Is Shemar holding out?

[*bfine32*]

(7 hours ago)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Has been brought up many times already. The teams that have these clauses, have a more front-loaded payout of the signing bonuses. If it's front-loaded, you get it sooner and it can't be voided at the whim of your boss.

The problem with the Bengals is that they are trying to adopt the clause, but ALSO want to keep their original signing bonus payout plan that is more spread out and disadvantageous to the player.

They want to make the change with zero compromise.

- - - - - 

Yeah! It's ridiculous that you should have to actually be proven to do something wrong before you can be stripped of $10-12m in guaranteed money! Preemptive punishments are the only non-ridiculous way to handle things! 

....I can't imagine why people wouldn't want to sign up for that without getting anything in return. 

- - - - -

Ray Rice was under his second contract. It wasn't his rookie deal. The Bengals didn't try to put this clause in Chase's deal, or Tee's deal, or Burrow's deal, etc.

Heck, they didn't even put it in either of Mixon's deals and he WAS on video doing violence to a woman before they even drafted him. Same with Jermaine Burton.

All it really is about is somewhere down the road the Bengals FO is going to realize a player is a bust and they're going to turn over every stone to find cause to strip him of guarantees (even though he's done nothing wrong) so they can save money. It's about power and money. Not doing what's right.

Why would they do it with Burton? The only thing guaranteed in his contract is the signing bonus. 

Shemur's contract will be 100% guaranteed. I see nothing wrong with getting a little "good conduct" assurance. 

But as I've said, folk's minds are made up on this already.