Warpath  

Home | Forums | Salary Cap Info | Shop | Donate | Stay Connected




Go Back   Warpath > Redskins Forums > Redskins Locker Room


Carl Banks quasi-defends T.O. on Sirius

Redskins Locker Room


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-15-2005, 12:14 AM   #16
Franchise Player
 
Sheriff Gonna Getcha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 35
Posts: 8,317
Re: Carl Banks quasi-defends T.O. on Sirius

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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?
I've said the same thing Paintrain. Unfortunately, not many people agree with us.
Sheriff Gonna Getcha is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
Old 06-15-2005, 12:27 AM   #17
Franchise Player
 
Sheriff Gonna Getcha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 35
Posts: 8,317
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.
Sheriff Gonna Getcha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2005, 12:31 AM   #18
MVP
 
mooby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: NoVa
Age: 26
Posts: 12,108
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.
mooby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2005, 12:39 AM   #19
Franchise Player
 
Sheriff Gonna Getcha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 35
Posts: 8,317
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.
Sheriff Gonna Getcha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2005, 08:35 AM   #20
I like big (_|_)s.
 
TheMalcolmConnection's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Lexington, Virginia
Age: 33
Posts: 17,643
Re: Carl Banks quasi-defends T.O. on Sirius

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramseyfan
I've said the same thing Paintrain. Unfortunately, not many people agree with us.
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.
__________________
Regret nothing. At one time it was exactly what you wanted.
TheMalcolmConnection is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2005, 10:43 AM   #21
The Starter
 
PSUSkinsFan21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Age: 38
Posts: 1,340
Re: Carl Banks quasi-defends T.O. on Sirius

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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? NO It's not only not right, it not legal in any other setting than professional sports.
__________________
"Hail to the Redskins!" and "Fight on State!"
PSUSkinsFan21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2005, 12:10 PM   #22
I like big (_|_)s.
 
TheMalcolmConnection's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Lexington, Virginia
Age: 33
Posts: 17,643
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.
__________________
Regret nothing. At one time it was exactly what you wanted.
TheMalcolmConnection is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2005, 06:37 PM   #23
Karma Chameleon
 
jdlea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Annapolis, MD
Age: 30
Posts: 3,101
Re: Carl Banks quasi-defends T.O. on Sirius

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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? NO It's not only not right, it not legal in any other setting than professional sports.
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.
jdlea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2005, 06:40 PM   #24
Karma Chameleon
 
jdlea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Annapolis, MD
Age: 30
Posts: 3,101
Re: Carl Banks quasi-defends T.O. on Sirius

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
jdlea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2005, 06:56 PM   #25
Karma Chameleon
 
jdlea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Annapolis, MD
Age: 30
Posts: 3,101
Re: Carl Banks quasi-defends T.O. on Sirius

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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?
jdlea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2005, 07:12 PM   #26
Eternally Legendary
 
saden1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Seattle
Age: 35
Posts: 10,058
Re: Carl Banks quasi-defends T.O. on Sirius

It is human nature to want more. You better believe Iíd 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 donít have any kids but who doesnít a nice boat in their garage?
saden1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2005, 07:30 PM   #27
The Starter
 
PSUSkinsFan21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Age: 38
Posts: 1,340
Re: Carl Banks quasi-defends T.O. on Sirius

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
__________________
"Hail to the Redskins!" and "Fight on State!"
PSUSkinsFan21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2005, 08:49 PM   #28
Franchise Player
 
Sheriff Gonna Getcha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 35
Posts: 8,317
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.
Sheriff Gonna Getcha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2005, 09:28 PM   #29
Uncle Phil
 
SmootSmack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 44,967
Re: Carl Banks quasi-defends T.O. on Sirius

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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...
__________________
You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You
SmootSmack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2005, 12:58 AM   #30
Special Teams
 
manicd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 155
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.
manicd is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.35887 seconds with 9 queries

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25