09-09-2024, 10:49 PM
(09-09-2024, 10:09 PM)casear2727 Wrote:
Owners are still honoring the contracts when they cut a player. The contract clearly states that a player can be cut. It also states that the owner will pay any and all guaranteed amounts owed to the player. Im not sure why this keeps coming up? Thousands of players have been cut and not one lawsuit.... every contract has been honored as to its terms when it comes to the owners.
As to the question, the entire amount of the guaranteed portion of the contract is not required to escrowed.
I never said owners didn’t honor contracts. However guaranteed amounts were dramatically lower in the past and players were often cut with multiple years left and large amounts not guaranteed. That is what I meant by owners doing this to themselves.
It keeps coming up because of the Watson contract fundamentally shifting the guarantee money market. Players signed big contracts for many years and they could be cut and not paid unless the money was guaranteed. Historically Watson’s contract blew up the norm for guaranteed money. The NFL has a stipulation that the NFL “may” (from what I have read) require escrow for guaranteed money but I was asking if that is required.
Jerry Jones is in a hell of a lot better cash flow situation to fund guaranteed amounts than Mike Brown as MBs wealth appears to be tied directly to the Bengals. So while the salary cap limitations should provide a competitive balance if teams required to fund escrows for guaranteed amounts, owners who have paper worth only because of the franchise value are at a disadvantage to owners that have other cash flow streams.
It seemed ridiculous to me to require immediate funding as no owner has defaulted. This article states an escrow for guaranteed contracts is required
https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/2022-nfl-contract-drama-how-an-old-rule-favors-rich-owners-and-could-impact-joe-burrow-justin-herbert-deals/
