Chase not Practicing

[casear2727]

(09-03-2024, 09:35 PM)Joelist Wrote: Interestingly, every link saying the escrow rule isn't required leads back to the same PFT article. It's from Florio who is not exactly a paragon of honesty. So, assumi9ng this is a real rule it is likely a league rule. Signing bonuses would count against it so the rule would be that the guarantee upon signing that has to be escrowed is the total minus any lump sum payments like signing bonuses. Remember Burrows deal had guarantees that phased in over time - this cut down the amount needed up front.

That's why I am assuming the holdup is the structure of the guarantees. Remember the Bengals Operating Income is about 140 million a year - which includes the revenue sharing. So they have to fit everything into the cash they have stacked up, some of which they already used in Free Agency.

The escrow rule is a real rule.  Like I said, it is a rule created by the owners.  That said, the wording in the CBA, which is what we get to see, in the section on Funding of Deferred and Guaranteed Contracts on page 178 states the following:  "The NFL MAY require that by a prescribed date, each club must deposit into a segregated account.....   

The Browns refused to answer requests from multiple sources, not just Florio, when they were asked if an escrow deposit was made, and if so, when was it made.  Im not sure if the Browns eventually provided a direct response.  But their lack of communication led to the increased attention to the specific wording of the rule.

Also, like I said, it is not just the signing bonus that is not required, but also any payments in the 1st year of the contract.

Also, there is a $15,000,000 deductible that doesnt have to be paid.



"So they have to fit everything into the cash they have stacked up, some of which they already used in Free Agency."

I seriously doubt this is the case as the funding deadline is in March next year.