NFLPA Considers Grievance Over Rookie Deals

kidhawk

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 7, 2009
Messages
22,952
Reaction score
2,774
Location
Anchorage, AK
NFLPA executive director for external affairs George Atallah said the union has flagged 163 contracts signed by 2017 draft picks and undrafted free agents that include addendums with requirements the union believes are expressly prohibited by the CBA. Those clauses, according to Atallah, include requirements such as a player having to pass a physical after the completion of the contract to receive his entire signing bonus. Teams have also included language that would allow the club to deduct money a player owes the franchise for expenses such as tickets.

Clauses such as these have been included in contracts in recent years, but Atallah said there has been an increase in their usage this year.

[urltargetblank]http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000813799/article/nflpa-considering-filing-a-grievance-over-rookie-contract-terms[/urltargetblank]
 

sdog1981

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
3,367
Reaction score
240
Why is the NFLPA allowing agents to represent their clients that don't fight these issues? The NFLPA should have sued the league every time one of these contracts were offered. It is shocking how weak the NFLPA is.
 

mikeak

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 24, 2012
Messages
8,202
Reaction score
25
Location
Anchorage, AK
The agent has an inherent interest in the guy signing as quickly as possible, getting to the team doctor and getting all that money committed. Then if the player gets drunk and hurts himself, plays paintball and hurts himself or does any other activity not prohibited by contract the money is secure

So the agent decides to not give a crap if there is some clause there that lowers the money his client gets with $5,000 for airline tickets etc because he secures his percent and can move on.

Furthermore I am guessing that just like real estate the percent to the agent is calculated before most of those subtractions so they don't lower the amounts the agents get. Try finding a real estate agent that agrees to money towards purchase cost reducing their 3% take and you have the exact same thinking going on -- "hey how about you offer more money but then ask for it back towards your loan costs" SO I GET MY 3% on that money as well
 

sdog1981

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
3,367
Reaction score
240
mikeak":2881mgc8 said:
The agent has an inherent interest in the guy signing as quickly as possible, getting to the team doctor and getting all that money committed. Then if the player gets drunk and hurts himself, plays paintball and hurts himself or does any other activity not prohibited by contract the money is secure

So the agent decides to not give a crap if there is some clause there that lowers the money his client gets with $5,000 for airline tickets etc because he secures his percent and can move on.

Furthermore I am guessing that just like real estate the percent to the agent is calculated before most of those subtractions so they don't lower the amounts the agents get. Try finding a real estate agent that agrees to money towards purchase cost reducing their 3% take and you have the exact same thinking going on -- "hey how about you offer more money but then ask for it back towards your loan costs" SO I GET MY 3% on that money as well


The NFLPA should be stepping in when agents at like this. In fact, the NFLPA decides who can and can not represent players. So this falls back on them for allowing such nonsense take place.

Here is the link to get certified to be an NFLPA agent

https://www.nflpa.com/agents/how-to-become-an-agent
 

mikeak

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 24, 2012
Messages
8,202
Reaction score
25
Location
Anchorage, AK
sdog1981":r90bq245 said:
mikeak":r90bq245 said:
The agent has an inherent interest in the guy signing as quickly as possible, getting to the team doctor and getting all that money committed. Then if the player gets drunk and hurts himself, plays paintball and hurts himself or does any other activity not prohibited by contract the money is secure

So the agent decides to not give a crap if there is some clause there that lowers the money his client gets with $5,000 for airline tickets etc because he secures his percent and can move on.

Furthermore I am guessing that just like real estate the percent to the agent is calculated before most of those subtractions so they don't lower the amounts the agents get. Try finding a real estate agent that agrees to money towards purchase cost reducing their 3% take and you have the exact same thinking going on -- "hey how about you offer more money but then ask for it back towards your loan costs" SO I GET MY 3% on that money as well


The NFLPA should be stepping in when agents at like this. In fact, the NFLPA decides who can and can not represent players. So this falls back on them for allowing such nonsense take place.

Here is the link to get certified to be an NFLPA agent

https://www.nflpa.com/agents/how-to-become-an-agent

I am confused - aren't they stepping in now? So how is this on them when they are protesting it?

The issue is that it invalidates the contracts if they win. So if a guy last year had a $10 million contract and didn't want the union to argue about the $5,000 in airline tickets maybe they just told the agent to cut it out and left the contract alone. Then the issue got worse so now they are doing a full on lets cut this crap out.

It is on the agents AND teams for not following the rules. It is not on the union since they are the ones complaining now
 

RolandDeschain

Well-known member
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
33,117
Reaction score
948
Location
Kissimmee, FL
Psh. Tell the NFLPA we'll go back to the old pay scale, but rookies that don't perform commensurate with veterans at their position around the league have to refund their money.

8)
 

UK_Seahawk

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 24, 2013
Messages
4,469
Reaction score
513
Which of these is the closest scenario?

The NFLPA are moaning about a less than watertight arrangement they help set up or they have a genuine grievance with front offices deliberately overstepping the clauses agreed in the CBA?
 

sdog1981

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
3,367
Reaction score
240
I see both parties are wrong in this situation.


The teams are in the wrong because they knowingly took advantage of players not knowing all their rights.

The NFLPA is the wrong because it did not do a good enough job policing their own agents settling for these types of deals.
 
Top