Carl Banks quasi-defends T.O. on Sirius
 

Carl Banks made a very good point about Terrell Owens on Sirius Satellite Radio today. I was on my way home from work and he was pointing out that the modern athlete isn't any different from the modern millionare. What do all people with money want? More money! He never said that this was a good thing, but it makes them the same as every other business man.

Let's say you're Ralph Lauren; your Polos sell like crazy. (I should know, it's almost all I where). Polos cost nearly $80 now. So...as they get more and more popular the price goes up. He doesn't sit back like, "Man, I just made a ton of money by selling Polos, I should lower the price." No, no, no. The more they're wanted/needed (in the case of the athlete) the more they're worth.

Another example Donald Trump: His suites cost a ridiculous amount to reserve for a night, after he makes millions every year, do the prices ever come down? No. That's not smart business.

Another interesting point he made was that you don't set a dangerous precedent by renegotiating T.O.'s contract regardless of how many years you are into it. Most people would say "then anyone can hold out." However, TO changes games. He is often the difference in games. You have someone like Trotter who changed your D, but doesn't change the game, so you don't renegotiate him should he hold out. It's not the same thing. You have to take it case by case otherwise you're grouping all of your players together which everyone knows is not the case. If...let's say Tomlinson held out I'm sure more teams would negotiate with him than someone like Randall Godfrey. It's just the way it is.

The last point he made was about athlete's saying that they have to feed their kids. That's no different from any other millionare either. Why do people like Trump or Perry Ellis or Ralph Lauren keep doing what they're doing? Most of them will tell you that they want that much more to leave to their kids. Now, this comparison isn't even close. We're talking about people building empires here. These guys make money for their kids...they probably make close to billions. Football players don't build empires, they don't make billions. They have to get what they can get when they can get it. There will never be another opportunity to do it. Because as soon as an organization thinks you're used up, you're out the door or making significantly less. If you're gonna set your family up (including your kids) for life, you have 10 years to do it. That's it.

I think he made some very good points. I thought that they'd be worth discussing. For the record I agree with most of what he said.

Re: Carl Banks quasi-defends T.O. on Sirius
 

Pro athletes are a very different type of businessman. It takes talent, yes, but some of these people who make it through college based on physical gifts alone are a problem when they want to sit back and cry for more money.

Also, these are MILLIONS of dollars they are talking about. I could not look someone in the eye without a laugh and say, "My kids will starve if I don't make this extra nine million dollars." Also, another reason these people aren't in the same class as the Ralph Laurens and Donald Trumps is because to get rich and stay rich, you have to invest. People like TO I'm sure are pissing away their money. Say he doesn't negotiate his contract and is paralyzed tomorrow. I bet he could look back at all the ridiculous things he bought and be like, "Wow, did I really need that?"

Now before it gets into who needs what, I feel that rich people are most definitely entitled to their big houses and nice cars. But when that money is wasted on houses with rooms you never go in and cars you never drive, THAT'S where it was a poor investment. People like Donald Trump can do things like that and have huge ridiculous houses because they know their OTHER investments not related to physical gifts will pay for those things.

Re: Carl Banks quasi-defends T.O. on Sirius
 

When it comes down to it, I feel that atheletes AND a large number of singers and basically people who get by on looks/physical gifts are the ones who don't have any right to more money when they are paid a ridiculous amount anyway. I don't know what it is about pro athletes that feel because their team performs better they deserve more money.

Adrianna Lima might sell more panties for Victoria Secret but I don't see her holding out.

Re: Carl Banks quasi-defends T.O. on Sirius
 

I think the argument that T.O. and Rosenhaus make is solid. Yes he signed a contract and theoretically should honor it, but teams cut players mid contract all the time so they are not living up to the contracts they sign either. The contract is an agreed upon amount of time for an agreed upon amount of money so why does one party have more rights to not live up to their end than another?

Re: Carl Banks quasi-defends T.O. on Sirius
 

He shouldn't have signed the earlier deal if he wasn't ready to honor it. No one held a gun to his head then. That's the way contracts work, it sports and everywhere else. Sure, TO is worth more than he's being paid. But that's TOs and his agent's fault. Not the Eagles. (And I hate the iggles, but it's true!)

And it's IN THE CONTRACT that teams can cut players. That's why players negotiate for guaranteed money.

TO thinks he's so valuable to the iggles that they'll cave. I very much doubt that. The iggles, like the pats, have been solid at keeping the team above the individual player.

Re: Carl Banks quasi-defends T.O. on Sirius
 

I have Sirius Satellite and I think Carl Banks is the BIGGEST dumbass I have ever heard on the radio.....His efforts to sound intelligent really work against the points he tries to make....anyway....I disagree. Donald Trump and business men like him work hard as hell to earn the money they do! T.O. and football players play a F****** GAME and make millions..........Trump and those guys are working there ass off to make that money.....I'm not saying T.O. doesn't work out hard to be in good shape but THEY ARE PLAYING A GAME...........A FOOTBALL GAME that anyone in this modern day wishes they had that talent or that job...........I disagree with Banks........he's a freakin idiot! Trump and those business guys are not at the mercy of anyone....they go and get their money in the world....T.O. is at the mercy of Philly and I love that they are not paying him......

Re: Carl Banks quasi-defends T.O. on Sirius
 

[QUOTE=JWsleep]He shouldn't have signed the earlier deal if he wasn't ready to honor it. No one held a gun to his head then. That's the way contracts work, it sports and everywhere else. Sure, TO is worth more than he's being paid. But that's TOs and his agent's fault. Not the Eagles. (And I hate the iggles, but it's true!)

And it's IN THE CONTRACT that teams can cut players. That's why players negotiate for guaranteed money.

TO thinks he's so valuable to the iggles that they'll cave. I very much doubt that. The iggles, like the pats, have been solid at keeping the team above the individual player.[/QUOTE]

Last year T.O. signed the contract with the Eagles and was just so happy and thrilled he didn't have to end up playing for the Ravens :laughing-
This year the contract is not acceptable .....go figure.....maybe the Iggles should trade him back to the Ravens. ;)

Re: Carl Banks quasi-defends T.O. on Sirius
 

Taking Carl Bank's business approach.....okay let's take the computer industry and computer tech's were in demand and made huge salaries..afterall, according to Banks, "They have to get what they can get when they can get it". ........but SOME priced themselves out of the market, and businesses found people in India that were willing to accept HALF the pay of what the American Techs wanted...........so the U.S. lost jobs to outsourcing. Can happen in sport's too.........a receiver thinks he is worth more than other receivers, and teams will find someone who can do a competent job for less money..........NFL owners are businessmen too, and if they can save some cash, they may find someone that can do the job for less money..you better watch out T.O.

P.S. and outsourcing can hurt EVERYONE in the industry, those that made a whole lot less lost their jobs to outsourcing too. A relative of mine in the computer industry lost his job to outsourcing.

Re: Carl Banks quasi-defends T.O. on Sirius
 

When's the last time millions of people tuned in to watch Donald Trump work? Oh, the Apprentice? He didn't work hard then. So...football players make a lot of money because they generate a lot of it. If you don't like that they get paid so much protest by not dumping your dollars into. Don't watch. Don't buy the jerseys. Don't buy anything affiliated with the NFL. If everyone who "hates the modern" athlete did that then it [B]might[/B] make a difference. If everyone who says "they get paid too much" or "they're selfish" or whatever...take a stand. Stand up for what you believe in. They're just supposed to be used to make owners rich?

I think what most of you all miss is the fact that the owners make tons of money off of the players. Once the players turn 30 then they are perceived as starting to decline. So they stop making huge money. They start getting cut because of backloaded contracts. Loyalty will only ever be a one way street. This is much the owners fault as anyone's. If you can cut when you don't live up to your contract, you should be able to ask for a new one. I know everyone on this site has asked for a raise...what's the difference? Did you not agree to work for a certain price and then ask for more? Tell me how it's different. You don't make millions? So what. I probably don't make as much as many of you, do you hear me bitch that you want a raise? No. So I'm tired of everyone getting on their high horse talking about how they're out of line because they make a whole lot more than you. The owners don't give a damn about a player's signature on the contract when they cut people. Why should it be any different when players want a raise?

Re: Carl Banks quasi-defends T.O. on Sirius
 

[QUOTE=jdlea]When's the last time millions of people tuned in to watch Donald Trump work? Oh, the Apprentice? He didn't work hard then. So...football players make a lot of money because they generate a lot of it. If you don't like that they get paid so much protest by not dumping your dollars into. Don't watch. Don't buy the jerseys. Don't buy anything affiliated with the NFL. If everyone who "hates the modern" athlete did that then it [B]might[/B] make a difference. If everyone who says "they get paid too much" or "they're selfish" or whatever...take a stand. Stand up for what you believe in. They're just supposed to be used to make owners rich?

I think what most of you all miss is the fact that the owners make tons of money off of the players. Once the players turn 30 then they are perceived as starting to decline. So they stop making huge money. They start getting cut because of backloaded contracts. Loyalty will only ever be a one way street. This is much the owners fault as anyone's. If you can cut when you don't live up to your contract, you should be able to ask for a new one. I know everyone on this site has asked for a raise...what's the difference? Did you not agree to work for a certain price and then ask for more? Tell me how it's different. You don't make millions? So what. I probably don't make as much as many of you, do you hear me bitch that you want a raise? No. So I'm tired of everyone getting on their high horse talking about how they're out of line because they make a whole lot more than you. The owners don't give a damn about a player's signature on the contract when they cut people. Why should it be any different when players want a raise?[/QUOTE]

I hear what your saying JDLEA.......but business is a business is a business.
My company laid off tenured employees that were making near the top of their salary range, so they can hire newbies that can come in and do the same job but at the minimum range of the salary scale. It happens to all workers.

I don't begrudge athletes their big buck salaries, but what I have a problem with are non-loyal prima donna players who after one year want more money and put their team in cap hell, so the team can't sign other players to improve their team because of the few that hog the salary cap. That's what I have a problem with.

Re: Carl Banks quasi-defends T.O. on Sirius
 

[QUOTE=monk81]
I don't begrudge athletes their big buck salaries, but what I have a problem with are non-loyal prima donna players who after one year want more money and a few players put their team in cap hell, and the team can't sign other players to improve their team because of the few that hog the salary cap. That's what I have a problem with.[/QUOTE]

Exactly what I was trying to say. :)

Re: Carl Banks quasi-defends T.O. on Sirius
 

The players union are the one's who agreed to the terms and conditions of how nfl players' contracts work. If anyone is to "blame" for these types of situations, it's the players union. Having said that, it is what it is. TO has every right to demand a new contract, and the eagles have every right to hold him to the contract he's signed. If TO doesn't think the current contract is fair, let him sit out (and get fined for it). I say let these "me, me, me" guys waste their careers away holding out. Ultimately, it's the fans who will be paying the price. What's it cost to go to a pro NFL game these days? $7 for a freaking beer??? That's ridiculous. But someone's got to cough up the money in order for these guys to feed their families, right? I'd love to see the eagles stick to their guns, and watch TO never play again. Where else is he going to make even a fraction of the kind of money he's making now?

Re: Carl Banks quasi-defends T.O. on Sirius
 

Wow, you beat me to it. I'll just expand on your point:

When Donald Trump makes more money does it hurt OUR pocketbooks? (I'm sure SOMEONE can raise that argumet with an in-depth economic analysis, but let it rest for now) No. It does not.

When TO and the people who worship the Eagles demands and new contract and god forbid he gets one, the fans get it right up the ass. If you go with a greater good argument, the ticket increase to pay that asshole's salary that should have already been in a contract would hit each and EVERY single fan to go to every game that TO plays in (and most likely the ones after he retires or leaves). They're getting hit hard anyway, but what kind of asshole says, "I know in my heart what I'm doing is right." and doesn't think about the consequences of what it does to the people who pay his fucking salary?

One TO family is NOT worth the price to thousands of (unfortunately) Eagles fans who DO work their asses off just as hard (and some not as hard) to come and watch him run his mouth and then complain that his millions aren't good enough to feed his family.

Re: Carl Banks quasi-defends T.O. on Sirius
 

Its called a 'signing bonus'. That is the guaranteed money. The rest of the contract should be honored. If he wants to renegotiate the contract, he should then agree to return ALL of the signing bonus. The bonus is contingent to signing the CONTRACT. Carl Banks is a moron and I'm not taking any of his uneducated arguments seriously. TO is to football, what Peter King is to journalism.

Re: Carl Banks quasi-defends T.O. on Sirius
 

Athletes are all a bunch of overpaid crybabies who dont realize how good they really have it, and its all of the fans fault. I f the fans didnt support sports as much as they do and there were less demand; then there would be less money paid into the sport. With that said there would be less money paid to players. If it were a perfect world then to watch a game would be extremely cheap, and football would be a part time job to players. More players would play for the love of the game and owners would be happy just to own a team. But it is not a perfect world. Fans demand a winning team, and will pay alot of money to see it. Owners are greedy and want to capitalize, and players are the workhands that want a piece of the profit for their labor.

In closing, bitch about it all you like, but its our fault that the situation is the way it is.

Re: Carl Banks quasi-defends T.O. on Sirius
 

[QUOTE=Paintrain]I think the argument that T.O. and Rosenhaus make is solid. Yes he signed a contract and theoretically should honor it, but teams cut players mid contract all the time so they are not living up to the contracts they sign either. The contract is an agreed upon amount of time for an agreed upon amount of money so why does one party have more rights to not live up to their end than another?[/QUOTE]

I've said the same thing Paintrain. Unfortunately, not many people agree with us.

Re: Carl Banks quasi-defends T.O. on Sirius
 

It's very admirable when someone doesn't seek the biggest contract they can get in order to help the team, but I don't see how T.O. should be hated for seeking a bigger deal. Should I feel sorry for the owners (who are reaping billions off of the sweat of others)? Nope. Should I feel sorry for other players on the team (many of whom would do exactly what TO is doing if they were as good as he is)? Nope. Should I feel sorry for the fans? Yeah, the fans get a raw deal in all of this, but it's easy for the fans to criticize T.O. - football isn't their job and they don't stand to make millions of dollars by getting a new contract.

Does anyone work for a company and try to get a raise? Just realize that getting a raise takes away money from a company's budget (and hence ability to pay other workers at the company).

I know that I'm going to try to get the most money from my employer that I possibly can - and nearly everyone does the same thing. I don't care if I'm making $100 or $100 million - I'm greedy and I want to get what I think I'm worth. Hate me if you will for my greedy attitude, but chances are, you're exactly the same.

Re: Carl Banks quasi-defends T.O. on Sirius
 

yeah ramseyfan your right. i would do the same thing. but because im in this situation i can't say i will. right now, i would play for the minimum because i love the skins so much, but if i became a good player, than i would want to be payed like one. im glad t.o. is holding out, and i hope it continues into the season. why do i say this, it's because it would benefit the redskins seeing as t.o. wouldn't be on the field, and that's one less person we have to worry about. god bless t.o., and cory simon, and brian westbrook, and all the eagles players holding out.

Re: Carl Banks quasi-defends T.O. on Sirius
 

Mooby,

I'd pay just to put on a Redskins uniform and sit on the sidelines. So, I understand the frustration people have with "spoiled" players who try to get monster deals, hold out, etc.

But, I also understand the players' point of view. What T.O. did for McNabb and company last season (not to mention the team's bottom line and the owner's pocketbook) is nothing short of amazing. I personally dislike T.O. for reasons other than his holdout, but I can't blame him for wanting a new deal. Hey, even our man Portis was going to hold out in Denver (just two years into his deal) before he was traded to our team.

Re: Carl Banks quasi-defends T.O. on Sirius
 

[QUOTE=Ramseyfan]I've said the same thing Paintrain. Unfortunately, not many people agree with us.[/QUOTE]

I understand the whole idea but players like TO renegotiating contracts IS the reason a lot of people are cut. The more money he gets paid, like you said, is reasoning to cut someone else who ISN'T demanding that money.

Re: Carl Banks quasi-defends T.O. on Sirius
 

[QUOTE=dblanch66]Its called a 'signing bonus'. That is the guaranteed money. The rest of the contract should be honored. If he wants to renegotiate the contract, he should then agree to return ALL of the signing bonus. The bonus is contingent to signing the CONTRACT. Carl Banks is a moron and I'm not taking any of his uneducated arguments seriously. TO is to football, what Peter King is to journalism.[/QUOTE]

Excellent point. Let's not understate this point either guys. If you want to draw comparisons between businessmen and atheletes, then let's really consider how T.O.'s actions in the business world would be dealt with.

Scenario: Donald Trump contracts with a world-famous architect to design a new, high-tech, new-age apartment building. The terms of the contract are that Trump pays 7 million dollars up front as GUARANTEED money to get the architect to come and work for Trump (in this scenario, there is a ton of competition out there for this architect's services......he's one of the top two or three architects in the world). After the $7 million dollar up front bonus, the architect is to work on the design and construction of the apartment building over the course of the next 5 years for $500,000 per year. Trump has built into the contract that EVEN THOUGH HE ALREADY PAID the architect $7 million dollars in signing bonus, if Trump has artistic differences with the architect, and he is not happy with the way the building is looking, he can fire the architect at any time and not have to pay him any of the remaining $500,000 yearly salary (but he CANNOT recoup the $7 million already paid).

Now, it's one year into the design and construction of the apartment building and everything is going great. Trump is thrilled with the architect's job so far. Knowing this, the architect decides to walk off the job, and refuses to come back until Trump forks over another couple of Million $ and a higher salary. He says: "I want to renegotiate, and if you don't give me a better deal, I'll sit at home and refuse to perform under my contract."

Now, in the business world guess what happens? Trump hires a big time law firm to file suit against the architect for breach of contract. And guess what.....He wins.

So as you can probably all tell, I think Carl Banks' argument is rediculous and the analogy isn't well thought out. Does Trump want to make another billion next year? Yep, of course he does. Does the architect want to make millions more? You bet. CAN THE ARCHITECT BREACH HIS CONTRACT TO DO IT? [b][u]NO [/u][/b]It's not only not right, it not legal in any other setting than professional sports.

Re: Carl Banks quasi-defends T.O. on Sirius
 

Very well put. Again, TO doesn't have a single leg to stand on in this argument.

Re: Carl Banks quasi-defends T.O. on Sirius
 

[QUOTE=PSUSkinsFan21]Excellent point. Let's not understate this point either guys. If you want to draw comparisons between businessmen and atheletes, then let's really consider how T.O.'s actions in the business world would be dealt with.

Scenario: Donald Trump contracts with a world-famous architect to design a new, high-tech, new-age apartment building. The terms of the contract are that Trump pays 7 million dollars up front as GUARANTEED money to get the architect to come and work for Trump (in this scenario, there is a ton of competition out there for this architect's services......he's one of the top two or three architects in the world). After the $7 million dollar up front bonus, the architect is to work on the design and construction of the apartment building over the course of the next 5 years for $500,000 per year. Trump has built into the contract that EVEN THOUGH HE ALREADY PAID the architect $7 million dollars in signing bonus, if Trump has artistic differences with the architect, and he is not happy with the way the building is looking, he can fire the architect at any time and not have to pay him any of the remaining $500,000 yearly salary (but he CANNOT recoup the $7 million already paid).

Now, it's one year into the design and construction of the apartment building and everything is going great. Trump is thrilled with the architect's job so far. Knowing this, the architect decides to walk off the job, and refuses to come back until Trump forks over another couple of Million $ and a higher salary. He says: "I want to renegotiate, and if you don't give me a better deal, I'll sit at home and refuse to perform under my contract."

Now, in the business world guess what happens? Trump hires a big time law firm to file suit against the architect for breach of contract. And guess what.....He wins.

So as you can probably all tell, I think Carl Banks' argument is rediculous and the analogy isn't well thought out. Does Trump want to make another billion next year? Yep, of course he does. Does the architect want to make millions more? You bet. CAN THE ARCHITECT BREACH HIS CONTRACT TO DO IT? [b][u]NO [/u][/b]It's not only not right, it not legal in any other setting than professional sports.[/QUOTE]

That's not the way it is at all! Okay...Trump hires the architect and says I'll guarantee that you get your $7 million over the first 3 years of the contract and then you'll get $3,500,000 over the next 7. So what happens is he gets his 7 mil, but he gets something like

Year 1: $300,000
Year 2: $300,000
Year 3: $350,000
Year 4: $400,000

And then Trump fires him before the architect sees any of the real money they agreed he would be paid OR He says that needs to sign architects to build some new hotels so he needs him to go ahead and get rid of the last fews years where he was going to make his money and Trump will give him another $8 million over the new contract which will be longer and even more backloaded. That's the NFL.

TO is gonna make something like $756,000 next year and $1 million the year after that. All of the rest of the money is at the back end of the deal. So what he wants is to have the backloaded money moved forward. The Eagles never get close to the salary cap so financially it makes no difference.

Re: Carl Banks quasi-defends T.O. on Sirius
 

[QUOTE=angryssg]Athletes are all a bunch of overpaid crybabies who dont realize how good they really have it, and its all of the fans fault. I f the fans didnt support sports as much as they do and there were less demand; then there would be less money paid into the sport. With that said there would be less money paid to players. If it were a perfect world then to watch a game would be extremely cheap, and football would be a part time job to players. More players would play for the love of the game and owners would be happy just to own a team. But it is not a perfect world. Fans demand a winning team, and will pay alot of money to see it. Owners are greedy and want to capitalize, and players are the workhands that want a piece of the profit for their labor.

In closing, bitch about it all you like, but its our fault that the situation is the way it is.[/QUOTE]

That's kinda the point I was trying to make. When I get upset with an organization they stop getting my money. That's why athletes get paid so much. It's the jersey sales, The team decals, The team blankets, the throwbacks, etc. All of that. Anything with an NFL Logo on it contributes to the money players get paid. You're right it is the fan's fault and that's why I'm not mad.

Re: Carl Banks quasi-defends T.O. on Sirius
 

[QUOTE=monk81]I hear what your saying JDLEA.......but business is a business is a business.
My company laid off tenured employees that were making near the top of their salary range, so they can hire newbies that can come in and do the same job but at the minimum range of the salary scale. It happens to all workers.

I don't begrudge athletes their big buck salaries, but what I have a problem with are non-loyal prima donna players who after one year want more money and put their team in cap hell, so the team can't sign other players to improve their team because of the few that hog the salary cap. That's what I have a problem with.[/QUOTE]

We kinda agree. Do I think TO should be asking for a new contract? No. Do I think he should be asking for backloaded money to be moved to the front? Yes. He makes nothing for a player at his level. And in an earlier post I put rough figures I heard on NFL Radio so read that before you spout off about $49 million. TO has every right to want more money. Just as anyone else in America has the right to want a raise.

Think about this for a second:

I don't know how many of you know teachers/are teachers/know what I'm gonna talk about, but here it is:

Last year teachers wanted a raise. Legally they can't go on strike. We all know that teachers take a lot of work home with them. So when they wanted a raise, what they do? They started "not a minute more" which meant that after the students were on buses they would not do anything. Club leaders cancelled meetings. Teachers held picket signs on the side of the road (lead to an accident I was involved in). A lot of people agreed with them. Think about this for a second: Did it help the school or the kids by not having clubs? Did they not know that they would have to grade papers at home when they got into it? Tell me where the line is drawn. I need to know...I actually do know. It's the fact that TO has made a ton of money and does make a lot right now. However, since teachers can't legally strike they did the only thing the could. Pretty similar to a hold out, wouldn't you say?

Re: Carl Banks quasi-defends T.O. on Sirius
 

It is human nature to want more. You better believe I’d be saying good bye to all my co-workers tomorrow if Airbus offered me a significant amount more (15K would do it) than what I make at Boeing today. I don’t have any kids but who doesn’t a nice boat in their garage?

Re: Carl Banks quasi-defends T.O. on Sirius
 

[QUOTE=jdlea]That's not the way it is at all! Okay...Trump hires the architect and says I'll guarantee that you get your $7 million over the first 3 years of the contract and then you'll get $3,500,000 over the next 7. So what happens is he gets his 7 mil, but he gets something like

Year 1: $300,000
Year 2: $300,000
Year 3: $350,000
Year 4: $400,000

And then Trump fires him before the architect sees any of the real money they agreed he would be paid OR He says that needs to sign architects to build some new hotels so he needs him to go ahead and get rid of the last fews years where he was going to make his money and Trump will give him another $8 million over the new contract which will be longer and even more backloaded. That's the NFL.

TO is gonna make something like $756,000 next year and $1 million the year after that. All of the rest of the money is at the back end of the deal. So what he wants is to have the backloaded money moved forward. The Eagles never get close to the salary cap so financially it makes no difference.[/QUOTE]

Ok, I don't know where in the world you are getting your numbers from, but last year, TO made $9,160,700 in salaries and bonuses. HOW is that back loaded?

Regardless, my point remains. A comparison was made between TO and Donald Trump or Ralph Lauren, whoever, doesn't matter. And what I'm saying is in the business world, it doesn't matter how greedy you are, when you sign a contract, you are bound to that contract. As part of their contract, the Eagles paid TO a TON of money last year (over $8 million of that was from bonuses). They certainly didn't do that with the understanding that it would only buy them one year of TO's services. The reason players get so much up front money is so that they are guaranteed to be set financially. Do the teams have the right to fire the players? Yes, of course. But they've already paid for that right when they made them a multi-millionaire before the player even takes the field for them.

Again, it's just a simple matter of contract law here. TO signed a contract, if he starts missing mandatory events he will be breaching that contract. The teams have reserved the right to terminate that contract whenever they want........they paid up front money to TO to get him to agree to that. Any analogy between TO and Donald Trump or Ralph Lauren ends with the fact that they both want to be rich. Other than that small commonality, Carl Banks needs to recognize that pro atheletes are given an extreme amount of slack compared to the way corporate America normally works........thus, his analogy is poor.

Re: Carl Banks quasi-defends T.O. on Sirius
 

PSUSkinsFan,

When I say I don't hate T.O. for wanting more money, I don't base that lack of disgust/hate on legal theories. Rather, I am simply saying that T.O. outperformed his deal and regardless of the terms of his deal, I don't blame him for wanting more.

Re: Carl Banks quasi-defends T.O. on Sirius
 

[QUOTE=jdlea]That's kinda the point I was trying to make. When I get upset with an organization they stop getting my money. That's why athletes get paid so much. It's the jersey sales, The team decals, The team blankets, the throwbacks, etc. All of that. Anything with an NFL Logo on it contributes to the money players get paid. You're right it is the fan's fault and that's why I'm not mad.[/QUOTE]

Add to that the simple economics of supply and demand. There can only be so many NFL players in this world at one time. That limited supply means increased demand for the best football players and thus the price goes up.

Now Matty will tell us what the optimal input choice is... :biggthump

Re: Carl Banks quasi-defends T.O. on Sirius
 

I gotta love the way PSUSkins fan broke it down. The bottom line is, owners are on top of the food chain. Sorry. Boo fucking hoo. It's a fact of life. Sorry. Let's stop it now. The Donald Trump scenario was perfect. He's the guy IN POWER!. Not the guy working for him. Does TO have the right to bitch? Absolutely. But it don't hold squat. The End. Move on.

Re: Carl Banks quasi-defends T.O. on Sirius
 

Go back to the fifties and earlier. Most of the players played for a few thousand per season and some of the "Stars" up in the 15,ooo range. Go back further and they played for about nothing. The game was a whole lot rougher also. Besides it is all in the signing bonus. I would think the player would be thankfull he could command a contract in the millions.

Re: Carl Banks quasi-defends T.O. on Sirius
 

[QUOTE=John Hasbrouck]Go back to the fifties and earlier. Most of the players played for a few thousand per season and some of the "Stars" up in the 15,ooo range. Go back further and they played for about nothing. The game was a whole lot rougher also. Besides it is all in the signing bonus. I would think the player would be thankfull he could command a contract in the millions.[/QUOTE]

What is you point? In the 50's a few thousand dollars was a lot of money and 15K was a shit load of money compared to the general public. Most players in the NFL today make the minimum and relatively few super stars make a ton of money. Besides, the NFL is big business now. They are raking in the dough from left to right while back in the day it was a struggling league.

Re: Carl Banks quasi-defends T.O. on Sirius
 

[QUOTE=Ramseyfan]PSUSkinsFan,

When I say I don't hate T.O. for wanting more money, I don't base that lack of disgust/hate on legal theories. Rather, I am simply saying that T.O. outperformed his deal and regardless of the terms of his deal, I don't blame him for wanting more.[/QUOTE]

Totally understand that RF.......and that's a valid point.
The only point I took issue with was justifying holdouts by saying, "hey, they're just businessmen trying to make the most they can." I deal with businessmen every day, and in no scenario are they allowed to breach contracts in order to make more money (at least, they are not allowed to without fully expecting a lawsuit being thrown back at them). So I just don't like the analogy. Simply saying that there is nothing wrong with a guy wanting more money is not enough to compare TO to Ralph Lauren.........it's, for me, more about the way in which they are trying to get that money.

Take, for example, Hines Ward. Now I know I've brought his name up a few times before, but just yesterday or the day before I saw that the negotiations are not going as quickly and smoothly as he expected. So what did he do? He purchased a $5 million injury protection insurance policy so that he wouldn't have to miss a single day with his team while the negotiations continue, and he also doesn't have to worry about a financial hit if he gets injured. As long as I see guys doing it the right way, I won't forgive players like TO for doing it the wrong way.

Actually, looking back on it, I guess I also took issue with the argument that it's ok to hold out because the team can cut the player whenever they want. I just wanted to show that I don't think there is anything wrong with that when the player is getting so much guaranteed money up front. The team has, essentially, paid for that right to cut the player after handing them a truckload of money before they even caught a single pass. Just trying to offer another perspective.

Re: Carl Banks quasi-defends T.O. on Sirius
 

[QUOTE=PSUSkinsFan21]

Actually, looking back on it, I guess I also took issue with the argument that it's ok to hold out because the team can cut the player whenever they want. I just wanted to show that I don't think there is anything wrong with that when the player is getting so much guaranteed money up front. The team has, essentially, paid for that right to cut the player after handing them a truckload of money before they even caught a single pass. Just trying to offer another perspective.[/QUOTE]

In addition to that, I said in another post that the people like TO who ARE demanding that extra money are the ones oftentimes responsible for other players getting cut due to "cap hell".

Re: Carl Banks quasi-defends T.O. on Sirius
 

[QUOTE=TheMalcolmConnection]In addition to that, I said in another post that the people like TO who ARE demanding that extra money are the ones oftentimes responsible for other players getting cut due to "cap hell".[/QUOTE]

That's true.
It's no coincidence that the Eagles, who have never renegotiated a contract with anyone who has held out or threatened to hold out, have absolutely no cap concerns. It's not coincidence that year after year they are in a position to pick and choice who they want to re-sign and who they don't want to re-sign. The players on that team all know that as long as they do their job well enough, they will remain employed because the Eagles simply don't have to cut guys for financial reasons.