I hate it when people bitch and moan about player contracts. Have you ever seen a player contract? The one Revis signed back in 2007 was over 46 pages long. They're not as clear cut as some are making them out to be.
over/under on when this thread surpasses the total views of the francessa thread? total guess, but i'll set the line at Friday at 8:40 pm edt.
You may not understand it. And Relle may not understand it. But I can tell you that it sure as hell paid him millions and it sure as hell requires him to play football and support the team if he wants to get paid. It ain't that complicated.
Once again you completely miss the point and oversimplify through selective focus. Let's look at EXACTLY what I said: That's EXACTLY what he's doing. He's not retiring, and I never said he was. He's saying he'd rather sit at home, not play, and in essence end his relationship with the game unless he receives what he feels is a fair salary. Plenty of players are cut for salary purposes. It's not simply a matter of 'not being able to make the team.' He's exercising his right to leave the game for salary purposes. Obviously he has no intention to stay gone, but that's the message he's sending. The team retains its rights, just as it would in any situation. If he wants to come back, the team has no obligation to change his contract. It's a matter of whether they opt to. As far as whether he was happy with the contract before, you illustrate my point that the system is absurd. He signed a contract prior to playing a single down which essentially predicted his performance for a period of 6 years in a league that is the most unpredictable as far as translation of talent is concerned of the Big 4. Rookie contracts are far too long, loaded at the top, and uncertain. That's reflected by the fact that so many owners and players DO look at the hold out process as part of the business of the league.
Although no one expects him to retire, and he certainly doesn't plan to, he's exercising that threat in order to renegotiate his payment. If he returns, he doesn't exercise that option fully and he's responsible for fines due to missed time. As far as teams not doing the same thing, teams every year tear up old contracts and then attempt to re-sign players for less money. Where's the outcry in that? Alan Faneca was cut because the team felt he was overpaid. Where's the obligation there? Where's the outcry?
IR you are wrong. Revis doesn't have any legal right to end his relationship with the Jets - he is just acting like a jackass and breaching his contract in order to get a better deal. He has a contract with the Jets. He is bound by the terms of that contract. He can choose to breach the contract and there are financial consequences and other consequences of him breaching the contract. breaching a contract and terminating a contract. They are two very different things. When a team cuts a player they are acting pursuant to the contract's termination provision. They absolutely have the contractual right to cut the player. hence they are not in breach. When a player who is under contract decides to not perform and provide services under the contract - he is breaching the contract and is subject to penalties. Similarly if a team just decided to not pay a player - the team would be in breach and subject to penalties. Termation (lawful) and Breach (not lawful) - 2 different concepts. Got it? The system may be absurd in your opinion, but the jets and revis both signed the contract that you think is absurd and it sure as hell made Relle Revis a mutlimillionaire for being able to chase a guy around a football field. So just how absurd is it?
Faneca agreed that the Jets would be able to do such, so it was mutually agreed to when he signed the contract. The Jets haven't agreed to Revis sitting out, so his actions aren't mutually agreed upon. the situations are different, even if they have similarities. why isn't there an outcry? mainly because we are fans of the team first and foremost, and fans of the players as simply a repercussion of being on the team. so, we want the team to succeed more than the players individually, and if cutting a player makes a team better we are for it, but if a player sitting out makes a team worse, we are opposed to it.
You're saying he doesn't have a legal right to stop playing football? Are you sure you want to make that argument? Holding out is using precisely that threat. It's a particularly empty threat when you have 3 years left on your contract and absolutely no desire to leave the game, but it's absolutely a right. He's accruing fines because until he actually retires, and once he returns, he will have violated the rules by missing time. You calling it a simple breach of contract is completely misleading given the way contracts operate in the NFL. You want it to be black and white when it's shades of gray. And both the Jets and Revis have stated that the contract is absurd and needs to be reworked. However, you insist it's all on Revis and that he should be living up to said improper contract. That's laughable. The only thing anyone can criticize, and it's something I agree with, are these claims that he's seeking an absurd $16 million. If the Jets really did offer to bump him to 3 years $30 million and he's not even meeting with them, that's ridiculous. Holding out, however, is recognized by both sides as part of the process of doing business in the NFL. I'm sorry that you can't or won't handle things that "ain't that complicated", but it doesn't make your reduction of the situation any more legitimate. Oh, and the 'millions to chase a guy around with a football' argument. Tell the public to stop paying so much for the product on the field, then we can talk about the compensation being too high.
That's true, although players have guaranteed money built into their contract to protect against salary-based cuts just as teams have fines built in to protect against the hold out process. Both sides seem to acknowledge that both actions are a part of the business of the game, though. Of course there shouldn't be an outcry over Faneca. There shouldn't be an outcry over Revis wanting to renegotiate a contract that the Jets acknowledged is no longer proper, either. The issue of how MUCH Revis is asking for, OTOH, is another matter.
Can you Read at all or do you just pretend to be this stupid to see if you can make some kind of dumbass point? WRONG. he doesn't have any contractual right to refuse to perform under the contract. See thats why he is in BREACH. Thats why the Jets don't have to PAY him. Thats Why he is going to be fined. Those are called PENALTIES. He is being assessed PENALTIES because he doesn't have the legal right to refuse to perform under the CONTRACT. No. He is being fined because he is breaching his contract and refusing to perform the services that he promised he would perform in exchange for getting paid. He has had no problem taking the paychecks and the bonus checks, but now he refuses to perform. That is called a BREACH OF CONTRACT. That is what it is. He is committing a material violation of his contract and he is therefore subject to the PENALTIES for BREACH. I did not invent the rules of the NFL or create the thousands of years of history of law that define what a breach is. Whether or not the contract that everybody agreed to and signed and made millions from is suddenly "absurd" is debatable. There is nothing improper about the contract. Revis certainly never refused to cash a paycheck that I am aware of. Revis is refusing to perform under his contract. The Jets have paid him all the money that he claims to be presently entitled to under the contract. So yes - Its all on Revis. He is the person that is refusing to perform as he agreed to perform. You may think its laughable - but the last time I checked Relle ain't getting paid. I wonder if Relle will think its laughable if he keeps on not getting paid? I might be laughing, but I don't think Relle will be. It really depends on the nature of the hold out. You are speaking too generally. In this case, Relle is just deciding he wants more money then what he had previously agreed to be paid. So he is refusing to perform the services he promised to provide. That is a breach of a contract. You can argue that it is justified, but I don't think the Jets would agree w/you. He is in violation of the Contract. Why it is that you are unable to grasp this very basic concept is hilarious. If you pay somebody to do a job for you do you expect them to do what they agreed to do or is cool with you if they just stop in the middle of the deal and say pay me more money??? No we can talk about it right now. We are talking about a person who gets paid millions to play football - essentially to chase somebody around on a football field. Thats what his skill is. I have no problem with him trying to make as much money as he likes for chasing people around. He is a multi millionaire. I am not too worried about him, nor do I feel particularly sorry for him because he now thinks that he should make millions more than his contract which he signed entitles him to make. He signed the contract. If he didn't like the deal he shouldnt have signed the contract. Did somebody have a gun to his head forcing him to sign the multi million dollar contract??? I don't think so.
Well said!! :beer: I'm quite certain had he underperformed, he wouldn't be giving his money back. I just find the whole thing laughable. My hope is they cut his ass and let him play for some lowly, shitty team like the Lions or Raiders and then he can live by himself on Revis Island and see if all that $$ really buys happiness.
Looks we've got a lawyer in the house! Why don't the Jets just go to court and say "MAKE REVIS COME TO PRACTICE!"
Well spoken .. I deal with contracts all the time and there is nothing wrong with wanting to renegotiate a contract but... there is a right way and a wrong way ask Mangold. The Jets will survive without him if need be but after 3 years of not playing because he won't , without a new deal , what will he be worth? Who will take the chance on investing time and money on him? How do you make up the millions lost by not playing. and even if he signs a new deal whats to say in 2 years he won't do this again. I just hope he doesn't get a bad taste in his mouth and pull a Barry Sanders type hold-out . Although Revis is much younger than Sanders was.
someone would not only take a chance on him, but pay him a bunch of money. the question is will be worth it at that point after having not played. he wouldn't sit out three years, but I wouldn't be surprised if he sat out this entire year. at which point the relationship would be clearly over and the Jets would either trade him so they get something in return or simply be vindictive and let him sit for the remainder of his contract, all the while accruing fines and penalties.
You signed the fucking contract, play it out, or accept the offer you've been given, because it's surely a hell of a lot more than what you're making now. I've done a complete 180 on my stance with this issue over the last couple of days. Stop being a little bitch Revis.
So I'm confused about the player rights part of these shenanigans. If Revis decides to play in the CFL for 3 years will he then be a free agent? Or will the Jets still hold his rights for 3 "NFL" years?
