough to buy it. . .

To repeat what I said since, judging by your response, you must have missed it.... Singling out the Broncos


Broncos the NFL's cheapest team?

is stupid.

A good contract under the circumstances is exactly what he's got. I didn't say the circumstances were good. I didn't say he should be happy with the contract. I didn't say he doesn't have a fair argument for asking for more. However, Denver isn't behaving in a manner that's any different from many other NFL teams.

FanInAZ
06-21-2010, 02:32 PM
1) Without a CBA between the owners and players, any teams that give out big long term contracts are doing so with out knowing what the cap level is going to be for the 2011 season and beyond. If the cap level is lower then they might be guessing at this time, they could be in a world of hurt.

2) Can anyone show me the cap level for the 2009 season and a list of how much each team actually spent on player's salaries? After all, not giving all of your cap money to one player does not always mean your being cheap. It may be that you simply understand that football is a team sport and you further understand that you need to invest in talent at all positions. If you need to pay so much to keep one all pro that you are only able pay players with 3rd string talent to line up next to him in the starting line up, then your team is in trouble.

Northman
06-21-2010, 02:39 PM
As of last year Denver is in great shape in terms of being under the salary cap.

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

Green: Means teams have a lot of room.
Black: Means teams have some good room.
Red: Means teams have very little room.

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


1 Tampa Bay Buccaneers $22300000
2 Cleveland Browns $17840000
3 Green Bay Packers $16080000
4 Jacksonville Jaguars $14990000
5 Kansas City Chiefs $10910000
6 Tennessee Titans $10490000
7 Denver Broncos $9980000
8 San Francisco 49ers $9370000
9 Cincinnati Bengals $9320000
10 Buffalo Bills $7830000
11 Minnesota Vikings $6730000
12 Atlanta Falcons $6650000
13 Miami Dolphins $6430000
14 Philadelphia Eagles $5830000
15 St. Louis Rams $5710000
16 San Diego Chargers $5160000
17 New Orleans Saints $5100000
18 Chicago Bears $4940000
19 Houston Texans $4690000
20 New England Patriots $4410000
21 Washington Redskins $4380000
22 Pittsburgh Steelers $4020000
23 Arizona Cardinals $3630000
24 Baltimore Ravens $3190000
25 Dallas Cowboys $2810000
26 Indianapolis Colts $2770000
27 NY Giants $2690000
28 Seattle Seahawks $2250000
29 Oakland Raiders $2150000
30 Detroit Lions $1840000
31 Carolina Panthers $1070000 32 NY Jets

T.K.O.
06-21-2010, 02:48 PM
let's not forget that the team is also in negotiations with 2 first round picks ,a 2nd and several other players.
it may also be that they dont want to give the impression they are throwing around huge $$$ til they sign a couple more of the young guy's.
no i'm not comparing doom to a rookie at all....i'm saying it might be in everybody's best interest (elvis and the F.O.) to wait it out a few more weeks while they hammer out deals with their top picks:confused:

Lonestar
06-21-2010, 02:49 PM
Gee let's not break the union by overpaying a guy that because of an injury ti Dware happened ti lead the league in sacks.

BUT remember he sucked at the other two parts to his jib description.

Sacks nice but if they can run on him or the team all day how many sacks is he gonna get.

Just because other teams are willing to overpay these morons does noy mean we have to.

BTW how many want to step up to the crow table for their helping after stating sev eral months ago, that he did not want Dware money. Anyone anyone want to fess up and say wow was I wrong.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Northman
06-21-2010, 02:57 PM
Gee let's not break the union by overpaying a guy that because of an injury ti Dware happened ti lead the league in sacks.

Yet, Doom played in one less game than Dware and still lead the league.


BUT remember he sucked at the other two parts to his jib description.Which is false considering Dware beat him by what? 3 tackles last year? :lol:


Just because other teams are willing to overpay these morons does noy mean we have to.I thought you liked the guy, now your calling him a moron?


BTW how many want to step up to the crow table for their helping after stating sev eral months ago, that he did not want Dware money. Anyone anyone want to fess up and say wow was I wrong.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forumsNowhere has he stated he wants Dware money. He simply wants to be paid more than he is which is understandable for any player of his calibur.

FanInAZ
06-21-2010, 03:02 PM
let's not forget that the team is also in negotiations with 2 first round picks ,a 2nd and several other players.
it may also be that they dont want to give the impression they are throwing around huge $$$ til they sign a couple more of the young guy's.
no i'm not comparing doom to a rookie at all....i'm saying it might be in everybody's best interest (elvis and the F.O.) to wait it out a few more weeks while they hammer out deals with their top picks:confused:

:2thumbs: I was just about to bring up this point :2thumbs:

Lonestar
06-21-2010, 03:04 PM
What is was trying to say the owners have a vested intrest in running the BUSINESS not hobby as a Profitable one.

Right now they have a lot of RFA over a barrel next year there will be another 200 or so a BIG chunk of the players in the NFL. They have NO reason to cave on salaries this year and maybe next. There is some talk of busting the NFLPA as they have been ineffective in the past.

Now is as good a time as ever to decertify it.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

Tempus Fugit
06-21-2010, 03:04 PM
Nowhere has he stated he wants Dware money. He simply wants to be paid more than he is which is understandable for any player of his calibur.

How much is Denver offering, over how many years, with what guarantees and bonuses, and how much of the offer is backloaded?

Also....

How much is Dumervil asking, over how many years, with what guarantees and bonuses, and how much of the demand is frontloaded?

Tempus Fugit
06-21-2010, 03:09 PM
let's not forget that the team is also in negotiations with 2 first round picks ,a 2nd and several other players.
it may also be that they dont want to give the impression they are throwing around huge $$$ til they sign a couple more of the young guy's.
no i'm not comparing doom to a rookie at all....i'm saying it might be in everybody's best interest (elvis and the F.O.) to wait it out a few more weeks while they hammer out deals with their top picks:confused:

Let's not forget that the owners are/were seeking a reduction of 18% in the moneys to be accounted for when factoring in the percentage given to players. Fans of a lot of teams who have negotiation issues are overlooking just how much money is in play here.

broncofaninfla
06-21-2010, 03:12 PM
How much is Denver offering, over how many years, with what guarantees and bonuses, and how much of the offer is backloaded?

Also....

How much is Dumervil asking, over how many years, with what guarantees and bonuses, and how much of the demand is frontloaded?

It would be nice to know the specifics. Obvioulsy he wants more than Denver wants to pay, I think we all agree Doom deserves a raise, just hoping he isn't holding out for more than he is actually worth. I want Doom to stay in Denevr but I don't want Denver to break the bank to keep him.

silkamilkamonico
06-21-2010, 03:15 PM
I'm sorry to say that this thread shows the low level of IQ that some Denver fans actually have about the NFL.

Denver is somehow the cheapest team in the NFL because we didn't re-sign Doom to a new contract? Is that somehow a joke? 1 player, in one situation, that is a one trick pony? Really?

Nevermind the FACT that this organization used basically every resource of the cap since 2000, and got nothing more than 1 playoff win, and an NFL leading dead cap space year, after year, after year, after year, after year.

People here are either ******* stupid, or just flat out want a reason to hate McDaniels if they believe any sincereity in this article.

FanInAZ
06-21-2010, 03:26 PM
I'm sorry to say that this thread shows the low level of IQ that some Denver fans actually have about the NFL.

Denver is somehow the cheapest team in the NFL because we didn't re-sign Doom to a new contract? Is that somehow a joke? 1 player, in one situation, that is a one trick pony? Really?

Nevermind the FACT that this organization used basically every resource of the cap since 2000, and got nothing more than 1 playoff win, and an NFL leading dead cap space year, after year, after year, after year, after year.

People here are either ******* stupid, or just flat out want a reason to hate McDaniels if they believe any sincereity in this article.

I'm not sure which post(s) in this thread you are referring to. My post said many of the same things that yours has, but without insulting anyone.

Northman
06-21-2010, 03:31 PM
I'm not sure which post(s) in this thread you are referring to. My post said many of the same things that yours has, but without insulting anyone.

Funny how that works.

Northman
06-21-2010, 03:35 PM
How much is Denver offering, over how many years, with what guarantees and bonuses, and how much of the offer is backloaded?

Also....

How much is Dumervil asking, over how many years, with what guarantees and bonuses, and how much of the demand is frontloaded?

We simply do not know. But to come out and say he definitely wants Dware money is disingenuous.

broncophan
06-21-2010, 03:36 PM
I have heard many different adjectives when people talk about the broncos and the organization/franchise.....over the last 33 years or so.....but cheap has never been one of them.........

p.s......I was never great at english......but "cheap" is an adjective ....isn't it???

Tempus Fugit
06-21-2010, 03:38 PM
We simply do not know. But to come out and say he definitely wants Dware money is disingenuous.

In the absence of evidence, I agree. Of course, claiming that the Broncos are not acting in good faith is also disingenuous, as is making any claims regarding the team squeezing Dumeril or anything along those lines. I've not seen you come out against people making those claims, however.

Perhaps I missed those posts of yours...

Northman
06-21-2010, 03:49 PM
In the absence of evidence, I agree. Of course, claiming that the Broncos are not acting in good faith is also disingenuous, as is making any claims regarding the team squeezing Dumeril or anything along those lines. I've not seen you come out against people making those claims, however.

Perhaps I missed those posts of yours...

Well, the only evidence we have is straight from Doom's mouth. He says he was forced to sign the tender which going by his response didnt sound all that great to him. His comments regarding his uncertainty with the future of the team also doesnt make it sound like he is overall happy with the status of his contract. I think you can ask any player on any team that when your forced to sign something with the penalty of losing money thats not really "good faith" as it is "common sense" to ensure you dont lose money. This isnt a mere article or report Temp, this is coming from the horses mouth and according to that soundbite he made it pretty clear he was "squeezed" into signing the tender. Guys like Mankins just chose not to sign theirs so really if anyone is putting up the "good faith" it is Doom himself by signing that tender. Now we shall see if Denver chooses to reward him for it.

Tempus Fugit
06-21-2010, 03:56 PM
Well, the only evidence we have is straight from Doom's mouth. He says he was forced to sign the tender which going by his response didnt sound all that great to him. His comments regarding his uncertainty with the future of the team also doesnt make it sound like he is overall happy with the status of his contract. I think you can ask any player on any team that when your forced to sign something with the penalty of losing money thats not really "good faith" as it is "common sense" to ensure you dont lose money. This isnt a mere article or report Temp, this is coming from the horses mouth and according to that soundbite he made it pretty clear he was "squeezed" into signing the tender. Guys like Mankins just chose not to sign theirs so really if anyone is putting up the "good faith" it is Doom himself by signing that tender. Now we shall see if Denver chooses to reward him for it.

I understand that it's coming from Dumervil. That doesn't mean the Broncos actions weren't a part of negotiating in good faith. Had the team not gotten Dumervil to sign his tender, Dumervil would have been under no obligation to attend any mandatory team functions. Protecting that interest is not inherently bad faith. If you can't admit that, you've got no business calling out someone for making assumptions about what Dumervil's asking.

Also, signing a contract to avoid being subjected to a lower contract under the terms of the CBA is not necessarily "good faith", either.

Lonestar
06-21-2010, 03:56 PM
Yet, Doom played in one less game than Dware and still lead the league.

Which is false considering Dware beat him by what? 3 tackles last year? :lol:

I thought you liked the guy, now your calling him a moron?

Nowhere has he stated he wants Dware money. He simply wants to be paid more than he is which is understandable for any player of his calibur.

to debunk your contention that Doom is Dware reincarnate DWAR was playing IIRC last year that later part of the season with a hand injury IIRC broken but could be wrong, hard to make tackles or sack with one arm.

Well so far every report lately seems to say 65mil with 40 guaranteed. Now maybe that is not DWARE money but it is close enough for most of us to believe it is.

A lot less than most were talking about back then.. IIRC even you stated he wants 9+mil a year. not Maybe I mis took that as your a few posts ago.

But, if not what do you think he is worth.

Personally I think a 6 fold raise over what he made last year is a hell of a bump considering he is 1/3 the OLB that ware NORMALLY is.

FanInAZ
06-21-2010, 03:58 PM
I have heard many different adjectives when people talk about the broncos and the organization/franchise.....over the last 33 years or so.....but cheap has never been one of them.........

p.s......I was never great at english......but "cheap" is an adjective ....isn't it???

I was pretty sure that you were right, but I figure I might as well verify it with the Webster's Dictionary that I have on my hard drive. In the context that you used it in, yes, it is a adjective. However, there is a different context in which its considered a noun.

cheap \'chēp\ n [ME chep, fr. OE cēap trade; akin to OHG kouf trade; both ultim. fr. L caupo tradesman] (bef. 12c) obs: bargain
— on the cheap : at minimum expense : cheaply ‹did the job on the cheap›

TXBRONC
06-21-2010, 04:02 PM
Your dead to me.

Hey Tony how ya doin?

Lonestar
06-21-2010, 04:03 PM
Let's not forget that the owners are/were seeking a reduction of 18% in the moneys to be accounted for when factoring in the percentage given to players. Fans of a lot of teams who have negotiation issues are overlooking just how much money is in play here.

this is the reason IMHO


What is was trying to say the owners have a vested intrest in running the BUSINESS not hobby as a Profitable one.

Right now they have a lot of RFA over a barrel next year there will be another 200 or so a BIG chunk of the players in the NFL. They have NO reason to cave on salaries this year and maybe next. There is some talk of busting the NFLPA as they have been ineffective in the past.

Now is as good a time as ever to decertify it.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums


I'm sorry to say that this thread shows the low level of IQ that some Denver fans actually have about the NFL.

Denver is somehow the cheapest team in the NFL because we didn't re-sign Doom to a new contract? Is that somehow a joke? 1 player, in one situation, that is a one trick pony? Really?

Nevermind the FACT that this organization used basically every resource of the cap since 2000, and got nothing more than 1 playoff win, and an NFL leading dead cap space year, after year, after year, after year, after year.

People here are either ******* stupid, or just flat out want a reason to hate McDaniels if they believe any sincereity in this article.


while I would not quite have used those terms you did. You are spot on especially the hi-lited portion of the last sentence.

silkamilkamonico
06-21-2010, 04:04 PM
I'm not sure which post(s) in this thread you are referring to. My post said many of the same things that yours has, but without insulting anyone.

Well, obviously it's for the people that "believe any sincereity in this article".

It's a good thing they just didn't give Doom a phat new high end contract, or I would have to start a thread along the lines of "is Denver the most generous team in the NFL"?

And considering they have in some seasons paid almost 20% of their entire cap out to players who weren't even on the team, my argument would certainly have more merit than this garbage posted here.

broncophan
06-21-2010, 04:06 PM
I was pretty sure that you were right, but I figure I might as well verify it with the Webster's Dictionary that I have on my hard drive. In the context that you used it in, yes, it is a adjective. However, there is a different context in which its considered a noun.

cheap \'chēp\ n [ME chep, fr. OE cēap trade; akin to OHG kouf trade; both ultim. fr. L caupo tradesman] (bef. 12c) obs: bargain
— on the cheap : at minimum expense : cheaply ‹did the job on the cheap›

Thanks for clearing that up for me...lol...

It really is amazing that people/writers would refer to the broncos being cheap.....someone help me out here (again)..................when Bowlen fired Shanahan....didn't he have to pay him something like 10-15 million dollars......which was the remainder of his contract+ other stipulations??

Money has never been an issue with Bowlen.....so I doubt that it would be now....

Lonestar
06-21-2010, 04:08 PM
As of last year Denver is in great shape in terms of being under the salary cap.

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

Green: Means teams have a lot of room.
Black: Means teams have some good room.
Red: Means teams have very little room.

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


1 Tampa Bay Buccaneers $22300000
2 Cleveland Browns $17840000
3 Green Bay Packers $16080000
4 Jacksonville Jaguars $14990000
5 Kansas City Chiefs $10910000
6 Tennessee Titans $10490000
7 Denver Broncos $9980000
8 San Francisco 49ers $9370000
9 Cincinnati Bengals $9320000
10 Buffalo Bills $7830000
11 Minnesota Vikings $6730000
12 Atlanta Falcons $6650000
13 Miami Dolphins $6430000
14 Philadelphia Eagles $5830000
15 St. Louis Rams $5710000
16 San Diego Chargers $5160000
17 New Orleans Saints $5100000
18 Chicago Bears $4940000
19 Houston Texans $4690000
20 New England Patriots $4410000
21 Washington Redskins $4380000
22 Pittsburgh Steelers $4020000
23 Arizona Cardinals $3630000
24 Baltimore Ravens $3190000
25 Dallas Cowboys $2810000
26 Indianapolis Colts $2770000
27 NY Giants $2690000
28 Seattle Seahawks $2250000
29 Oakland Raiders $2150000
30 Detroit Lions $1840000
31 Carolina Panthers $1070000
32 NY Jets$960000

you forgot the big thing here these are not actual numbers and was dated

November 7, 2009

the actual title of that box is



Projected 2009 NFL Salary Cap Space for Each Team

Northman
06-21-2010, 04:10 PM
Had the team not gotten Dumervil to sign his tender, Dumervil would have been under no obligation to attend any mandatory team functions.

Which means it was forced and not in good faith. Good faith would be allowing Doom to keep negotiating and attend the mandatory functions on his own. It means you have "faith" that the player is going to show up while continueing to iron out his contract.


Also, signing a contract to avoid being subjected to a lower contract under the terms of the CBA is not necessarily "good faith", either.True, its more "self preservation". However, considering Doom has not badmouthed or held out tells me he still has "faith" that the brass will negotiate a long term deal with him.

silkamilkamonico
06-21-2010, 04:10 PM
you forgot the big thing here these are not actual numbers and was dated November 7, 2009

the actual title of that box is



Projected 2009 NFL Salary Cap Space for Each Team

LMAO

Oh wow.

smh

Northman
06-21-2010, 04:11 PM
you forgot the big thing here these are not actual numbers and was dated November 7, 2009

the actual title of that box is



Projected 2009 NFL Salary Cap Space for Each Team


Those were approximates. I highly doubt we have fallen into the red considering we havent signed any major contracts all the while cutting players in the last 6-7 months.

Denver Native (Carol)
06-21-2010, 04:12 PM
The first post in this thread is taken from an article which is already posted on BF - i.e. http://www.broncosforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=151643, the article written by Kiszla

TXBRONC
06-21-2010, 04:14 PM
let's not forget that the team is also in negotiations with 2 first round picks ,a 2nd and several other players.
it may also be that they dont want to give the impression they are throwing around huge $$$ til they sign a couple more of the young guy's.
no i'm not comparing doom to a rookie at all....i'm saying it might be in everybody's best interest (elvis and the F.O.) to wait it out a few more weeks while they hammer out deals with their top picks:confused:

Why the hell should any rookie, Tebow, Thomas or otherwise get any preferential treatment over a 4 yr vet who has actually has done something for this team? Unbelievable. :tsk:

Lonestar
06-21-2010, 04:17 PM
Those were approximates. I highly doubt we have fallen into the red considering we havent signed any major contracts all the while cutting players in the last 6-7 months.


who know for sure what happened after that date with IR and LAYING IN REPLACEMENTS.

regardless it is not an official NFL numbers site just what they know or think they know.

And frankly everyone that has been a fan for more than 15 minutes knows that PAt dumped and I use that term genuinely DUMPED lots ogf money trying to build an other championship team.

We all saw what the was the was over many many players and all it got us was ONE championship game and cap hell for almost a decade.

Now I'm not saying that Doom is a bad player or should not get a reasonable contract this year but as an owner I'm not paying top five money for him. not happening.

Northman
06-21-2010, 04:18 PM
who know for sure what happened after that date with IR and LAYING IN REPLACEMENTS.

regardless it is not an official NFL numbers site just what they know or think they know.

And frankly everyone that has been a fan for more than 15 minutes knows that PAt dumped and I use that term genuinely DUMPED lots ogf money trying to build an other championship team.

We all saw what the was the was over many many players and all it got us was ONE championship game and cap hell for almost a decade.

Now I'm not saying that Doom is a bad player or should not get a reasonable contract this year but as an owner I'm not paying top five money for him. not happening.

So do you agree we have cap space or no? I couldnt tell by your post.

TXBRONC
06-21-2010, 04:22 PM
So do you agree we have cap space or no? I couldnt tell by your post.

The first rule of politics obfuscate. :lol:

Tempus Fugit
06-21-2010, 04:23 PM
Which means it was forced and not in good faith. Good faith would be allowing Doom to keep negotiating and attend the mandatory functions on his own. It means you have "faith" that the player is going to show up while continueing to iron out his contract.

Ok, so the problem here is that you don't know what "bargaining in good faith" means. Perhaps that's Tned's problem as well.


True, its more "self preservation". However, considering Doom has not badmouthed or held out tells me he still has "faith" that the brass will negotiate a long term deal with him.

You're making assumptions one way, and one way only. That's why you've really no call to be complaining when someone makes assumptions only in the other direction.

Northman
06-21-2010, 04:32 PM
Ok, so the problem here is that you don't know what "bargaining in good faith" means. Perhaps that's Tned's problem as well.

Actually i think your the one who has a hard time understanding what "bargaining" really is. Forcing someone to do anything against their will is not bargaining. :lol:




You're making assumptions one way, and one way only. That's why you've really no call to be complaining when someone makes assumptions only in the other direction.Ok, but im basing my assumptions off of what ive heard from both parties. Not speculation from news reporters. :whoknows:

I would think getting the info straight from the very source would carry more weight no? :confused:

Lonestar
06-21-2010, 04:32 PM
So do you agree we have cap space or no? I couldnt tell by your post.
Every one has cap space, IF you use those numbers.

Does not mean we have to spend it all does it.


Looks to me like ONE year of Dooms desires would have eaten all of it up, then we will also have to pay for the rookies and other FA's.
Sorry I'd rather have the new fresh faces. many of them instead on ONE 1/3 of an OLB.

T.K.O.
06-21-2010, 04:39 PM
Why the hell should any rookie, Tebow, Thomas or otherwise get any preferential treatment over a 4 yr vet who has actually has done something for this team? Unbelievable. :tsk:

unbelievable that you did'nt understand the part where i said i am by no means comparing doom to a rookie !
the point is it may be a valuable tool for the FO to wait until they sign the rooks,before opening up the checkbook for doom !
if you can't see why ....thats your business but please understand where i am coming from before you try and judge what i am saying....Unbelievable
not to mention doom is now under contract and the rookies you spoke of are not....that would make them a priority in and of itself.
plus the term "doom was forced to sign his tender by the broncos" is inaccurate. the fact that both the FO and dooms agent had'nt reached a deal by the deadline forced him to sign.or he could have refused ....but it can't all be put on one side w/o all the info or being privy to the details of both the offers and counter offers.
i am not placing the blame on either side until i know the facts.
i still believe the two sides will come to an agreement before TC...but that's just me Mr. Optomistic

TXBRONC
06-21-2010, 04:55 PM
unbelievable that you did'nt understand the part where i said i am by no means comparing doom to a rookie !
the point is it may be a valuable tool for the FO to wait until they sign the rooks,before opening up the checkbook for doom !
if you can't see why ....thats your business but please understand where i am coming from before you try and judge what i am saying....Unbelievable
not to mention doom is now under contract and the rookies you spoke of are not....that would make them a priority in and of itself.
plus the term "doom was forced to sign his tender by the broncos" is inaccurate. the fact that both the FO and dooms agent had'nt reached a deal by the deadline forced him to sign.or he could have refused ....but it can't all be put on one side w/o all the info or being privy to the details of both the offers and counter offers.
i am not placing the blame on either side until i know the facts.
i still believe the two sides will come to an agreement before TC...but that's just me Mr. Optomistic

I understood prefectly well what you said. Dumervil should be put on the back burner until the rookie are taken care of first.

Bullshit he was strong armed into signing his tender. If you can't see it then I don't know what to tell you.

Denver Native (Carol)
06-21-2010, 05:08 PM
Unless there is someone else other than Brian Xanders negotiating these contracts, it is not hard to comprehend that this does not get done in a short amount of time. I do not know how many rookies have not signed contracts, but then add Dumervil to that number.

Is it more important to first get Elvis a new long term contract, rather than signing the remaining rookies - not sure it is. Elvis knows the system, and if there is a chance that someone does not show up when training camp starts, it would be better if it were Elvis, rather than a rookie(s), who needs all the practice they can get.

Of course I want Elvis to be a Bronco his whole career, but things also have to be put in perspective - right now - as to what is going on - i.e. trying to get EVERYONE signed, who are not yet signed.

T.K.O.
06-21-2010, 05:12 PM
I understood prefectly well what you said. Dumervil should be put on the back burner until the rookie are taken care of first.

Bullshit he was strong armed into signing his tender. If you can't see it then I don't know what to tell you.

no....wrong again....what i did say was that it might be in the best interest of both sides to wait a few weeks (since doom is now under contract) and get the rookies signed ,then deal with doom.
because if the broncos are ready to give doom a big payday,it would make sense not to let the rookies agents see him getting a huge deal while they are in negotiations.you see it might just get them all excited and drooling .giving them another bargaining chip.
so by waiting the broncos have shown they are'nt giving out HUGE paydays at the moment.making it more likely the agents at the table wont have dreams of 100 million dollar deals dancing in their heads.
which would then allow the team more flexability with doom's contract !
now do you see what i was saying ?:confused:

Tempus Fugit
06-21-2010, 05:20 PM
Actually i think your the one who has a hard time understanding what "bargaining" really is. Forcing someone to do anything against their will is not bargaining. :lol:

That is not correct:


Requirement that the parties to a contract (such as a collective bargaining agreement) regularly meet and discuss with a willingness to reach an accord on proposed new contract terms. It does not necessarily mean that any party is required to make a concession or agree to any proposal.

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/good-faith-bargaining.html


Good-faith bargaining generally refers to the duty of the parties to meet and negotiate at reasonable times with willingness to reach agreement on matters within the scope of representation; however, neither party is required to make a concession or agree to any proposal.

Good faith bargaining requires employers and unions involved in collective bargaining to:

* use their best endeavours to agree to an effective bargaining process
* meet and consider and respond to proposals made by each other
* respect the role of the other's representative by not seeking to bargain directly with those for whom the representative acts
* not do anything to undermine the bargaining process or the authority of the other's representative.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/g/good-faith-bargaining/

The public doesn't know of anything done by either party that would fail to meet the above. To the best of our knowledge, both sides have acted in good faith to date.


Ok, but im basing my assumptions off of what ive heard from both parties. Not speculation from news reporters. :whoknows:

I would think getting the info straight from the very source would carry more weight no? :confused:

No, you're basing your assumptions on your inherent biases regarding the two sides.

Northman
06-21-2010, 05:22 PM
no....wrong again....what i did say was that it might be in the best interest of both sides to wait a few weeks (since doom is now under contract) and get the rookies signed ,then deal with doom.
because if the broncos are ready to give doom a big payday,it would make sense not to let the rookies agents see him getting a huge deal while they are in negotiations.you see it might just get them all excited and drooling .giving them another bargaining chip.
so by waiting the broncos have shown they are'nt giving out HUGE paydays at the moment.making it more likely the agents at the table wont have dreams of 100 million dollar deals dancing in their heads.
which would then allow the team more flexability with doom's contract !
now do you see what i was saying ?:confused:

To be honest, signing Doom first will not affect the rookie contracts and here is why. Look at last year when Heyward-Bay signed his deal only to see Crabtree holdout because of it. They didnt play on the same team so all a guy like Thomas has to do is either sign what Denver offerss him or see what Bryant signs and vice versa. Also, what Thomas and Tebow are expected to get is already far more than what Doom will get at his present time because of where they were drafted. You say that we shouldnt give the impression that we pay players a lot of money. Well, Thomas and Tebow could easily look at it the other way and say "Damn, Denver doesnt give shit about paying their players what they are worth". Its a two way street here in that regard. Fact is, its easy to understand why they didnt pay Marshall. But im baffled as too why they arent paying Doom when he has been everything that McD basically loves in a player or so at least he tells us.

T.K.O.
06-21-2010, 05:35 PM
To be honest, signing Doom first will not affect the rookie contracts and here is why. Look at last year when Heyward-Bay signed his deal only to see Crabtree holdout because of it. They didnt play on the same team so all a guy like Thomas has to do is either sign what Denver offerss him or see what Bryant signs and vice versa. Also, what Thomas and Tebow are expected to get is already far more than what Doom will get at his present time because of where they were drafted. You say that we shouldnt give the impression that we pay players a lot of money. Well, Thomas and Tebow could easily look at it the other way and say "Damn, Denver doesnt give shit about paying their players what they are worth". Its a two way street here in that regard. Fact is, its easy to understand why they didnt pay Marshall. But im baffled as too why they arent paying Doom when he has been everything that McD basically loves in a player or so at least he tells us.

again, i'm not saying it's the right thing to do.i am just stating it could be a factor in the FO's decision making process.
i don't think it would have much if any bearing on negotiations with the rooks,but it is possible in light of the offseason we have seen that they are trying to impress upon the unsigned players that with the state of the cba etc... they are not just going to shell out huge deals.
as for tebow and thomas getting more money than doom....i doubt it.
cutler was a first rounder and i dont think he got 8 mil a year on his rookie contract.
and i think that's the ballpark we are looking at for doom.
i would be shocked if tebow or thomas got that kind of dough

Northman
06-21-2010, 05:35 PM
Requirement that the parties to a contract (such as a collective bargaining agreement) regularly meet and discuss with a willingness to reach an accord on proposed new contract terms. It does not necessarily mean that any party is required to make a concession or agree to any proposal.


Good-faith bargaining generally refers to the duty of the parties to meet and negotiate at reasonable times with willingness to reach agreement on matters within the scope of representation; however, neither party is required to make a concession or agree to any proposal.

Good faith bargaining requires employers and unions involved in collective bargaining to:

* use their best endeavours to agree to an effective bargaining process
* meet and consider and respond to proposals made by each other
* respect the role of the other's representative by not seeking to bargain directly with those for whom the representative acts
* not do anything to undermine the bargaining process or the authority of the other's representative.

Neither one of these says anything about forcing someone to sign a tender in their definitions as good faith. In fact, the first one states that there needs to be a willingness to come to terms yet one party was "forced" to sign. Had he not been forced to sign he wouldnt of signed the tender and instead allowed his agent to continue negotiations.


No, you're basing your assumptions on your inherent biases regarding the two sides.

What bias would that be? Wanting a player i like to remain a Bronco because i think he is worth the money? Ok, im guilty.

BigBroncLove
06-21-2010, 05:37 PM
That is not correct:



http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/good-faith-bargaining.html



http://definitions.uslegal.com/g/good-faith-bargaining/

The public doesn't know of anything done by either party that would fail to meet the above. To the best of our knowledge, both sides have acted in good faith to date.



No, you're basing your assumptions on your inherent biases regarding the two sides.

You have to understand, those are definition under the Labor relations act of 1935 (also known under its latin term, bona fide) for good faith negotiation when it is in regard to labor relations such as the collective bargaining agreement. In reference to negotiating in good faith for a contract between a player and organization the term can be used in a broader sense. I don't agree that negotiating in good faith is not forcing one side to react in a specific way, especially when the governing rules prohibit the player mroe then the negotiating party. However in this case negotiating in good faith is far more open to interpretation and can be used from excessively unreasonable offers by a single party to the actual conduct outlined in the labor relations act.

There is also a form of good faith negotiation in the Uniform Commercial Code, but that has to do with merchants buying goods in good faith at price. My underlying point is, there are mroe than one application of the term. The labor relations act and the terms defined in US law for good faith labor negotiation I feel personally can not be applied exclusively and prohibitively as far as the use of "good faith negotiation" to these negotiations between Doom and the Broncos. IMO one must allow a broader use of a rather vague term when using legal jargon to a process that utilizes it when it is undefined by that specific law.

Northman
06-21-2010, 05:38 PM
again, i'm not saying it's the right thing to do.i am just stating it could be a factor in the FO's decision making process.
i don't think it would have much if any bearing on negotiations with the rooks,but it is possible in light of the offseason we have seen that they are trying to impress upon the unsigned players that with the state of the cba etc... they are not just going to shell out huge deals.
as for tebow and thomas getting more money than doom....i doubt it.
cutler was a first rounder and i dont think he got 8 mil a year on his rookie contract.
and i think that's the ballpark we are looking at for doom.
i would be shocked if tebow or thomas got that kind of dough

Yea, im not sure what the contract guarantee is for lower 1st rounders. But keep in mind that Doom is only now getting what he is because he would of lost money had he not signed it. But i know from the start that Tebow and Thomas will get more than Doom did when he was drafted and considering the positions in question the ceiling is much higher for Thomas and Tebow.

Northman
06-21-2010, 05:39 PM
You have to understand, those are definition under the Labor relations act of 1935 (also known under its latin term, bona fide) for good faith negotiation when it is in regard to labor relations such as the collective bargaining agreement. In reference to negotiating in good faith for a contract between a player and organization the term can be used in a broader sense. I don't agree that negotiating in good faith is not forcing one side to react in a specific way, especially when the governing rules prohibit the player mroe then the negotiating party. However in this case negotiating in good faith is far more open to interpretation and can be used from excessively unreasonable offers by a single party to the actual conduct outlined in the labor relations act.

There is also a form of good faith negotiation in the Uniform Commercial Code, but that has to do with merchants buying goods in good faith at price. My underlying point is, the labor relations act and the terms defined in US law for good faith labor negotiation, I feel personally can only be applied exclusively and prohibitively to these negotiations between Doom and the Broncos and IMO allows a broader use of a rather vague term.

You would think it would be that obvious.

BigBroncLove
06-21-2010, 05:46 PM
You would think it would be that obvious.

Well don't agree with me to fast :lol:. If you ask me the reason Doom was forced to sign an RFA tender is due more so to the conduct of the owners in opting out of the CBA and the governing rules enacted for the "final year" in the CBA then the Broncos organization itself. That said, I think one can use "good faith bargaining" in this context in a broader sense then defined by the Labor Relations Act.

LordTrychon
06-21-2010, 05:51 PM
Well don't agree with me to fast :lol:. If you ask me the reason Doom was forced to sign an RFA tender is due more so to the conduct of the owners in opting out of the CBA and the governing rules enacted for the "final year" in the CBA then the Broncos organization itself. That said, I think one can use "good faith bargaining" in this context in a broader sense then defined by the Labor Relations Act.

Shakety boobs, Shakety boobs, Shakety boobs...

Wait wut?

BigBroncLove
06-21-2010, 06:22 PM
Shakety boobs, Shakety boobs, Shakety boobs...

Wait wut?

I said you're welcome. ;)

Softskull
06-21-2010, 08:58 PM
You have to understand, those are definition under the Labor relations act of 1935 (also known under its latin term, bona fide) for good faith negotiation when it is in regard to labor relations such as the collective bargaining agreement. In reference to negotiating in good faith for a contract between a player and organization the term can be used in a broader sense. I don't agree that negotiating in good faith is not forcing one side to react in a specific way, especially when the governing rules prohibit the player mroe then the negotiating party. However in this case negotiating in good faith is far more open to interpretation and can be used from excessively unreasonable offers by a single party to the actual conduct outlined in the labor relations act.

There is also a form of good faith negotiation in the Uniform Commercial Code, but that has to do with merchants buying goods in good faith at price. My underlying point is, there are mroe than one application of the term. The labor relations act and the terms defined in US law for good faith labor negotiation I feel personally can not be applied exclusively and prohibitively as far as the use of "good faith negotiation" to these negotiations between Doom and the Broncos. IMO one must allow a broader use of a rather vague term when using legal jargon to a process that utilizes it when it is undefined by that specific law.

You're correct. Temp's definition of good faith doesn't apply here since Doom isnt a labor body. The simplest legal definition of good faith from Black's Law is

Honesty; a sincere intention to deal fairly with others.

Since we dont really know the Bronco's intention yet and since they traditionally have treated their players well, I'll give the FO a bit more time before I slander the basturds.

JDL could clear this up.

BigBroncLove
06-21-2010, 09:01 PM
You're correct. Temp's definition of good faith doesn't apply here since Doom isnt a labor body. The simplest legal definition of good faith from Black's Law is

Honesty; a sincere intention to deal fairly with others.

Since we dont really know the Bronco's intention yet and since they traditionally have treated their players well, I'll give the FO a bit more time before I slander the basturds.

JDL could clear this up.

I personally prefer this definition by legal dictionary when applied in a broader set of circumstances.


honest intent to act without taking an unfair advantage over another person or to fulfill a promise to act, even when some legal technicality is not fulfilled. The term is applied to all kinds of transactions.

Tempus Fugit
06-21-2010, 09:02 PM
You have to understand, those are definition under the Labor relations act of 1935 (also known under its latin term, bona fide) for good faith negotiation when it is in regard to labor relations such as the collective bargaining agreement. In reference to negotiating in good faith for a contract between a player and organization the term can be used in a broader sense. I don't agree that negotiating in good faith is not forcing one side to react in a specific way, especially when the governing rules prohibit the player mroe then the negotiating party. However in this case negotiating in good faith is far more open to interpretation and can be used from excessively unreasonable offers by a single party to the actual conduct outlined in the labor relations act.

There is also a form of good faith negotiation in the Uniform Commercial Code, but that has to do with merchants buying goods in good faith at price. My underlying point is, there are mroe than one application of the term. The labor relations act and the terms defined in US law for good faith labor negotiation I feel personally can not be applied exclusively and prohibitively as far as the use of "good faith negotiation" to these negotiations between Doom and the Broncos. IMO one must allow a broader use of a rather vague term when using legal jargon to a process that utilizes it when it is undefined by that specific law.

1.) I'm an attorney. I understand what "good faith" is.

2.) The definitions I put forth are accurate and current.

3.) The UCC does not make the Denver actions a breach of "good faith".

4.) Your opinion about a broader use is simply incorrect, when talking about how the term is applied in our country with regard to clauses like the one at hand (tender). "Good faith" in contract negotiations is specific, albeit something that can be an object of contention. Simply holding a party to terms of a contract, even while 'threatening' to enforce the terms of said contract, is NOT a breach of good faith just because the other party won't like the terms involved.

5.) What you agree with is irrelevant to the subject. IMO, the Bill of Rights is being viewed in a horribly wrong manner by the United States Congress, President and Supreme Court. The writings of the founding fathers back me up on this with, essentially, a 100% match. That's irrelevant because, under modern ruling, I'm in the minority. The question here isn't what you (or Tned or Northman, etc...) FEEL to be good faith. The question is what is actually considered to be good faith.

From what we know, nothing the Broncos organization has done regarding the Dumervil contract has been a breach.

BigBroncLove
06-21-2010, 09:11 PM
1.) I'm an attorney. I understand full well what "good faith" is.

2.) The definitions I put forth are accurate and current.

3.) The UCC does not make the Denver actions a breach of "good faith".

4.) Your opinion about a broader use is simply incorrect, with regards to how the term is applied in our country. "Good faith" in contract negotiations is specific, albeit something that can be an object of contention. Simply holding a party to terms of a contract, even while 'threatening' to enforce the terms of said contract, is NOT a breach of good faith just because the other party won't like the terms involved.

5.) What you agree with is irrelevant to the subject. IMO, the Bill of Rights is being viewed in a horribly wrong manner by the United States Congress, President and Supreme Court. The writings of the founding fathers back me up on this with, essentially, a 100% match. That's irrelevant because, under modern ruling, I'm in the minority. The question here isn't what you (or Tned or Northman, etc...) FEEL to be good faith. The question is what is actually considered to be good faith.

From what we know, nothing the Broncos organization has done regarding the Dumervil contract has been a breach.

Heheheh, oh no! your an attorney! I just think its funny when people start throwing around titles to achieve a better stance in argumentative debate.

2) They are accurate, except that you cannot apply the term "good faith" in context of law when the law does not specifically apply to the situation under debate. I'd love to apply civil rights law to property law, but you just don't do it, because they don't mix. Hence you don't apply legal terms to debate not regarding legal matters.

3)The UCC reference was showing you, which I feel you have lacked to grasp, that there is not a singular definition for "good faith negotiations" even in legal matters. That under UCC the definition of "good faith negotiations" is extremely different then the Labor Relations Act. Case in point that your definition and its exclusive application is a flawed podium to be standing on.

4) If you had read my response in full you would know I agreed that simply using the governing rules that binds both the Broncos and Dumervil to the Broncos advantage was not a breach of what I feel can be considered the broader context of "good faith negotiations".

5)What matters here is the context in which you apply terms. Words have several meaning in english. Hence why you can use "further" in several fashions. This is no different. It may have emerged as a legal term but its application in the larger English codex of language is not exclusive and to debate so is rahter short sighted (and obviously like your bill of rights issues, in the minority).

Tempus Fugit
06-21-2010, 09:28 PM
Heheheh, oh no! your an attorney! I just think its funny when people start throwing around titles to achieve a better stance in argumentative debate.

Read the post of the person I was responding to and you should understand why I mentioned it:


You have to understand, those are definition under the Labor relations act of 1935 (also known under its latin term, bona fide) for good faith negotiation when it is in regard to labor relations such as the collective bargaining agreement. In reference to negotiating in good faith for a contract between a player and organization the term can be used in a broader sense.

(And, yes, I do know who that person was) ;)


2) (by the way, what happened to one, or do you only count that when your getting paid by the hour?) They are accurate, except that you cannot apply the term "good faith" in context of law when the law does not specifically apply to the situation under debate. I'd love to apply civil rights law to property law, but you just don't do it, because they don't mix. Hence you don't apply legal terms to debate not regarding legal matters.

Someone erroneously claiming that the definition doesn't apply does NOT mean that the definition doesn't apply.


3)The UCC reference was showing you, which I feel you have lacked to grasp, that there is not a singular definition for "good faith negotiations" even in legal matters. That under UCC the definition of "good faith negotiations" is extremely different then the Labor Relations Act. Case in point that your definition and its exclusive application is a flawed podium to be standing on.

Since the issue in question is not a sale of goods and the governing law is of a different nature, the applicability of your UCC comment was nil. Or, to put it another way,


(b) "Good faith" in the case of a merchant means honesty in fact and the observance of reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing in the trade.

Is all well and good, but this is not a television purchase.



4) If you had read my response in full you would know I agreed that simply using the governing rules that binds both the Broncos and Dumervil to the Broncos advantage was not a breach of what I feel can be considered the broader context of "good faith negotiations".

I did read your response in full. That's how I was able to respond to the sections specifically. My point regarding your response follow up to the sentence you're citing, which was:


However in this case negotiating in good faith is far more open to interpretation and can be used from excessively unreasonable offers by a single party to the actual conduct outlined in the labor relations act.

That's simply an incorrect read on the situation at hand.



5)What matters here is the context in which you apply terms. Words have several meaning in english. Hence why you can use "further" in several fashions. This is no different. It may have emerged as a legal term but its application in the larger English codex of language is not exclusive and to debate so is rahter short sighted (and obviously like your bill of rights issues, in the minority).

Yes, words have meaning. Tned is misusing a term. That's my whole point. And, yes, when discussing "Good faith" in contractual terms, you ARE being exclusive, just as you are being exclusive when discussing "presumption of innocence" in a criminal trial or when using other field related phraseology within that specific field (upside down as a mortgage term, etc...).

BigBroncLove
06-21-2010, 09:40 PM
Read the post of the person I was responding to and you should understand why I mentioned it.



(And, yes, I do know who that person was) ;)



Someone erroneously claiming that the definition doesn't apply does NOT mean that the definition doesn't apply.





Since the issue in question is not a sale of goods, the applicability of your UCC comment was nil.

No its not when using this as an example that your exclusive definition of "good faith negotiations" does not exist, whilst separate arguments I feel have been fully capable of explaining why using that definition is erroneous and misleading.




I did read your response in full. That's how I was able to respond to the sections specifically. My point regarding your response follow up to the sentence you're citing, which was:

That's simply an incorrect read on the situation at hand.

This is not a matter of symantics but a matter of opinion. Your of which I feel is incorrect fully and completely. Also this was the line I was referring to and again, it was missed.


I don't agree that negotiating in good faith is not forcing one side to react in a specific way, especially when the governing rules prohibit the player mroe then the negotiating party.

Funny that it preceded the line you referenced.


Yes, words have meaning. Tned is misusing a term. That's my whole point. And, yes, when discussing "Good faith" in contractual terms, you ARE being exclusive, just as you are being exclusive when discussing "presumption of innocence" in a criminal trial or when using other field related phraseology within that specific field (upside down as a mortgage term, etc...).

Again, this is not a labor union and an employer. This is an individual entity negotiating with an organization. Labor law no more applies here then it does to lease negotiations in real estate law or contractors contracts with clients. I believe your argument is inherently flawed and I also feel you side stepped many of my points in my previous point. Needless to say this is ground we've already covered before and I do not feel, unless your going to start paying me by the hour, that further debate will lead to either party changing their mind, nor will it result in anything tangible but frustration. Agree to disagree but I feel my point has been well made and of course I think its right.

EDIT: Also this


Good faith is an abstract and comprehensive term that encompasses a sincere belief or motive without any malice or the desire to defraud others. It derives from the translation of the Latin term bona fide, and courts use the two terms interchangeably.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Good+faith+negotiation

Tempus Fugit
06-21-2010, 09:58 PM
No its not when using this as an example that your exclusive definition of "good faith negotiations" does not exist, whilst separate arguments I feel have been fully capable of explaining why using that definition is erroneous and misleading.

So, when using it as an example of something that's inapplicable, you feel it's applicable. That's an interesting take.


This is not a matter of symantics but a matter of opinion. Your of which I feel is incorrect fully and completely. Also this was the line I was referring to and again, it was missed.

The opinion is based upon incorrect semantics. It is, therefore, inherently flawed, to say the least.


Funny that it preceded the line you referenced.

Not funny at all, really. I noted precisely what I was referring to, as a matter of fact.


Again, this is not a labor union and an employer. This is an individual entity negotiating with an organization. Labor law no more applies here then it does to lease negotiations in real estate law or contractors contracts with clients. I believe your argument is inherently flawed and I also feel you side stepped many of my points in my previous point. Needless to say this is ground we've already covered before and I do not feel, unless your going to start paying me by the hour, that further debate will lead to either party changing their mind, nor will it result in anything tangible but frustration. Agree to disagree but I feel my point has been well made and of course I think its right.


...Barry University law professor Marc Edelman said while bargaining is governed by labor laws not antitrust laws – if workers are represented by a union...

http://blogs.trb.com/sports/custom/business/blog/2010/05/us_supreme_court_ruling_agains.html


The NFL's statement said the Supreme Court's decision "has no bearing on collective bargaining, which is governed by labor law."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704113504575264341712061552.html


The court held that the Williamses' claims were predicated on Minnesota law, not the NFL’s CBA nor its testing policies. Therefore, no interpretation of the CBA was necessary, and state law would apply.

The court found that despite the policy of preference for federal labor policies trumping state laws, this was not intended “to displace any state law they found inconvenient…” saying, “...such a rule of law would delegate to unions and unionized employers the power to exempt themselves from whatever state labor standards they disfavored.”

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/NFL-has-few-options-in-Williams-case.html


The NFL noted that this decision has "no bearing on collective bargaining, which is governed by labor law." The NFLPA stated nearly the same, asserting that it hopes the decision will mark "a renewed effort by the NFL to bargain in good faith and avoid a lockout." Note that the NFLPA does not mention the antitrust decision

http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2010/05/28/jockstocks-supreme-courts-antitrust-decision/


Conversely, the NFLPA can now at least have the appearance of negotiating leverage with the possiblity of decertification, meaning that they would cease to be a union in order to pursue antitrust claims in court. As a union, the players are bound by labor laws, which have been very favorable to management.

http://www.ninersnation.com/2010/5/25/1485987/american-needle-v-nfl-and-the

dogfish
06-21-2010, 10:36 PM
That's irrelevant to my point. Under present circumstances, he's a RFA. Given that, he's being paid at the highest level. That's a solid contract under those circumstances.

Again, this stuff has happened throughout the league. The Patriots have Mankins who won't even sign. The Chargers have 2 players who wouldn't sign. Team after team used the RFA situation to lock players in for lesser salaries. Singling out the Broncos on this is ridiculous, because they've obviously not been the only team working the RFA tenders. Dumervil's no more worthy of a new deal than a Vincent Jackson, Logan Mankins, etc....


and detroit loses double digit games every year-- so it must be okay because other teams are doing it, right?

i think at this point we ALL understand the realities of the current labor situation. . . most of us also know that some guys are getting paid around the league-- brandon marshall, demeco ryans, patrick willis, etc. . . labor uncertainty is a stumbling block to new contracts, but it's far from completely prohibitive. . .

it makes me happy that san diego and new england are in conflict with some of their top players-- it DOESN'T however, make me want to emulate them in any way. . .

we have the right to make doom play under the RFA tener, no question-- that doesn't make it a "good" contract, though. . . and no amount of saying that it is will change that. . . players with comparable production are averaging in the range of ten million per year-- paying him three and then hiding behind labor unrest to pretend that's a good contract because it happens to be the highest RFA tender is pissing down his leg and telling him it's raining, and it's obvious that he's not dumb enough to buy it. . .


To repeat what I said since, judging by your response, you must have missed it.... Singling out the Broncos



is stupid.

A good contract under the circumstances is exactly what he's got. I didn't say the circumstances were good. I didn't say he should be happy with the contract. I didn't say he doesn't have a fair argument for asking for more. However, Denver isn't behaving in a manner that's any different from many other NFL teams.

do you enjoy fighting straw men?

i never once "singled out" the broncos-- in fact, i never even said they were cheap to begin with. . . i thought i made it clear in my first post that i'm well aware of the current labor situation. . .

and no, a good contract under the circumstances is most certainly NOT what he has right now. . . his status under restricted free agency is no different from his former teammate brandon marshall, who just got 47 million for five years with 12 million guaranteed. . . RFA or not, he's a 26-year-old all pro who is currently one of the most underpaid athletes in all of professional sports, and while the bump up to three million is a nice little increase, it's only a fraction of his market value-- and the real issue is security. . . he basically has none playing a year under the tender. . .

you're entirely correct that this year presents unusual circumstances and that all teams are faced with them. . . however, i think it's laughable to suggest that it's a GOOD contract, simply because he's not the only one twisting in the wind. . . i can't even begin to understand how you justify that statement. . .

saying that it's a good contract under the circumstances suggests to me that there must be a less pleasant alternative for him-- so what exactly is this contract "good" in comparison to?


also, i'd like to go back and call bullshit on one of your previous statements:


Dumervil's no more worthy of a new deal than a Vincent Jackson, Logan Mankins, etc....

FAIL

vincent jackson is almost as much of an assclown as marshall, aside from the fact that he's never been accused of hitting a woman. . . he has two DUIs and is a serious suspension risk-- he most certainly is NOT as worthy of a new deal as elvis, who is just as good if not better on the field, and a model citizen and teammate off it. . .

as for mankins-- bah, he's a guard. . . good one, but the value of a really good interior lineman pales in comparison to the value of a really good edge rusher-- one look at the comparative salaries for the best players at the respective positions makes that amply clear. . . besides which, mankins has refused to report, and has publicly bad-mouthed the organization and demanded a trade. . . his behavior stands in clear contrast to dumervil, who has handled the situation in the most professional manner imaginable, including showing up and practicing under an injury waiver. . .

TXBRONC
06-21-2010, 10:47 PM
no....wrong again....what i did say was that it might be in the best interest of both sides to wait a few weeks (since doom is now under contract) and get the rookies signed ,then deal with doom.
because if the broncos are ready to give doom a big payday,it would make sense not to let the rookies agents see him getting a huge deal while they are in negotiations.you see it might just get them all excited and drooling .giving them another bargaining chip.
so by waiting the broncos have shown they are'nt giving out HUGE paydays at the moment.making it more likely the agents at the table wont have dreams of 100 million dollar deals dancing in their heads.
which would then allow the team more flexability with doom's contract !
now do you see what i was saying ?:confused:

Again I understood, you said put Dumervil on back burner. You've said it twice do you not understand your own words? :confused:

What you've said about it being in the best interests of both parties please. :lol: Do you really buy into that? It's not his best interest, nor does it give the agents of these rookies a bargaining chip. You can't just pull thing out of thin expect to be believable. Dumervil is 4th year pro and most the rookies we have are on the offensive side of the ball. Only one of them Kilrew is OLB but he was a7h round pick. Do you really think his agent could use Dumervil getting a substantial raise as bargaining chip? :lol: Maybe in Shangri La but not in the real world.

Bosco
06-22-2010, 12:22 AM
Anyone just hear Dumervil on the Jim Rome show this morning?

I really wish I could link this interview-- http://www.1043thefan.com/channels/audioOnDemand/Story.aspx?ID=1243625


really sounded bad in terms of his contract situation to me... Only if that's what you were looking for. Dumervil gave a pretty standard interview with professional, coy responses, and both he and McD say they want him here for the long term.


Am losing a LOT of respect for this franchise fast. Until the team pays someone the "cheap" rap can't be argued. Our current front office has been on the job just over a year during one of the most uncertain times in NFL history. Perspective anyone?

Northman
06-22-2010, 01:05 AM
5)What matters here is the context in which you apply terms. Words have several meaning in english. Hence why you can use "further" in several fashions. This is no different. It may have emerged as a legal term but its application in the larger English codex of language is not exclusive and to debate so is rahter short sighted (and obviously like your bill of rights issues, in the minority).

Bingo. No one here has stated that the Broncos "breached" anything. Its common knowledge that the Broncos are "allowed" to force Doom to sign his tender. However, when i think of "good faith" i think of it in terms of "trust" which at this point is only coming from Doom in my opinion. When you start forcing someone's hand in any negotiation by throwing out threats you then send a poor message to the one your negotiating with. Just because your "allowed" to do something does not mean that you should. And in this case especially with a player who has done everything in his power to work with you and buy into what your doing.

dogfish
06-22-2010, 01:28 AM
Bingo. No one here has stated that the Broncos "breached" anything. Its common knowledge that the Broncos are "allowed" to force Doom to sign his tender. However, when i think of "good faith" i think of it in terms of "trust" which at this point is only coming from Doom in my opinion. When you start forcing someone's hand in any negotiation by throwing out threats you then send a poor message to the one your negotiating with. Just because your "allowed" to do something does not mean that you should. And in this case especially with a player who has done everything in his power to work with you and buy into what your doing.

or to paraphrase-- your wife or girlfriend can withhold sex to get what she wants, but it doesn't mean you have to like it. . .


:protest:

dogfish
06-22-2010, 01:47 AM
let's not forget that the team is also in negotiations with 2 first round picks ,a 2nd and several other players.
it may also be that they dont want to give the impression they are throwing around huge $$$ til they sign a couple more of the young guy's.


it's really not relevant. . . the rookie's wages are pretty much set within certain parameters, typically defined by the salary paid to the player taken in the same slot last year with an "inflationary" increase that also typically falls within a pre-determined range. . . there's some flexibility according to position and possibly one or two other factors, but always within limits that aren't exceptionally flexible. . . efforts to significantly bust this slotting system haven't been very successful over the years. . .

paying a young veteran coming off an all-pro season isn't going to give a rookie's agent any noticeable leverage in negotiations with the club. . . denver may or may not get a deal done with doom, but it's almost certainly unresolved to this point because they haven't agreed on money, not because the team harbors some notion that holding off on signing him is going to improve their bargaining position with thomas or tebow. . .

TXBRONC
06-22-2010, 08:48 AM
or to paraphrase-- your wife or girlfriend can withhold sex to get what she wants, but it doesn't mean you have to like it. . .


:protest:

:sad:

TXBRONC
06-22-2010, 08:53 AM
it's really not relevant. . . the rookie's wages are pretty much set within certain parameters, typically defined by the salary paid to the player taken in the same slot last year with an "inflationary" increase that also typically falls within a pre-determined range. . . there's some flexibility according to position and possibly one or two other factors, but always within limits that aren't exceptionally flexible. . . efforts to significantly bust this slotting system haven't been very successful over the years. . .

paying a young veteran coming off an all-pro season isn't going to give a rookie's agent any noticeable leverage in negotiations with the club. . . denver may or may not get a deal done with doom, but it's almost certainly unresolved to this point because they haven't agreed on money, not because the team harbors some notion that holding off on signing him is going to improve their bargaining position with thomas or tebow. . .

I fail to see how putting Dumervil's contract negotiations on the back burner is in his best interests. It might in Denver's best interest in the short term but I don't see how benefits Dumervil at all.

Lonestar
06-22-2010, 09:53 AM
No matter what there is still so much money to spend. Whether it be on the new DL, rookies or Doom.

As I just said in the J rome thread (wish all of these pissing matches could be combined so it does not ha e to be posted in every thread) while it is not a capped year you can bet your ass it will be next year if they play or at latest 2012.

The NFL would not survive as we know it today without parity.
Denver is still a small market city as compared to DAL, CHI, WAS and NYC. We could not compete with them if caps were not in place.

Pat has to be resposiblle to himself and his shareholders NOT to lose money.

And just because we were under last years cap does not mean we can spend the left overs and then some.
Mobile Post via Mobile.BroncosForums.com/forums

T.K.O.
06-22-2010, 10:05 AM
I fail to how putting Dumervil's contract negotiations on the back burner is in his best interests. It might in Denver's best interest in the short term but I don't see how benefits Dumervil at all.

ok just for fun....let's say pat bowlen tells xanders "I am only willing to spend $X in an uncapped pre-cba year".....dumervil and his agent want huge money,so the broncos try to get everyone else signed as reasonably as possible then see if they can still make doom happy with what is left.
or if there is enough left to possibly even meet his original demands.

because as Jr stated "No matter what there is still so much money to spend. Whether it be on the new DL, rookies or Doom. "

Denver Native (Carol)
06-22-2010, 10:11 AM
ok just for fun....let's say pat bowlen tells xanders "I am only willing to spend $X in an uncapped pre-cba year".....dumervil and his agent want huge money,so the broncos try to get everyone else signed as reasonably as possible then see if they can still make doom happy with what is left.
or if there is enough left to possibly even meet his original demands.

because as Jr stated "No matter what there is still so much money to spend. Whether it be on the new DL, rookies or Doom. "

Exactly - the "total picture" needs to be taken into consideration, and Dumervil is not the "total picture", rather, he is one of the pieces of the "total picture"

ydave77
06-22-2010, 10:12 AM
It seems like the loudest voices are getting the most play here, but not necessarily the mass opinion. Its either Doom should be signed no matter the cost, or the Doom is 1/10th of LB bc he doesn't play special teams, or punt.
I don't know if my thoughts fall on the pro-player, or pro-owner side of the fence.

I think Doom deserves to be paid as the disruptive force that he is, IE top 3 positional money. But I think Denver needs to protect itself in the likelihood of a lower salary cap, change in revenue sharing, possible lockout or other effects of what may be in the new CBA.
From what I have read the owners are looking for an 18% shrinkage in the money allocated to players. Doom needs to understand that if he plays this season without a new contract he runs the risk of an injury, a shrinking pool of money, and a possible lockout.

My compromise would be to take top 3 positional money, as a starting point. I would then try to discuss with the agent, what he thinks a fair concession is. Considering Broncs are under no obligation to redo contract this yr, and that Doom would then be accepting the risk of injury, the shrinking pool of money, and potentially having to wait a full 2 years for his payday (if lockout occurs), that peace of mind has to be worth some money to Doom.

Considering the owners want an 18% reduction, and the other factors involved, I think taking that top 3 contract, and cutting it by 10%, would be fair.

T.K.O.
06-22-2010, 10:17 AM
6 years at 7-8 mil per with 24 mil guaranteed....done and done:salute:

Northman
06-22-2010, 10:31 AM
Exactly - the "total picture" needs to be taken into consideration, and Dumervil is not the "total picture", rather, he is one of the pieces of the "total picture"

A very important piece.

TXBRONC
06-22-2010, 11:32 AM
ok just for fun....let's say pat bowlen tells xanders "I am only willing to spend $X in an uncapped pre-cba year".....dumervil and his agent want huge money,so the broncos try to get everyone else signed as reasonably as possible then see if they can still make doom happy with what is left.
or if there is enough left to possibly even meet his original demands.

because as Jr stated "No matter what there is still so much money to spend. Whether it be on the new DL, rookies or Doom. "

First that's ass backwards. Take care of veteran who you know has produced for you then everything else should fall into place. (NB: I'm not suggesting breaking the bank.) You don't have put the freakin rookies first. What you suggesting is one sided and in no way is in Dumervil's best interests.

Second it's ALREADY been point out to you that there is already general range in place for rookies will be paid based on where they were taken in the draft.

T.K.O.
06-22-2010, 11:55 AM
First that's ass backwards. Take care of veteran who you know has produced for you then everything else should fall into place. (NB: I'm not suggesting breaking the bank.) You don't have put the freakin rookies first. What you suggesting is one sided and in no way is in Dumervil's best interests.

Second it's ALREADY been point out to you that there is already general range in place for rookies will be paid based on where they were taken in the draft.

do you honestly believe the FO has'nt tried to get a deal done ?
what i am saying is now that doom has signed his tender there is breathing room and time to take care of players who are not going for a mega deal.
and it might be smart to tend to those quickly and then deal with doom.
both sides have stated they are still in negotiations.it's not like the broncos have said we will use doom for 2010 at his tender and then let him walk.

TXBRONC
06-22-2010, 12:16 PM
do you honestly believe the FO has'nt tried to get a deal done ?
what i am saying is now that doom has signed his tender there is breathing room and time to take care of players who are not going for a mega deal.
and it might be smart to tend to those quickly and then deal with doom.
both sides have stated they are still in negotiations.it's not like the broncos have said we will use doom for 2010 at his tender and then let him walk.

Where did I say that the front offices isn't trying to get a deal done? :confused:

You've made some bad assumptions imo and I've called you on it.

Yeah called breathing room for the team not for Dumervil. :coffee:

T.K.O.
06-22-2010, 12:28 PM
Where did I say that the front offices isn't trying to get a deal done? :confused:

You've made some bad assumptions imo and I've called you on it.

Yeah called breathing room for the team not for Dumervil. :coffee:

1) it's implied

2)your assumptions are no more valid than mine (especially your assumptions about my assumptions)

3) last i checked they are not "the denver dumervil's" so doing what is smart for the team is not necessarily a bad thing.

Shazam!
06-22-2010, 12:51 PM
The OP, who rarely has anything good to say about the Broncos or McDaniels, has essentially made a duplicate thread.

http://www.broncosforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=151643

And interestingly, when the article was from a Dumervil thread, the OP statement on the fascinating website was somehow construed on how the Broncos are cheap and not related to one player, which was Elvis Dumervil.

What a load of bullshit.


Kiszla: Broncos trying to sack Dumervil at negotiating table
By Mark Kiszla
The Denver Post

The good people of Colorado built Broncos owner Pat Bowlen a football stadium so the local NFL team would be a Super Bowl contender forever.

But, like pass-rusher Elvis Dumervil, the rest of us are slowly discovering that loyalty in the NFL is often a one-way street.

Could it be after all these years of acting the good neighbor, Bowlen and his franchise are now more interested in making money than winning a championship?

Maybe Josh McDaniels was hired as coach in Denver to hold down costs, especially with labor strife looming for the NFL just around a dark bend in the road ahead.

Dumervil gave his team a league- leading 17 sacks last season.

In return, the Broncos have given Dr. Doom the least amount of appreciation possible, leaving the four-year veteran little choice except to sign a $3.168 million tender to give his 110 percent on the field.

http://www.denverpost.com/broncos/ci_15335926

Denver Native (Carol)
06-22-2010, 12:59 PM
I found the following on Elvis agent, Gary Wichard, who, as the article states, is the leader behind Pro Tect Management, whom represent some "quality" NFL players. Therefore, I can't imagine that Wichard's full concentration has been exclusively on Elvis' contract only - keeping his butt in Denver, negotiating for Elvis 24/7. Some of the delay may be how he is communicating with the Broncos, and how often he is communicating. The agent may have quite a bit on his agenda right now.

http://www.sportsagentblog.com/2010/01/11/gary-wichard-is-on-freaking-fire/

When you hear the term “football agent”, you most likely conjure up images of Drew Rosenhaus, Tom Condon, or Leigh Steinberg. Why not Gary Wichard? Wichard is the man behind Pro Tect Management, a company that may not be heard about much in the media, but already has a very impressive client list. I’m also impressed with Wichard’s choice of a URL for his company: “nothinbutfreaks.com”.

Wichard and Pro Tect Management represent Jason Taylor, Dwight Freeney, Terrell Suggs, Keith Bulluck, Antonio Cromartie, Elvis Dumervil, Darren Sproles…okay, I’ll stop now before I take up the entire post with their fantastic list of clients. Wichard keeps these guys because he signs them to record deals. It also helps him on the recruiting trail, which he is dominating so far in 2010.

At this point, it is reported that Pro Tect Management has signed Arrelious Benn (Illlinois), Jimmy Clausen (Notre Dame), Everson Griffen (USC), Taylor Mays (USC), and C.J. Spiller (Clemson). All of them have a chance of being first round picks in the 2010 NFL Draft. Is CAA watching?

AND

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/article/138611

Brian Bosworth Files Suit Against NFL Agent Gary Wichard

TXBRONC
06-22-2010, 01:56 PM
1) it's implied

2)your assumptions are no more valid than mine (especially your assumptions about my assumptions)

3) last i checked they are not "the denver dumervil's" so doing what is smart for the team is not necessarily a bad thing.

1.) Ah no it's not implied, it's a errorneous assumption on your part.

2.) I'm not making an assumption it's common sense.

3.) I'm glad you've reassured yourself that it's not the Denver Dumervils I would hate for go around wonder about that.

Northman
06-22-2010, 03:02 PM
it's not like the broncos have said we will use doom for 2010 at his tender and then let him walk.

Might want to go back and listen to those radio snippets than chief. Doom says the negotiations "arent" happening and stated he's not sure if he will be here next year. McDaniels said the same thing. The only thing both said was that they HOPE to get a deal done but nothing is happening right now.

T.K.O.
06-22-2010, 03:56 PM
Might want to go back and listen to those radio snippets than chief. Doom says the negotiations "arent" happening and stated he's not sure if he will be here next year. McDaniels said the same thing. The only thing both said was that they HOPE to get a deal done but nothing is happening right now.

not that negotiations are'nt ongoing....just that that nothing seems to be getting done....big difference,
you can cherry pick qoutes but the fact is that the broncos FO has said repeatedly that they are trying to work out a deal.
does that mean it will happen this week ? probably not but the sides are still talking...so something is getting done....good or bad ...right or wrong

Bosco
06-22-2010, 04:22 PM
Might want to go back and listen to those radio snippets than chief. Doom says the negotiations "arent" happening

That's not what he said. He said that he "hasn't heard anything" and that he doesn't feel there is progress being made.

Northman
06-22-2010, 06:07 PM
That's not what he said. He said that he "hasn't heard anything" and that he doesn't feel there is progress being made.

Thats pretty much what i meant i just didnt word it correctly. Either way it still sounds like they are at a standstill.