Arbitrator rules 19.9 million judgement

[gsuteke]

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3056317

Vick is ordered to pay 19.9 million back to Falcons pending appeal. Anyone else have a problem with the NFLPA going to bat for this moron?

[jezmund]

I don't know all the law, etc., behind this BUT as a Falcons fan I'm ecstatic. $20M is A LOT of money to improve the team. We could get some much needed depth at CB, DT and OL to name a few.

Any FA's that you guys want us to go after this coming winter/spring?

[gsuteke]

I came up with a list on a Falcons site. There isn't much available to be honest with you.

We need to invest in some OLinemen.

[AHF]

Wow!! That is fantastic news. Also, a huge precedent in the league - which is why the NFLPA is going to bat for him.

[DrReality]

Vick is really finished. Don't know that I see him coming back from all this. Seems pretty impossible to do with all of this hanging over his head.

[joannes3000]

Naturally, the NFLPA will be appealing the ruling and I hope that there isn't a way that this ruling is overturned. I'm not saying this because I don't want us to lose the chance to recoup money, but because it would send a negative message in letting someone essentially cash a check when they should have never been in position to do so. Vick was in clear violation of his contract because he was knowingly engaged in illegal activity at the time he signed the contract in late 2004.

We need to put that money to good use by resigning some of our young talent at LB and possibly Deangelo Hall. Beyond that, I'd rather us stockpile the money, draft smart (OL in the 1st round please), and lock up key guys as we uncover them.

[frosgrim]

I would rather the team get one of the stud QBs in the first and then spend the 2 and 3 round picks on linemen. The possibility of Brohm or Woodson is too good to pass on at this point in time. Plus, the fanbase needs a new QB to cheer for. Blank needs a new guy to market to the city.

[Diesel]

Quote:

---

In a highly technical, nine-page ruling, Burbank said the Falcons were entitled to $3.75 million of the $7.5 million bonus that Vick was paid after signing the deal in 2004, $13.5 million of the $22.5 million in roster, reporting and playing bonuses he was paid in 2005 and 2006, and $2.72 million of the $7 million roster, reporting and playing bonus that he received this year.

---

This has absolutely nothing to do with Dogfighting.

Those monies were earned Incentives. You shouldn't be able to get an Incentive earning back even if the contract was breached. That makes NO f0000000 sense.

Think about it...

You were named employee of the week... You receive $6000.00 for that week because that's the prize that comes for being employee of the week.

2 months later you get fired because you failed a drug test.

Your place of business cannot go back and ask you for the $6000.00 that you earned. That's BS.

I'm a Falcon fan, but I really hope the players Union win on appeal. For if they don't no player is guaranteed anything... even after he has earned it. It might not be dogs next time. Next time, it might be breaking a team rule. Maybe you missed the team plane... maybe you had a good excuse. IF this precedent is set, a team can go into your wallet and take money that you have already earned!

BS.

[Plainview1981]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

In a highly technical, nine-page ruling, Burbank said the Falcons were entitled to $3.75 million of the $7.5 million bonus that Vick was paid after signing the deal in 2004, $13.5 million of the $22.5 million in roster, reporting and playing bonuses he was paid in 2005 and 2006, and $2.72 million of the $7 million roster, reporting and playing bonus that he received this year.

---

This has absolutely nothing to do with Dogfighting.

Those monies were earned Incentives. You shouldn't be able to get an Incentive earning back even if the contract was breached. That makes NO f0000000 sense.

Think about it...

You were named employee of the week... You receive $6000.00 for that week because that's the prize that comes for being employee of the week.

2 months later you get fired because you failed a drug test.

Your place of business cannot go back and ask you for the $6000.00 that you earned. That's BS.

I'm a Falcon fan, but I really hope the players Union win on appeal. For if they don't no player is guaranteed anything... even after he has earned it. It might not be dogs next time. Next time, it might be breaking a team rule. Maybe you missed the team plane... maybe you had a good excuse. IF this precedent is set, a team can go into your wallet and take money that you have already earned!

BS.

---

I agree. Regardless of what Vick did dogfighting wise, he helped put butts in those seats and now the Falcons are taking money back for that is in insane.

[joannes3000]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

In a highly technical, nine-page ruling, Burbank said the Falcons were entitled to $3.75 million of the $7.5 million bonus that Vick was paid after signing the deal in 2004, $13.5 million of the $22.5 million in roster, reporting and playing bonuses he was paid in 2005 and 2006, and $2.72 million of the $7 million roster, reporting and playing bonus that he received this year.

---

This has absolutely nothing to do with Dogfighting.

Those monies were earned Incentives. You shouldn't be able to get an Incentive earning back even if the contract was breached. That makes NO f0000000 sense.

Think about it...

You were named employee of the week... You receive $6000.00 for that week because that's the prize that comes for being employee of the week.

2 months later you get fired because you failed a drug test.

Your place of business cannot go back and ask you for the $6000.00 that you earned. That's BS.

I'm a Falcon fan, but I really hope the players Union win on appeal. For if they don't no player is guaranteed anything... even after he has earned it. It might not be dogs next time. Next time, it might be breaking a team rule. Maybe you missed the team plane... maybe you had a good excuse. IF this precedent is set, a team can go into your wallet and take money that you have already earned!

BS.

---

If your failed drug test can date back prior to the reception of the award/money, it's fair game. You should have never been in position to receive the award.

It amazes me that people around the league are getting so concerned about this ruling setting a precedent that teams will try to take advantage of. Imagine that, people getting held accountable for their actions. Horrible precedent to get set.

[AHF]

Quote:

---

Those monies were earned Incentives. You shouldn't be able to get an Incentive earning back even if the contract was breached. That makes NO f0000000 sense.

Think about it...

You were named employee of the week... You receive $6000.00 for that week because that's the prize that comes for being employee of the week.

2 months later you get fired because you failed a drug test.

Your place of business cannot go back and ask you for the $6000.00 that you earned. That's BS.

---

It depends on what they were supposed to incent. If the contract recognized that these bonuses were for playing out the entire length of the contract then they should be reachable because Vick was engaging in conduct at the time that would prevent him from playing out his contract. If they were bonuses akin to an employee of the week bonus (designed to incent increased performance for that week), then I agree with you.

I haven't seen the contract but supposedly there is some language that is very good for Falcons management.

[Diesel]

You're 100% correct...

People getting Held Accountable for their actions.

Vick received the Monies because it was the Falcons incentive for him to sign with them rather than sign with somebody else. At the point that he signed, that money became his. The Falcons has no right to go into his personal money ...(Period). He held up his part of the agreement. Therefore, the Falcons are to be held ACCOUNTABLE for holding up their part of the agreement.

[Diesel]

The normal signing bonus has nothing to do with weather or not you make it threw your contract. For instance, when Vick was injured early in his career and missed part of a season, there was nobody going after his signing bonus. The signing bonus is an incentive for Signing with the Falcons...

[AHF]

Quote:

---

The normal signing bonus has nothing to do with weather or not you make it threw your contract. For instance, when Vick was injured early in his career and missed part of a season, there was nobody going after his signing bonus. The signing bonus is an incentive for Signing with the Falcons...

---

A signing bonus expressly DOES have something to do with whether you finish your contract. I agree it doesn't have anything to do with injuries. They are part of the game and a player who can't fulfill his contract because of injury doesn't deserve to have a bonus docked because he is living up to the contract in good faith. However, someone who falsely represents that he is obeying the law and can only fulfill part of the contract because of his criminal behavior doesn't deserve the whole signing bonus.

The signing bonus is given for the idea that you are going to commit yourself to a team for as long as you are under contract. Getting injured and trying your best is fulfilling that contract. Getting thrown in jail and being unable to perform because of that is a whole different matter.

[Diesel]

Quote:

---

A signing bonus or sign-on bonus is a sum of money paid to a new employee by a company as an incentive to join that company. These are often given as a way of making a compensation package more attractive to the employee e.g. if the annual salary is lower than they desire. It also lowers the risk to the company as it is a one-time payment: if the employee does not meet expectations, the company has not committed to a high salary. Signing bonuses are often used in professional sports.

---

I think you need to determine the difference between a signing bonus and an advance on the salary. If you're doing something illegal and you cannot live up to the contract, then yes, you should lose your salary and that would include paying back any advances. However, a signing bonus is an incentive that was used to get you to join the company. It's not an advance, it's an incentive. Therefore, there is no way (imm) that anybody should have ever asked for that money back.

[DJlaysitup]

Just from what I've read, the big bonus was initially a signing bonus. Then it was changed to a roster bonus to save cap space (and I guess MV7 went along with that for the good of the team). Still, I doubt that the Falcons have any real chance of getting much more than $3.5m back.

[AHF]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

A signing bonus or sign-on bonus is a sum of money paid to a new employee by a company as an incentive to join that company. These are often given as a way of making a compensation package more attractive to the employee e.g. if the annual salary is lower than they desire. It also lowers the risk to the company as it is a one-time payment: if the employee does not meet expectations, the company has not committed to a high salary. Signing bonuses are often used in professional sports.

---

I think you need to determine the difference between a signing bonus and an advance on the salary. If you're doing something illegal and you cannot live up to the contract, then yes, you should lose your salary and that would include paying back any advances. However, a signing bonus is an incentive that was used to get you to join the company. It's not an advance, it's an incentive. Therefore, there is no way (imm) that anybody should have ever asked for that money back.

---

So in your mind, Vick gets to keep all the signing bonus if he kills the owner's wife a week after joining the team? It was an incentive to sign Vick. Vick signed. He didn't actually have to engage in behavior that would permit him to fulfill the contract even the size of the signing bonus correlates directly to the length of the contract and the commitment to fulfill that contract over a long period of time?

[DJlaysitup]

Signing bonuses were basically made up to equivocate NFL contracts to the MLB and NBA "guarranteed contracts" the NFLPA is pitiful. They are the worst for their players. The NFLPA leader is either an idiot - or bought off by the owners consortium.

[AHF]

Ignore the murder hypo.

My point is that a signing bonus is for more than adding your name to the roster. The size of the bonus is directly related to the length of the contract for a simple reason: when you sign a guy to lead your team for a long period of time you are willing to reward a long-term cornerstone of the franchise. If that player engages in criminal activity that makes him unable to fulfill his contract, that negates the reason for the original signing bonus (or a large portion thereof). A player who can't fulfill his contract due to criminal activity should only get a signing bonus commensorate with the number of years he actually fulfilled on the contract - especially when he lied and represented he wasn't engaging in criminal activity when he currently was in order to get the deal in the first place.

For example, if a guy signs a 2 year deal as a QB for a team he isn't going to get a huge signing bonus. If the franchise decides to build around someone and signs them for 7 years they are going to get a significant signing bonus because they have committed themselves to the team long-term and the team makes a financial investment consistent with that mutual commitment.

Allowing a criminal who can't fulfill years on his contract because of his criminal activity to keep a signing bonus that is based on his long-term commitment to the team is a windfall for the player. I don't have a problem with the NFL allowing a team to go after a signing bonus in situations like Vick's. (If the team signed Priest Holmes to a huge deal and he is injured that is a very different situation.)

[DJlaysitup]

I disagree AHF...a signing bonus is a simple bonus for signing.