2 hours ago
(8 hours ago)Sled21 Wrote: You keep throwing out that false equivalency. A contract says a player will play for a certain franchise for a certain number of years, and right there in the contract it tells the player what the contract guarantees. Money guarantees, no cut clauses, etc. If a team has paid the player all his monetary guarantees, and there is no "no cut" clause, and then they renegotiate or cut the player, the team has lived up to it's part of the bargain.
No they didn't. If they write a contract, any change in that contract is not living up to it.
Whether it's Trey asking for more money or years, or if it's the Bengals taking money back. It's the EXACT same thing. You can't twist and contort it to fit your narrative. If you want Trey to fulfill the contract he signed, as it was written, then you need to say the Bengals need to pay out that contract, as it was written.
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
"Hope is not a strategy"
"The measure of a man's intelligence can be seen in the length of his argument."
