Bengals bungling things up - new rookie contract clause

[The Wiz]

I can't believe how much this team is mismanaging some of their players but just saw this and I can't imagine anyone would want to sign that contract.

 

Basically, if he defaults on his contract in any year, he voids all remaining guaranteed money for the remainder of the contract.

 

 

[JP51]

LOL... Bengals gonna Bengal.... 

[Senth]

Hopefully the bungling continues far into the future.

[Fleezoid]

Bengals: "You have XX dollars guaranteed.

Stewart: "Great"

Bengals: "Unless you default"

Stewart: "So it's not guaranteed?"

Bengals: "No, no. It's guaranteed"

Stewart: "So I'll definitely get paid that money regardless?"

Bengals: "Not necessarily"

Stewart: "So you can't guarantee I'll get paid?"

Bengals: "Right"

Stewart: "So it's not guaranteed"

Bengals: "No, the money is guaranteed"

[Loud gunshot. body hits the floor]

 

 

Edited yesterday at 04:45 PM by Fleezoid

[17islongenough]

Any reason the Bills haven't signed three of their guys yet?  

[DrDawkinstein]

 

[nuklz2594]

Bungles being the Bungles

[SDS]

If the default thing is non-injury or team decision related, I don’t see the big deal. If he beats up his girlfriend and the Bengles cut him, that seems like fair game.

[billsfan89]

9 minutes ago, SDS said:

If the default thing is non-injury or team decision related, I don’t see the big deal. If he beats up his girlfriend and the Bengles cut him, that seems like fair game.

If other teams don’t do this then why are the Bengals hell bent on it? 

[ddaryl]

1 minute ago, billsfan89 said:

If other teams don’t do this then why are the Bengals hell bent on it? 

Cause they just blew close to 60% of their salary cap on 4 players. 

[SDS]

3 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

If other teams don’t do this then why are the Bengals hell bent on it? 

Someone has to be first.
 

I’m not saying I follow this closely, but when teams have been affected by intolerable player behavior and players were cut, teams have sued to get a portion of their guaranteed money back. Without knowing more than what’s in this thread, maybe they’re just trying to codify this upfront. If that’s the case then I am all for it.

 

I don’t know what the meaning of default is in this scenario. If I knew that, it would clear things up.

[The Wiz]

9 minutes ago, SDS said:

Someone has to be first.
 

I’m not saying I follow this closely, but when teams have been affected by intolerable player behavior and players were cut, teams have sued to get a portion of their guaranteed money back. Without knowing more than what’s in this thread, maybe they’re just trying to codify this upfront. If that’s the case then I am all for it.

 

I don’t know what the meaning of default is in this scenario. If I knew that, it would clear things up.

I feel like that's why his agent told him not to sign.  They probably didn't even clarify what they mean by "default" so they could potentially pick any reason to say that he defaulted on his contract.  It just sounds like something the Bengals would do.

[JP51]

37 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

If other teams don’t do this then why are the Bengals hell bent on it? 

Cause they are trend setting, edge cutting innovators!  LOL 

[Royale with Cheese]

If the Bengals ever do win a Super Bowl, the players better be okay with paying for their own rings.

[BuffaloBillyG]

2 hours ago, Fleezoid said:

Bengals: "You have XX dollars guaranteed.

Stewart: "Great"

Bengals: "Unless you default"

Stewart: "So it's not guaranteed?"

Bengals: "No, no. It's guaranteed"

Stewart: "So I'll definitely get paid that money regardless?"

Bengals: "Not necessarily"

Stewart: "So you can't guarantee I'll get paid?"

Bengals: "Right"

Stewart: "So it's not guaranteed"

Bengals: "No, the money is guaranteed"

[Loud gunshot. body hits the floor]

 

 

I'm no expert, but shooting someone may void his guarantee...

[Kornfed]

Man, I don’t like the Bengals at all but it’s too bad for Joe B. to be in such a cluster. He’s got some serious high level ability 

[Virgil]

44 minutes ago, SDS said:

Someone has to be first.
 

I’m not saying I follow this closely, but when teams have been affected by intolerable player behavior and players were cut, teams have sued to get a portion of their guaranteed money back. Without knowing more than what’s in this thread, maybe they’re just trying to codify this upfront. If that’s the case then I am all for it.

 

I don’t know what the meaning of default is in this scenario. If I knew that, it would clear things up.

 

What if the person is charged, but not found guilty?  That's been my issue with some of these suspensions and cuts, players getting accused and found innocent or unsubstantiated, but they still lose their NFL jobs.  Matt Araiza comes to mind.  He lost good money for being falsely accused.  

 

I wouldn't sign it unless it said convicted, but 🤷‍♂️

[BillsShredder83]

1 hour ago, SDS said:

Someone has to be first.
 

I’m not saying I follow this closely, but when teams have been affected by intolerable player behavior and players were cut, teams have sued to get a portion of their guaranteed money back. Without knowing more than what’s in this thread, maybe they’re just trying to codify this upfront. If that’s the case then I am all for it.

 

I don’t know what the meaning of default is in this scenario. If I knew that, it would clear things up.

If this is true, crazy to draft a guy this high IF thats such a major concern.  Basically you took a dude you have zero trust in.  Its like a last minute, day of wedding, pre-nup.

 

I guess the story isnt very clear until we find out what "default" means.  I'd guess the term 'default' is intentionally vague, not defined well... to try and give them leeway to get out for any reason they want to.  If its a "dirtball" clause, and defined clearly ---i.e. "sexual assault conviction (certainly not 'accusation'), weapons charge, violence charge", sure Stewart should generally have no problem signing it.

 

If it explicitly says the Bengals can get out of it for an injury, I think that would already be out there for us to know.  Stewart would want to clear his name and prevent any 'tough guy to deal with' labels, PR battle.

 

My final educated guess is broad/vague verbiage AND an attempt to be sneaky about it!  They really are doing their best to go back to the cellar with the #3 QB in the league

 

Edited yesterday at 06:55 PM by BillsShredder83

[BillsShredder83]

19 minutes ago, Virgil said:

I wouldn't sign it unless it said convicted, but 🤷‍♂️

Me neither.  Im not a victim blamer, but these guys are at a higher risk of a false accusation, even the guys who are careful.  There are women who weaponize this kinda thing (see Trevor Bauer, Araiza).  A woman who wanted to do that to you, would have major leverage knowing about that clause  to try and bully a dude into settling out of court an a baseless & consensual encounter.

 

Wouldnt matter if i was the 2nd coming of Reggie White, Im not signing anything that says 'accusation or charge'.  Its a dark thought, but a realistic one. Its painting a bullseye on your back.  There are sufficient amounts of dirtballs in the NBA, but theres also a circle of hot females that target impregnations in the NBA as a paycheck.  Itd be ignorant to pretend there arent women out there that would/have targeted this kinda thing before.  Hell the Duke lacrosse lady did this, trying to get blood from a stone, those guys didnt even have sports money... was only going after mom & dad money.

Edited yesterday at 06:57 PM by BillsShredder83

[Billl]

Defaulting would likely be something along the lines of holding out in order to get an extension after year 3.