NFL Contracts revised

[Pokerbrat2000]

Because here's the thing the Packers aren't going to fine Rodgers because like you said they want him on their team which means he has all the leverage.

I'd have to double check, but I think the CBA might kick in and the Packers hands will be tied on what happens with fines. But again, this is all contractual and known ahead of time by both parties to the contract.

 

[swhitset]

I'd have to double check, but I think the CBA might kick in and the Packers hands will be tied on what happens with fines. But again, this is all contractual and known ahead of time by both parties to the contract.

Rodgers will be fined for any mandatory workout, practice or games he misses. The Packers have nothing to say about it.

 

[gopkrs]

And players are allowed to not honor the contract except for the fully guranteed portion as well...just the way it works in

Sure, but only by quitting. And then they can't, per the contract, just go to another team w/o the permission of the team they are under contract with. Just because they quit, it does not mean that they are not still under contract if they later decide they want to play. The contract would just be in limbo while they sit out.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

And players are allowed to not honor the contract except for the fully guranteed portion as well...just the way it works in


I do already get everything you're saying man...I'm saying the way it's actually worked out in real life is the second part of your comment. The players are in fact "allowed". Because here's the thing the Packers aren't going to fine Rodgers because like you said they want him on their team which means he has all the leverage. I don't care what the piece of paper says... leverage wins in sports as entertainment. That's why NBA players can get traded wherever they want etc while being under contract

Both a team and a player are fully aware of the terms agreed upon in a contract signed by both sides.

It's actually pretty straight forward with the team being obliged to pay any money guaranteed to the player while he commits to the team for the duration of the contract.

Take the contract of Aaron Jones as an example. While it is reported as a four-year, $48 million deal everyone should be aware that it will most likely end up as a two-year, $20 million deal.

While the team will be allowed to move on from him after two years without owing him a penny he doesn't have the right to sit out because of it after next season.

 

[thequick12]

He doesn't have the right to sit out because of it after next season.

See he absolutely does have the right to sit out whenever he decides that's what's best for his life. Just like the team could release him after this season. It would be dumb but they certainly have that right. If they want they can release him right now in fact

The point is it's his time he has the right to do whatever he wants. Now does he have enough leverage like a Rodgers or LeBron James does to avoid any repercussions of that choice? I doubt it...but certainly there are lots of players that do

Now obviously I think Rodgers will be the Packers starter in September but let's just say he decides to retire...does anyone really think the team would be fiscally dumb enough to force Rodgers to pay back signing bonus money?

 

[Half Empty]

Except that’s not always true... Ask Leveon Bell how holding out worked out for him. Sure after sitting out for a year he got a bunch of money and signed with a team.... and his career pretty much died.

Always subjective, but I'd say the $27 mil guaranteed means it did work out pretty well for him. Especially since he couldn't make it with the the Jets or Chiefs, possibly meaning he wasn't going to make it anywhere.

 

[Poppa San]

.does anyone really think the team would be fiscally dumb enough to force Rodgers to pay back signing bonus money?

Yes because it gets dropped from the cap hit when they get it back. Signing bonus is for the duration of the contract implied so if the player signs then retires the team can get it back. Several years ago lawsuit IIRC.

 

[swhitset]

Always subjective, but I'd say the $27 mil guaranteed means it did work out pretty well for him. Especially since he couldn't make it with the the Jets or Chiefs, possibly meaning he wasn't going to make it anywhere.

your right it is subjective but he had turned down similar money from the Steelers a year earlier where he had been playing very successfully. He actually expressed a desire to return to the Steelers after a year with the Jets ... which ad we know did not happen.

 

[swhitset]

See he absolutely does have the right to sit out whenever he decides that's what's best for his life. Just like the team could release him after this season. It would be dumb but they certainly have that right. If they want they can release him right now in fact

The point is it's his time he has the right to do whatever he wants. Now does he have enough leverage like a Rodgers or LeBron James does to avoid any repercussions of that choice? I doubt it...but certainly there are lots of players that do

Now obviously I think Rodgers will be the Packers starter in September but let's just say he decides to retire...does anyone really think the team would be fiscally dumb enough to force Rodgers to pay back signing bonus money?

just what about it would be fiscally dumb? ...

Here’s a hint... it would be fiscally dumb not to .

 

[thequick12]

just what about it would be fiscally dumb? ...

Here’s a hint... it would be fiscally dumb not to .

How much money do you think the Packers will make after Rodgers retires from his countinued affiliation with the team?

How much have they already made?

Would it be wise to alienate that guy possibly forever?

 

[swhitset]

How much money do you think the Packers will make after Rodgers retires from his countinued affiliation with the team?

How much have they already made?

Would it be wise to alienate that guy possibly forever?

Again you don’t seem to have a firm grasp on the situation. First… it’s a moot point because if Rodgers misses any mandatory meeting practice game etc…. The fines are imposed … The Packers do not have the option to waive them. Secondly… if Rodgers actually chooses not to play he is as good as gone … he will never make more money for the Packers.

Edit… I just went back and looked we were taking about signing bonus money not fines… doesn’t change my opinion at all though. Allowing Rodgers to keep money he did not earn would not be financially smart. And if he retires under those circumstances… paying back the money certainly won’t be something he has trouble understanding. However forcing him to retire rather than trading him may be something that would **** him off … but again… so what ….

 

[sschind]

Rodgers will be fined for any mandatory workout, practice or games he misses. The Packers have nothing to say about it.

I'm not sure but I think some people might be suggesting there might be a little something extra in Rodgers new contract to make up for anything he loses in fines. Obviously they couldn't word it as "fine reimbursement" but just adding a couple hundred thousand to the total would accomplish the same thing. A little nudge nudge wink wink if you will.

Again you don’t seem to have a firm grasp on the situation. First… it’s a moot point because if Rodgers misses any mandatory meeting practice game etc…. The fines are imposed … The Packers do not have the option to waive them. Secondly… if Rodgers actually chooses not to play he is as good as gone … he will never make more money for the Packers.

Edit… I just went back and looked we were taking about signing bonus money not fines… doesn’t change my opinion at all though. Allowing Rodgers to keep money he did not earn would not be financially smart. And if he retires under those circumstances… paying back the money certainly won’t be something he has trouble understanding. However forcing him to retire rather than trading him may be something that would **** him off … but again… so what ….

In lots of cases players are probably not asked to pay back signing bonus money unless it is a huge amount or there is a serious conflict. Both come into play here. Depending on the circumstances the team may not think it is worth it to pursue reimbursement. In this case I think it would be worth it. In many ways it can be looked at as a parting gift or severance pay for a job well done. On the other hand maybe its SOP and you just never hear about it because its a given. I just remember hearing a few cases where it made the news when teams didn't pursue it but even though I can't recall the specific players they were high profile cases. Since his name has come up recently I think Andrew Luck may have been one of them. The Colts could have asked him to repay some of it but they didn't

How much money do you think the Packers will make after Rodgers retires from his countinued affiliation with the team?

How much have they already made?

Would it be wise to alienate that guy possibly forever?

Probably not nearly as much as you think they will. How much money do you think the Packers will make off Rodgers after his retirement assuming they make nice and he finishes his career here? They will get some money from Jersey sales and the like but after he retires, heck probably even after this year, that amount will go down as people move on to the next guy. When they host fan events and Rodgers makes an appearance they would make money off that but my guess is with the Packers fan base it won't make much difference if Rodgers is there or not. I'm not sure where you think all this money is coming from that they risk losing if they alienate him.

They have made a lot off him already way more, way way more than they will after he retires.

I'm not sure what the risk is. The few fans that stop supporting the team over the way they treated Rodgers is a drop in the bucket compared to the loyal Packer fans who will continue to support the team no matter what happens with Rodgers.

 

[longtimefan]

How much money do you think the Packers will make after Rodgers retires from his countinued affiliation with the team?

How much have they already made?

Would it be wise to alienate that guy possibly forever?

Seems it didnt hurt the packers when this went down with brett.

And imo, Brett had more public support

 

[thequick12]

Seems it didnt hurt the packers when this went down with brett.

And imo, Brett had more public support

Yeah it worked out because of Aaron Rodgers...

 

[thequick12]

as people move on to the next guy.

They have made a lot off him already way more, way way more than they will after he retires.

I agree with your first 2 points pretty much... obviously it's very easy to offset any mandatory NFL fines imposed without actually saying it in an extension

And yes there are very few instances of a team making a retiring player pay back signing bonus money. That's usually reserved for Aaron Hernandez type stuff and even there I don't think the pats got it all back but pretty sure they got something...

Yes they have made far more off of him than he has been paid but that doesn't mean you shoot yourself in the foot with regard to keeping that going...even if it is just your foot and not your head anymore

Finally, you make it sound so guranteed theyll just move on to the next one but history says it's far more likely the next one may never show up in GB. We can look at the lists of bears QBs during Favre Rodgers era. Not a single good one

 

[longtimefan]

Yeah it worked out because of Aaron Rodgers...

He went 6 and 10 1st season.

You forget parents had kids screaming fu to aaron at practices??

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

And imo, Brett had more public support

Was thinking about this the other day and while the 2 situations are somewhat similar, they are very different in that Brett never waivered about what team he wanted to play for. It was never Brett wanting out of Green Bay, it was about Brett wanting out of Football. Some fans took that personally and a statement that he didn't like the Packers. No, it was about Brett coming to that point in life where he wondered if he needed a change and questioned how much he had left in his tank. Rodgers made a point at saying how great he feels, subtle way of saying "I'm in the best shape of my life and ready to play at a high level." Which I am sure that he probably is, but it, along with his comment about winning the MVP throwing a wrench in the Packers plans, were both subtle digs to the FO at guessing wrong on his predicted demise.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I'm not trying to be a smart *** here because I really don't know. I keep seeing people say that the Packers have made a ton of money off of Aaron Rodgers and I need to know just how that additional money was made and approximately how much less the team would have made had they not drafted Aaron Rodgers.

Thanks.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

See he absolutely does have the right to sit out whenever he decides that's what's best for his life. Just like the team could release him after this season. It would be dumb but they certainly have that right. If they want they can release him right now in fact

The point is it's his time he has the right to do whatever he wants.

Once again, the terms of an NFL contract allows the team to release a player whenever they want to move on (or find it fiscally viable) from him but it doesn't allow a player to not show up for mandatory workouts, practices and games. That's why players get fined for doing it.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

I'm not trying to be a smart *** here because I really don't know. I keep seeing people say that the Packers have made a ton of money off of Aaron Rodgers and I need to know just how that additional money was made and approximately how much less the team would have made had they not drafted Aaron Rodgers.

Thanks.

Closest I could find was a 2018 breakdown that showed how much each team spent for each win; basically just divide the team's salary cap figure by the number of wins. In 2018 the Packers ranked 21st, spending $21.7m per win. The worst team that year were the Cardinals and they spent $47.9m per win. It really comes down to how many games you think the Packers can win with Rodgers at QB compared to someone else. Personally, I think the Packers can win 12-13 games with him vs maybe 4-7 without him. That's a big difference in wins. That's the only way I can think of it right now. While you can find wins added as a stat for NBA players I can't find anything similar for NFL players.

Any way you look at it, the difference is probably rather large although the revenue sharing between teams would probably lessen the impact. The impact I would be more worried about is watching a great team for 12+ years vs watching a mediocre team for 12+ years.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

Any way you look at it, the difference is probably rather large although the revenue sharing between teams would probably lessen the impact. The impact I would be more worried about is watching a great team for 12+ years vs watching a mediocre team for 12+ years.

That is kind of my point and why I asked the question. Revenue sharing happens and is equal for all teams, no matter how many people they put in the stands. If Rodgers was on a team that couldn't sell tickets, I think their is an argument to be made that he sells tickets. However, selling tickets has never been an issue in Green Bay. So maybe he brings in some revenue during road games, where more tickets are sold to see Packers #12. Jerseys? Well those profits are also shared. So my question still is the same....how much additional money was made and approximately how much less the team would have made had they not drafted Aaron Rodgers or if Aaron Rodgers never existed.

One might try to make an argument that the team lost money on Rodgers, since they paid him a hell of a lot more than some teams have to pay a QB.

I'm not using this as some sort of "Aaron Rodgers was a waste of money". I am just curious as to why people keep saying "He has made the team a ton of money."

 

[Wi. Mike now in Florida]

Regardless of what any contract states for the Packers or Rodgers, here's what's NOT going
to happen that will bring Rodgers back.

Brian Gutekunst WILL NOT be fired just to please Rodgers imo.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

That is kind of my point and why I asked the question. Revenue sharing happens and is equal for all teams, no matter how many people they put in the stands. If Rodgers was on a team that couldn't sell tickets, I think their is an argument to be made that he sells tickets. However, selling tickets has never been an issue in Green Bay. So maybe he brings in some revenue during road games, where more tickets are sold to see Packers #12. Jerseys? Well those profits are also shared. So my question still is the same....how much additional money was made and approximately how much less the team would have made had they not drafted Aaron Rodgers or if Aaron Rodgers never existed.

One might try to make an argument that the team lost money on Rodgers, since they paid him a hell of a lot more than some teams have to pay a QB.

I'm not using this as some sort of "Aaron Rodgers was a waste of money". I am just curious as to why people keep saying "He has made the team a ton of money."

I don't think anyone could convincingly argue the Packers lost money by having the best QB ever on the team.

The argument for him making the team money is that, in sports, winning is VERY valuable for the team. Rodgers has been the primary driver of the team winning for over a decade.

 

[Pokerbrat2000]

I don't think anyone could convincingly argue the Packers lost money by having the best QB ever on the team.

The argument for him making the team money is that, in sports, winning is VERY valuable for the team. Rodgers has been the primary driver of the team winning for over a decade.

So by saying "argument" you are claiming its true? Its a pretty simple question, either you can point to all the extra money Rodgers made the Packers or you can't. Saying Rodgers has helped the team to win isn't the question, I was asking if the claim some have made "Rodgers has made the team more money than they have paid him" is true. I can tell you exactly or at least close to what the team has paid Aaron. I can also point to what Aaron has made in endorsements as a result of being a Packer. What I want is a number saying "Solely due to Aaron Rodgers, the Packer revenues have increased each year by X amount." I have my doubts this number is as big as you might think it is or I wouldn't really be asking it. But if you have some proof, I would love to see it and have it change my hunch.

I will give you a piece of cheese....Title Town. Now THAT makes the organization money outside of the guaranteed share of the pie that they get by being a member of the NFL. Would that have been as successful without Rodgers?

 

[thequick12]

He went 6 and 10 1st season.

You forget parents had kids screaming fu to aaron at practices??

No not at all I just posted that record somewhere else on hear...but I also noted he looked like the real deal, passed the eye test etc and that many of those were one score losses

It was clear from his first year as a starter that the Packers had struck gold again with Rodgers