Done negotiating Chase's extension?

[casear2727]

(09-09-2024, 03:57 PM)fisherscatfan Wrote: Is the guaranteed amount required to be funded via an escrow account? I have read online both yes and no. If yes then the Bengals are at a disadvantage just based on the wealth of the owners in the league.

I understand the players position and the owners did this to themselves by signing players to contracts and subsequently cutting them and not having to honor the “contract”. If I am a player, I want to know that we are agreeing to terms and BOTH sides must honor. Player holdouts should be met with heavy fines penalties/suspensions if the contract must be honored by both sides. Contracts should be collateralized by the ownership shares. Teams aren’t going broke so if an owner doesn’t honor the contract, they are fined by the league that amount or must sell the team.

If the Bengals and Chase agreed to total pay and the Browns can’t comfortably swallow the escrow requirement(if required), then the Bengals are screwed for the near future.

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.

[GodFather]

(09-09-2024, 02:04 PM)ClarkHarris4Prez Wrote: Sooo I know we usually dont negotiate during the season but I would HOPE this is an excemption. I've heard no updates though. Does anyone know if they are still negotiating or have they truly said "We will wait til after the season." If that is the case Mike Brown is a bigger joke than I thought. All the other teams with Recievers in this situation somehow got their extensions settled. For us not to is Mike Brown being a stubborn POS and spitting in the fans faces. To let this go into the season is despicable. If you aren't going to trade him PAY HIM.

The Bengals front office is horrible at negotiations. Dont think for a second that this distraction didnt affect Sunday's god awful outing. It definitely played a part(not the sole reason). 

So now we can wait till next year and they can play games till the last minute all over again while Chase sits out again. And dont think he will sit in a heartbeat if he feels any tweaks.

Pathetic...Im honestly disgusted by the fact all of us were waiting with anticipation and excitement for the season to start and we are treated to a contract dispute, franchising a glass WR with a huge history of soft tissue injury and the way the whole team in general played against a bad team. 

[casear2727]

(09-09-2024, 09:45 PM)samhain Wrote: If they can't figure this out, it's going to get really ugly this offseason.

Ja'marr and his agent can ask for whatever they want, but there's a huge risk to digging in.  If the team had a contract with an annual value higher than JJ's on the table, there's a lot of room for regret if Chase does not meet expectations.  If, god forbid, he gets hurt in a way that impacts his long-term career, then ouch.  

We all hope that they team's performance yesterday was all rust and turnovers.  It wouldn't be the first time.  If it's indicative of the kind of team they actually are (even with Chase), then I think they have to entertain the idea of getting something for him before he leaves.  

This team could have major personnel issues on both offense and defense.  It might be time to enter the second iteration of the Taylor Burrow era rather than sink insane money into a guy in Chase that you aren't winning with anyway.  Get some young, hungry wideouts with something to prove again.  You'll have the picks to do it if things really go that sideways.  Get some young blood and spend that (potential) 40 mil per on revamping the defense in FA.

If we were remotely as competent as KC's front office trading Chase and/or Tee for a bevy of trade capital wouldnt be so risky.

[Soonerpeace]

(09-09-2024, 02:16 PM)Sled21 Wrote: Don't you just love how people just assume it's the Bengal who are being unreasonable. From what I heard they offered the number Chase wanted and his agent didn't like the way it was structured. BTW, anyone buying the "food poisoning" excuse?

This

[casear2727]

The front office will be much less likely to forgive Chase's fines next season if he does hold out. They knew he would be back next year regardless thus it would have been counterproductive to fine his "sit in" and make it worse this preseason. Next year though, they likely play hard ball when it comes to him sitting out or in.

[samhain]

(09-09-2024, 10:12 PM)casear2727 Wrote: If we were remotely as competent as KC's front office trading Chase and/or Tee for a bevy of trade capital wouldnt be so risky.

Drafting receivers is one of the few things that I trust them do well.  They suck at evaluating trench players, but outside of the Ross debacle, they usually have a nose for offensive weapons.  I'd feel even better about it with a high pick.  Plus, there are a lot more NFL receivers in the first round of the draft anymore.  

Snag some proven defensive talent with that Chase money since they can't seem to draft it.  That defense was largely built through free agency anyway.

[samhain]

(09-09-2024, 02:16 PM)Sled21 Wrote: Don't you just love how people just assume it's the Bengal who are being unreasonable. From what I heard they offered the number Chase wanted and his agent didn't like the way it was structured. BTW, anyone buying the "food poisoning" excuse?

I think it's fairly clear that if anyone is being unreasonable, it's Chase.  He waited for the market to get set and now he and his agent seem to want to re-set it again.  

I don't blame the team at all for digging in here.  I think they've been quite reasonable.

[casear2727]

(09-09-2024, 10:28 PM)samhain Wrote: I think it's fairly clear that if anyone is being unreasonable, it's Chase.  He waited for the market to get set and now he and his agent seem to want to re-set it again.  

I don't blame the team at all for digging in here.  I think they've been quite reasonable.

I do not disagree. 

And I fully understand the entire "next up" process in which the league operates but..... in my humble opinion, Chase should not earn more than Jefferson and Burrow shouldnt be paid more than Mahomes.  What a privilege it is to play a game.

[fisherscatfan]

(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/

[casear2727]

(09-09-2024, 10:49 PM)fisherscatfan Wrote: 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’m 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.

All of this true and common knowledge, everyone knows this?   And yes, we are definitely at a huge disadvantage.   But none of it has to do with the accusation that owners do not honor contracts....they do honor the contracts.

As to the guaranteed money that is required to be escrowed, it depends.  There are multiple types of "guaranteed" monies in a large contract.  There are skill guarantees, cap guarantees, and/or injury guarantees.  Signing bonuses are guaranteed and do not require escrow.  The first years salary is always guaranteed on big deals and not required to be escrowed.  Roster bonuses and other "rolling bonuses" do not require escrow.  There is a deductible amount that doesnt have to be escrowed.

And the funding date of the guaranteed money isnt required until the next year.

 

[casear2727]

(09-09-2024, 03:57 PM)fisherscatfan Wrote: Is the guaranteed amount required to be funded via an escrow account? I have read online both yes and no. If yes then the Bengals are at a disadvantage just based on the wealth of the owners in the league.

I understand the players position and the owners did this to themselves by signing players to contracts and subsequently cutting them and not having to honor the “contract”.   If I am a player, I want to know that we are agreeing to terms and BOTH sides must honor. Player holdouts should be met with heavy fines penalties/suspensions if the contract must be honored by both sides. Contracts should be collateralized by the ownership shares. Teams aren’t going broke so if an owner doesn’t honor the contract, they are fined by the league that amount or must sell the team.

If the Bengals and Chase agreed to total pay and the Browns can’t comfortably swallow the escrow requirement(if required), then the Bengals are screwed for the near future.

(09-09-2024, 11:14 PM)fisherscatfan Wrote: Show me where I said owners don’t honor contracts. 

Ok... ^

[fisherscatfan]

(09-09-2024, 11:11 PM)casear2727 Wrote: All of this true and common knowledge, everyone knows this?   And yes, we are definitely at a huge disadvantage.   But none of it has to do with the accusation that owners do not honor contracts....they do honor the contracts.

As to the guaranteed money that is required to be escrowed, it depends.  There are multiple types of "guaranteed" monies in a large contract.  There are skill guarantees, cap guarantees, and/or injury guarantees.  Signing bonuses are guaranteed and do not require escrow.  The first years salary is always guaranteed on big deals and not required to be escrowed.  Roster bonuses and other "rolling bonuses" do not require escrow.  There is a deductible amount that doesnt have to be escrowed.

And the funding date of the guaranteed money isnt required until the next year.

 

My wording was meaning in the sense you sign someone to a long term deal but not really because NFL contracts did contain the cut clause. Could have expanded but did not.

[fisherscatfan]

(09-09-2024, 11:15 PM)casear2727 Wrote: Ok... ^

Understand and my wording was poor and my intent was saying you sign contracts but the NFL is different. Just got lazy and did not fully expand.

[THE PISTONS]

(09-09-2024, 10:11 PM)GodFather Wrote: The Bengals front office is horrible at negotiations. Dont think for a second that this distraction didnt affect Sunday's god awful outing. It definitely played a part(not the sole reason). 

So now we can wait till next year and they can play games till the last minute all over again while Chase sits out again. And dont think he will sit in a heartbeat if he feels any tweaks.

Pathetic...Im honestly disgusted by the fact all of us were waiting with anticipation and excitement for the season to start and we are treated to a contract dispute, franchising a glass WR with a huge history of soft tissue injury and the way the whole team in general played against a bad team. 

I think everyone knows the number they have to get to. It's just a matter of guaranteed money that's likely the issue.

[fisherscatfan]

(09-09-2024, 11:22 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: I think everyone knows the number they have to get to. It's just a matter of guaranteed money that's likely the issue.

Agreed and my speculation is it is a lot more difficult for some teams to swallow the funding vs giving the guarantee. Funding a large portion is punitive to owners like MB and puts them at a disadvantage. Given no NFL team is going bankrupt it seems nonsensical to follow outdated rules. Instead why not adopt something new having teams guarantee the payment or risk losing their franchise or some other collateral for the guarantee? Just seems like this funding requirement can fundamentally screw up the competitive balance the salary cap purports to accomplish.

[casear2727]

(09-09-2024, 11:22 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: I think everyone knows the number they have to get to. It's just a matter of guaranteed money that's likely the issue.

(09-09-2024, 11:34 PM)fisherscatfan Wrote: Agreed and my speculation is it is a lot more difficult for some teams to swallow the funding vs giving the guarantee. Funding a large portion is punitive to owners like MB and puts them at a disadvantage. Given no NFL team is going bankrupt it seems nonsensical to follow outdated rules. Instead why not adopt something new having teams guarantee the payment or risk losing their franchise or some other collateral for the guarantee? Just seems like this funding requirement can fundamentally screw up the competitive balance the salary cap purports to accomplish.

For the record I heard that the guarantee was close enough but that the annual salary amounts toward the end of the contract were not acceptable to Chase along with a couple other minor things.  

Which makes sense.  It is a lot of money and the front office has to structure his annual cap hit with Burrows and everyone else's going forward.  They likely have a 5 year plan in place and that is where they cannot come to terms with Chase.  If he is getting his guarantees and APY the club would look for him to be flexible on future year cap impacted monies.  
Guess he wasnt in to it.  Also makes sense as to why he isnt publicly upset.

[007BengalsFan]

(09-09-2024, 10:49 PM)fisherscatfan Wrote: 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...

Here is the problem with you guys that keep saying pay the players what they are worth, then using the player getting cut as a justification for large guaranteed money, if a player gets cut, it is because he is not worth his contract anymore.  You want the player to get paid what he is worth?  He is.   If he is cut he will get paid his worth by some other team and he can sign with them for his proper value. 

Why should a player get a huge contract for what they are worth and when they dont play to that same level should the owners keep paying them big money.  Its a one way street for your logic.  You only want to pay the player what he is worth when he is playing good but if he isnt playing to his worth, you still want the team to keep paying him as if he is.   Pay me what I am worth but if I start to suck, I want guaranteed money that still pays me elite money even if I dont play to that same level.  That logic makes no sense.

[Essex Johnson]

(09-09-2024, 02:49 PM)Southpaw Frerotte Wrote: ...You must have not been around for the 90's and early 2000's.  

That because not very relevant now from 30 plus years ago since when is last recent time we had 1 to few major contract holdout?

[casear2727]

(09-09-2024, 11:51 PM)Essex Johnson Wrote: That because not very relevant now from 30 plus years ago since when is last recent time we had 1 to few major contract holdout?

Lol, his point went right over your head.

Go ahead and tell us why we havent had a major contract holdout recently?

[fisherscatfan]

(09-09-2024, 11:44 PM)007BengalsFan Wrote: Here is the problem with you guys that keep saying pay the players what they are worth, then using the player getting cut as a justification for large guaranteed money, if a player gets cut, it is because he is not worth his contract anymore.  You want the player to get paid what he is worth?  He is.   If he is cut he will get paid his worth by some other team and he can sign with them for his proper value. 

Why should a player get a huge contract for what they are worth and when they dont play to that same level should the owners keep paying them big money.  It’a one way street for your logic.  You only want to pay the player what he is worth when he is playing good but if he isnt playing to his worth, you still want the team to keep paying him as if he is.   Pay me what I am worth but if I start to suck, I want guaranteed money that still pays me elite money even if I dont play to that same level.  That logic makes no sense.

I don’t think I opined on the salaries—if I did wasn’t my intent or relevant to my question. I simply stated that it is the owners doing with the historical nature of contracts that has pushed the situation to cause players to demand guaranteed money. I’m coming at this from the whole system screws teams like the Bengals. The owners wealth independent of the NFL should not be an advantage pertaining to contract structure and funding. With the current requirements, right/wrong or indifferent Bengals ownership is at a severe disadvantage to the likes of the wealthiest owners. This will shift the competitive balance even more.

My point was both signed a contract. They both agreed to it. If the player blows up and is the best in the league, he should still be required to fulfill the contract. Holding out should be punished in a significant manner. The contract should be fulfilled by both sides. My commentary was simply because players signed contracts, can be cut and resulting in the contract being worthless without guarantees. Thus the players now demanding huge guarantees that require significant funding. This hurts the Bengals as the rules are currently written. Owners with significant cash flow streams outside of the NFL can now use that as a competitive advantage against owners who basically are wealthy based on the value of their franchise. Works counter to the salary cap for competitive balance. 

Is the cash flow requirement the hang up for Mike Brown? Don’t know but it sure seems possible.