Arrington Interview
 

[url]http://www.foxsports.com/content/view?contentId=2244884[/url]


:banghead:

I'm a Christian man and I can't have three sixes in my contract.

Come on, jesus. This is absolutly crazy.

The bad news is something we've known all along: the Redskins as a business under Dan Snyder are snakes in the grass.

The good news is this: Arrington loves the Redskins as a football team, loves the fans and loves Washington, D.C. He's looking forward to playing for this coaching staff, and the controversy caused by the contract gaffe will not affect his relationship with them.

Yes, it sucks that the Redskins can't maintain a forthright and honorable approach when dealing with one of their most loyal and devoted players. But at least Arrington is maintaining a balanced and circumspect view of the whole thing. He is able to seperate the business side of the Redskins from the football side of the Redskins.

I'm a little puzzled by the rationale of the whole "devil's contract" assertion, but it does sound like something about the deal wasn't kosher. Let's hope the Redskins make this right, and change their way of doing business before it destroys their relationship and credibility with their current and prospective players.

I'd at least like to see both sides of this story brought into the full light of day, but I have little confidence that will ever happen.

Is he serious?? I don't even know what to make of this article, and this whole situation.

My question is this, why would the Skins give him a $6.5M bonus that would have brought his cap number to a totally unmanageable figure??

The whole thing makes no sense from LA's perspective.

yeah, i mean w/the SECOND bonus of $6.5 million, which is the one being disputed, his cap hit in 2 or 3 years would be $18 million or something like that so thats a bit hard to believe the skins would agree to a number like that just because it would have equaled 666. they probably just would have changed the original roster bonus and added another $100,000 or so and that would have done the job but nowhere near $6.5 million just to make sure the contract wasn't 66.6. wouldn't that make more sense if this was really the problem with the contract?

I'm convinced that LaVar is just a little off.

If!
 

If LVarr admits his mistake, why is there an arbitration hearing? He made a mistake. His agent made a mistake. The Redskins should win this, not LVarr!

plus, did I really see him speaking in the 3rd person in this interview?

I never saw LaVar as a zealous Christain or insane before.

I'm speechless.

First time for everything, Cpayne! woo zing!

The only thing I like that he said is that it wont effect his play or relationship with the coaches. I mean, he is freakin insane if he thinks he has a case. I mean if he got screwed over, it happens to everyone, but he signed it, so theres nothing he can do about it. I'm sure that 6.5 million isnt gonna stop him from feeding his kids or whatever, the guy still has a boatload of money

Unreal. It really makes you wonder...

Why didn't the interviewer ask about the fact that the contract would be unacceptable to the skins with the added 6.5 in 2006? How does LA explain that? And why didn't his agent notice that it was missing if they had just negotiated about THAT VERY POINT? What, he didn't check to see if the new bonus that was at issue in the phone call was included? What was he looking for?

It sounds to me like Poston is so far up Lavar's ass that LA has no idea what's going on. Maybe LA didn't want a contract with three sixes, but do you really think that this was an issue for Poston? Wha?

Lavar, just because your agent says he a Christian doesn't mean he not the: :FIREdevil

I know LA is weird and can seem really off but more importantly...

I LOVE how DS always goes out and spends the money for FAs instead of keeping the profits, but I am sick of always being involved in rumors of dirty dealing. Winnning is not that cool when nobody respects the organization.

[QUOTE=arrington] Winnning is not that cool when nobody respects the organization.[/QUOTE]


Your right, winning is even cooler. Who really gives a rats ass what everyone else thinks. In my opinion, it will make it all the more sweeter if everyone hates the hell out of us. This "dirty dealing" is nonsense becasue, a) EVERY team tampers, so when we do it who cares. b) That whole Milloy nonsense was thrown out, the Chad Morton thing last year wasent on us either. LA shouldnt have signed the contract if it was messed up, its not the Skins' fault

Could you imagine if one of us signed a contract, and then weeks later realized we hadn't read it correctly, and then went to the other party and said, "hey, I didn't realize what I signed. Could I have a do-over?" We'd be laughed at.

And then Lavar gripes that Snyder "isn't a man" because he doesn't give LA whatever he wants. Sounds to me like LA is the one who needs to act more like a man. Face up to your error, eat some humble pie, and maybe the most generous organization in the league will try to work with you. Going to an arbitrator and then whining in public about Snyder, Manhood, and the Devil is ridiculous.

And if your agent, who's job it is to make sure your contract is in order, let this happen, he isn't doing his job. Standing by an incompetent is not loyalty, it's stupidity. :rant:

OK, I'm done.

This has not been the best offseason for Agents. Everyone should just have Drew Rosenhaus, hes the only one who seems to ever have his sh*t together. If he can get a guy with one leg ( McGahee ) drafed at #23, hes pretty damn good.

I really like LaVar as a player ... with Darrell Green gone, LaVar is kind of the public face of the Redskins ... but no one player is bigger than the team. If he's unhappy and it becomes a problem, we could always trade him, like we did Champ, and the Redskins would still be the Redskins. We all know the team would never agree to the figure he's claiming should have been in his contract. As a businessman, LaVar should have known what was in the contract he was signing. The whole thing smells fishy. Could it be that his agents misled him in some way?

[QUOTE=JWsleep]Could you imagine if one of us signed a contract, and then weeks later realized we hadn't read it correctly, and then went to the other party and said, "hey, I didn't realize what I signed. Could I have a do-over?" We'd be laughed at.

And then Lavar gripes that Snyder "isn't a man" because he doesn't give LA whatever he wants. Sounds to me like LA is the one who needs to act more like a man. Face up to your error, eat some humble pie, and maybe the most generous organization in the league will try to work with you. Going to an arbitrator and then whining in public about Snyder, Manhood, and the Devil is ridiculous.

And if your agent, who's job it is to make sure your contract is in order, let this happen, he isn't doing his job. Standing by an incompetent is not loyalty, it's stupidity. :rant:

OK, I'm done.[/QUOTE]
All excellent points, Sleepy. I also agree with the points others have made about the absurdity of the whole thing. The more I think about it, the more it looks like Arrington and Poston screwed the pooch on this one. For one, what the hell was Arrington doing signing the finalized contract without his agent's supervision or consultation? That's just stupidity on Arrington's part, and unprofessionalism on Poston's part. These guys knew they were working with a tight deadline, and didn't take the proper precautions to ensure that the contract they were signing was the deal they agreed to (or [i]thought[/i] they agreed to) in principle.

I was reading this old washington times article about Arrington agreeing to have the NFLPA sell Arrington merchandise, [url]http://washingtontimes.com/sports/20040106-111100-7487r.htm[/url], and found one part particularly interesting:

"Executives for Players Inc., the union's licensing arm, yesterday confirmed the Arrington agreement but declined to comment further. Arrington and his agents, Carl and Kevin Poston, were unavailable for comment, making the precise motivation for his turnabout unclear."

What do you all suppose the motivation was? To get the union firmly on his side for a possible showdown or to put some more money in his pocket because he knew there was no extra $6.5 million agreed to? Or something else?

[QUOTE=smootsmack]I was reading this old washington times article about Arrington agreeing to have the NFLPA sell Arrington merchandise, [url]http://washingtontimes.com/sports/20040106-111100-7487r.htm[/url], and found one part particularly interesting:

"Executives for Players Inc., the union's licensing arm, yesterday confirmed the Arrington agreement but declined to comment further. Arrington and his agents, Carl and Kevin Poston, were unavailable for comment, making the precise motivation for his turnabout unclear."

What do you all suppose the motivation was? To get the union firmly on his side for a possible showdown or to put some more money in his pocket because he knew there was no extra $6.5 million agreed to? Or something else?[/QUOTE]


I never understood why he wouldn't want the NFLPA to market his name. Was he planning on manufacturing and distributing his own line of uniforms? Plus, it was a pain in the ass typing his name in Madden 2004. :cussing:

Guys, I think I know why he didnt want the NFL to market his name. The second number in his jersey is 6. From there, The Second Minus the first number (6-5) equals 1, plus the first number 5, equals six. From there, the first PLUS the second number * pie = 6. You see what I'm saying 6,6,6. Maybe he htinks his jersey is the mark of the devil?

[QUOTE=Gmanc711]Guys, I think I know why he didnt want the NFL to market his name. The second number in his jersey is 6. From there, The Second Minus the first number (6-5) equals 1, plus the first number 5, equals six. From there, the first PLUS the second number * pie = 6. You see what I'm saying 6,6,6. Maybe he htinks his jersey is the mark of the devil?[/QUOTE]

Ha ha, that's great. Also, Washington Redskins has 18 letters in it. That's 6+6+6. And if you add up LaVar's jersey number (5+6) plus the defensive formation the Redskins employ (4+3), again you get 18 or 6+6+6. But wait, there's more. FedExField has 10 letters plus Landover has 8 letters. Again, that's 18, or 6+6+6. Poor LaVar! No matter where he turns he just can't avoid the mark of the devil.

Seriously though, I hope this grievance gets settled soon because it seems like nothing more than an unecessary nuisance

I like LaVar but as most everyone has said, he's coming out of this looking like an idiot. Eat the loss and get on with it. I'm sure the huge chunk of cash you're getting will hold you over for the rest of your life.

LaVar, you are the highest paid LB in the NFL....without the 6.5 mil.....get a new agent, shut up, and play.

Well he dont seemed to outraged about it. I dont understand why they only had 30 minutes to sign the contract. It sounds all true and that he rembembers it all. So why didnt he look to make sure he did not see 666?

What do you guys make of this latest article regarding Arrington and his "missing" $6.5M?

[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19038-2004Mar23.html[/url]

At least he claims he won't let this interfere with his play on the field, but still, the whole situation is a bit disturbing. How insane would it be if we let Champ go to keep LaVar, and now he could be wanting out?!

Let's hope we can get this situation resolved quickly and have it be water under the bridge by the time the season starts.

What I found most interesting about the article is LA's lack of excitement for the coaching change. I suspect this is because LA realizes Gibbs will not put up with his $hit and wanting to do what he wants on defense and to top it off if it comes down to a pissing contest there is no way LA can beat Gibbs in the eyes of the fans or the media.

I think the redskins should look at this as an opportunity to gauge other teams interest in LA and see what can be had in a trade. I suspect LA could help the redskins more by being part of a blockbuster trade that staying on a team he will never respect again.

What would be considered a fair trade price for LaVar?

I think talk of trading LA is a bit premature. Right now, he thinks that the Skins screwed him out of 6 1/2 million dollars. He's wrong, but that's what he thinks. If it were me, I'd be pissed too. But...He's eventually gonna cool down and realize that, like SkinsRock said, he's the highest paid LB in the league and that he signed the contract without making sure all of the details were to his liking. Not exactly unfair. Plus---He's still not even approaching the jackass proportions of Ty Law who says he doesn't ever want to be a Patriot again. LA still has emotional ties to the Skins and seems to care about the team, that's a good thing. As far as not being excited about Gibbs goes...It's his what, 5th coach? I'm excited too about Gibbs being back, but I'll admit that excitement is tempered until I see results.

I think LaVar needs to open his eyes and realize that whether the Redskins intentionally left it out or tried to deceive him or not, it's his agent's [I][B]JOB[/B][/I] to make sure it is correct before anything is signed. But he wasn't even there! The point is that it [I]was[/I] signed.

He seems to have soured on the Redskins from a business standpoint and if Redskins do win the ruling, if/when he is asked to restructure in a few years, he will probably be gone.....and that sucks....

Regardless, I'd say his agent is pretty much fired. He'd be stupid not too. Like you said, the agent didn't do his j-o-b. Honestly, I think LA believes he's such a big part of the team that the front office should give him a mulligan and include the bonus he thought he was getting. One thing to think about though is that no matter how the ruling goes, just because we were accused of double dealing, we look like crooks to next year's free agents.

Well, I don't know about a full-on mulligan, but when the skins win this case, they would be well served to add on SOMETHING to smooth things over. No way it's going to be another 6.5 in 2006, but they could find some cap-friendly incentive-type bonus money, and maybe Danny-boy could give him some stock in the skins... but only if LA fires that numbnuts agent!

No we don't. The front office have negotiated a lot of contracts without hitches since mr Snyder took over. Some of them were very much biased towards the players. Every player out there knows the Skins are capable of paying out big bucks on new contracts. One bit of bad news doesn't mean they'll all hate us.

Consider the TO situation. Anyone seriously believe the 49ers FO will suffer any fallout? Of course not.

The problem here, if you ask me, is will the NFLPA involvement swing the arbitrator against us? From the evidence that's been revealed (which of course could be BS), it looks like LA's agent screwed up and is responsible for not checking the contract (they weren't 'forced' to sign) before signature. If the NFLPA and LA's agent can bluster that the FO tricked LA et al, will the arbitrator ignore the 'buyer beware' maxim and decide we acted unfairly?

I truly hope common sense will out in this case, and the agents get it in the neck. It's about time they were called to task. They earn a lot of money off the back of other peoples achievements and seem to have very little responsibility in these issues.

[QUOTE=irish]What I found most interesting about the article is LA's lack of excitement for the coaching change. I suspect this is because LA realizes Gibbs will not put up with his $hit and wanting to do what he wants on defense and to top it off if it comes down to a pissing contest there is no way LA can beat Gibbs in the eyes of the fans or the media.

I think the redskins should look at this as an opportunity to gauge other teams interest in LA and see what can be had in a trade. I suspect LA could help the redskins more by being part of a blockbuster trade that staying on a team he will never respect again.[/QUOTE]
I can understand him being lukewarm towards yet another coaching change, even if it is a legend like Gibbs. How many defensive coordinators has LaVar had to work with now? Schotty, Rhodes, Lewis, Edwards and now Williams. Did I leave anyone out? LOL

That's 5 different coaches, 5 different philosophies, 5 different management styles, etc. After all, the constant changes is what drove Bailey away, so of course LaVar is going to be a bit skeptical. I think once they get down to business and LaVar sees how things are going to go under Gibbs he'll fall in line.

Once again, we need to try to keep this in perspective because we don't know nearly enough of the facts in this matter to draw conclusions. We know that Lavar says he was jobbed out of $6.5M - that's not news. We know that the Skins' FO says that they did everything on the up and up - and you'd expect them to say anything else?

Wait until the case goes to the arbitrator in full. Remember how everyone said that Terrell Owens' agent was at fault and there was no way on Earth that he could win his case? Well, he did.

The key facts of this case have not yet been revealed but they will come out when the arbitrator hears the case. And probably just like the TO matter, once the facts are presented and the sides have a pretty good idea who is going to prevail, there will be a settlement at the last minute.

Until then, LaVar will use the Washington papers to blow off steam and try to generate sympathy for his side of the case. And the Redskins' FO will do precisely the same. Stand by for more of this kind of stuff because I've heard from one person that the arbitrator's hearings and decision may not come until early June.

LaVar Seemd pretty " melo " on the coaching change way back when it first occured, way before any of this crap came out. I have really mixed feelings on this issue, on one hand, I like Lavar and I think he is handling this somewhere in the middle. I do like how he says it wont affect his on feild performance, and he wont let this sour his relationship with his coaching staff. If LaVar is our guy for the future and forever, I think we have to look at giving him somthing just to make him happy, even though he dosent deserve it, because this whole thing is on " His side " ( him/agent). Whatever, as someone else pointed out, at least this isnt to Ty Law perportiaons, which by the way, I think he is making himself out to be the biggest ass in professional sports.

This is the thing I hate about the NFL.

If they leave arbitration until June, just suppose they declare LaVar a free agent. They are penalising the team (replacing him) and the player (options would be far more limited post 1st June).

Most teams needing a player at LaVar's position will have addressed the problem by then, thus limiting his choices as well as the team's.

They should get the damn thing sorted.... NOW, then everyone can move on!!

:FIREdevil

dieselhog:

There is no NFL rule that delays this until June. I was told that is how long it will take because there is a specified process for these kinds of things spelled out in the CBA and since this is thought to be a "complicated grievance", it will take longer than a grievance about something really simple.

The end date of "early June" that I heard comes from the date at which LaVar and his agent filed the grievance. Had it been filed in December, it probably would be almost over by now.

So this is not some grand conspiracy.

Last year after we had won three of the first four games we played, LaVar was quoting Warren Sapp relevant to teams coming to Fed Ex havin to pay rent (speaking of defence) No one paid rent, and Lavar didn't play up to his lofty expectations.The next time we heard from LaVar, he was going to "Get" Sapp if he waltzed through our warmups. One minute He's Quoting Sapp, the next minute he's going to get him. LaVar's not working with a full deck.