Bengals bungling things up - new rookie contract clause

[Rocky Landing]

I feel bad for this guy!

[Ridgewaycynic2013]

4 hours ago, billsfan89 said:

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

Brown strikes me as the sort who would deduct uniform laundering services from their weekly paycheques. 🤨

[Buffalo716]

2 minutes ago, Ridgewaycynic2013 said:

Brown strikes me as the sort who would deduct uniform laundering services from their weekly paycheques. 🤨

Players get there meal plan taken right out of the check to pay for electricity

[DrDawkinstein]

3 hours ago, Buffalo716 said:

Some players have clauses in their contract 

 

It's not so they can terminate his contract if he's the wrong player... It's so  they can terminate his guarantees if he tears his ACL playing basketball in the off-season

 

The bills did not give Hines all his guaranteed money when he got into that Ski-Doo accident... He lost money

 

Apparently not rookie contracts and not this type of clause. Super shady for the Bengals to try to slide this in like this and not as part of the CBA. Especially if Stewart has no trouble in his past.

[billsfan89]

8 hours ago, ddaryl said:

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

 

Wouldn't draft picks be exactly what you need? Cheap cost controlled talent? This is your first round pick too, your best asset in the draft a player that if you do need some pass rush help might be able to make a big difference or at least provide something positive for a desperate defense and develop into a key player? Why spend the 17th overall pick on a player to just not invest in them? 

[Richard Noggin]

8 hours ago, JP51 said:

Cause they are trend setting, edge cutting innovators!  LOL 

 

"Disruptors" ... lol of their own organizational cohesion

 

7 hours ago, Virgil said:

 

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 🤷‍♂️

 

Legal judgments are not always germane to League judgments, however. "Letting the legal process play out" is mostly about PR. Teams and the league can punish players independent of any criminal or civil consequences. For better and for worse, I suppose. 

 

[stuvian]

this always backfires

[Thurman#1]

9 hours ago, BillsShredder83 said:

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.

 

 

Even in this case, if I'm a player and everyone else in the league doesn't have to deal with that clause, but I'm expected to, I'm not signing.

 

It doesn't happen often, but people are convicted unfairly. 

 

I wouldn't, as a player, ask for more surety than most get, but I also wouldn't accept less.

 

 

7 hours ago, julian said:

It’s a great idea for teams, not so much for players, hence the issue

 

 

Yup, this.

 

And agreements need both sides to come together.

[The Wiz]

 

[Gigs]

We laugh, but Ralph was Brown's closest ally, and operated just as cheaply

[Tuco]

8 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Even in this case, if I'm a player and everyone else in the league doesn't have to deal with that clause, but I'm expected to, I'm not signing.

 

It doesn't happen often, but people are convicted unfairly. 

 

I wouldn't, as a player, ask for more surety than most get, but I also wouldn't accept less.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The article and the way it's presented are misleading. There are players all over the league who have to deal with this clause. The majority of teams include it as a blanket policy in all their contracts - all of them. It seems Stewart's issue (or his agent's) is that the language wasn't included in the other Bengals first round picks.

 

Whether that's a sound argument or not, I don't really know and it's not for me to decide. I certainly have no love for the Bengals or their management. But people shouldn't get the idea this is the Bengals trying to institute a policy on a player that's never been done before. It happens all the time. Many current players have such a clause.

 

Comments saying the Bengals are trying to set a precedent (and there are many, in news articles across the board) don't mean a league-wide precedent. It's just a team-wide thing they have apparently never done before. Lots of teams have done it for years.

 

One example from last year; Detroit's Jameson Williams' original 4-year contract, like many first-rounders, was fully guaranteed. He's still on the team, but due to his suspension in 2022, his contract and his option bonuses from 2023-2025 are no longer guaranteed.

Edited 21 hours ago by Tuco

[The Firebaugh Kid]

This is just a symptom of them overpaying all of their offensive players. Terrible salary cap mismanagement.

[DrDawkinstein]

18 hours ago, Virgil said:

 

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 🤷‍♂️

 

Almost no players are being suspended or fined before their trial plays out. As a matter of fact, I'd be willing to say none are. The league usually takes heat for the opposite; letting guys play after charges are pressed. 

 

Araiza is one of the only few examples because his situation occurred before he was an NFL player and therefore wasnt under league protection/process of being able to put him on any reserved list.

[The Jokeman]

Mike Brown is cheaper than Ralph Wilson!!!

[17islongenough]

 

 

 

[Roundybout]

5 minutes ago, 17islongenough said:

 

 

 

Is it possible for a new team to swoop in and sign him? 

[K D]

7 minutes ago, Roundybout said:

Is it possible for a new team to swoop in and sign him? 

No he would have to sit out the year and make himself eligible for next year's draft 

[Big Turk]

This seems to be a common theme with these idiotic teams like them and the Jets lately...

 

I mean are they really THAT worried about offset language?? It's ridiculous...these contracts are basically plug and play under the new CBA and these dysfunctional teams still figure out a way to screw it up.

[ChronicAndKnuckles]

22 hours ago, The Wiz said:

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.

 

 

Kind of defeats the purpose of the whole “guaranteed” thing. 

[Dablitzkrieg]

I wonder if the NFL PA has any recourse.  It seems too aggressive imo