That is how I would see it as a best case scenario for Wakes situation from a Lions PoV. Although he may not have offered the 1 + 1, as that isn't how he goes into negotiations with rookies.DanoT wrote:At this point we don't know what Wally offered to CW. We do know that it is Lions policy to sign rookies to 2+1, so If I'm Wally I would have offered CW what I thought he was worth and would be happy with on a 2+1 as well as offering a 1+1 for way, way below market value just to satisfy league rules.
If the above is true, and given CW's phenom year, and NFL interest, then perhaps the argument is being made by CW's agent that the 1+1 offer was so low as to not be an offer at all. At the time of the signing CW was probly happy with 2 years and until the CLFPA stirred things up combined with NFL interest there was no point in renegotiating or trying to void a contract.
Just speculation.
Report: Wake wants out of his contract
Moderator: Team Captains
Entertainment value = an all time low
If he was on the Lions neg list what were his options?ziggy wrote:I didn't say Calgary offered him a contract now did I? I did say ,using your bank analogy ,there were other options. If all he was offered was a contract in contravention to the CBA I am sure the option would be for the league to step in either force the team to comply or allow him to negotiate elsewhere. Prevously you accused me of saying the club "bears no responsibility" which was also a misquote. I also never said I would sign an illegal mortgage or would live with one In fact I said if a bank offered me a bad deal I would go elsewhere, once again your erroneous interpretation. I am glad the mortgage you signed is legal and I don't think you're unique at least in that regard.Too bad you never had a chance to advise CW and his agent about contracts. Frankly I think you are so blinded by your assumption of the team taking advantage of CW that nothing will change your mind. Therefore I think we can agree to disagree before this gets personal.Tighthead wrote:What is your evidence that Calgary et al offered him a contract? If he was on BC's neg list. could he go there?
If you had a mortgage that was in violation of statutory or common law principles, and was costing you money, you would live with it on principle? Nobody is that stubborn or foolish, and to assert that you would act in such a manner erodes your credibility.
I have a mortgage, and I have never lived through one that was in contravention of the law. I guess that makes me unique, because according to you everyone has signed a voidable mortgage and put up with it. Why did you not void your mortgage and what was the problem with it? Certainly you aren't comparing a bad deal to a voidable deal - you must see the distinction.
You said if you took a bad and voidable deal you would live with it - not shop around. You said anyone with a mortgage has had this experience, and that you would "take your lumps" and shop around next time. That means living with what you signed no matter what.
How is "taking your lumps" consistent with shopping around, and how was my interpretation erroneous? Please explain what you meant by taking your lumps. It sounds like living with a bad deal to me.
Quote:
And frankly if I was foolish enough to take a bad deal , yes I would take my lumps and look for a better one next time. Anyone with a mortgage has lived through this.
And don't forget we aren't simply talking about a bad deal - the allegation is that the deal was in explicit violation of a governing agreement.
No doubt the way to work the deal is to go with a barebones 1+1 and a juicy 2+1. Like trying to get a cel phone contract for less than three years. No free voicemail, no free phone, etc, etc.DanoT wrote:At this point we don't know what Wally offered to CW. We do know that it is Lions policy to sign rookies to 2+1, so If I'm Wally I would have offered CW what I thought he was worth and would be happy with on a 2+1 as well as offering a 1+1 for way, way below market value just to satisfy league rules.
If the above is true, and given CW's phenom year, and NFL interest, then perhaps the argument is being made by CW's agent that the 1+1 offer was so low as to not be an offer at all. At the time of the signing CW was probly happy with 2 years and until the CLFPA stirred things up combined with NFL interest there was no point in renegotiating or trying to void a contract.
Just speculation.
If the agent is making that argument, it shouldn't go far.
It does sound like this may be a league wide issue - some of the teams may not have even known about the requirement.
[/quote]
I didn't say Calgary offered him a contract now did I? I did say ,using your bank analogy ,there were other options. If all he was offered was a contract in contravention to the CBA I am sure the option would be for the league to step in either force the team to comply or allow him to negotiate elsewhere. Prevously you accused me of saying the club "bears no responsibility" which was also a misquote. I also never said I would sign an illegal mortgage or would live with one In fact I said if a bank offered me a bad deal I would go elsewhere, once again your erroneous interpretation. I am glad the mortgage you signed is legal and I don't think you're unique at least in that regard.Too bad you never had a chance to advise CW and his agent about contracts. Frankly I think you are so blinded by your assumption of the team taking advantage of CW that nothing will change your mind. Therefore I think we can agree to disagree before this gets personal.[/quote]
If he was on the Lions neg list what were his options?
You said if you took a bad and voidable deal you would live with it - not shop around. You said anyone with a mortgage has had this experience, and that you would "take your lumps" and shop around next time. That means living with what you signed no matter what.
How is "taking your lumps" consistent with shopping around, and how was my interpretation erroneous? Please explain what you meant by taking your lumps. It sounds like living with a bad deal to me.
Quote:
And frankly if I was foolish enough to take a bad deal , yes I would take my lumps and look for a better one next time. Anyone with a mortgage has lived through this.
And don't forget we aren't simply talking about a bad deal - the allegation is that the deal was in explicit violation of a governing agreement.[/quote]
Well let me make it simple in case I have confused you. If I was offered a illegal deal, I wouldn't take it, plain and simple. If the only place offering me a deal was offering an illegal one I would walk away, in this case, report the illegal activity to the governing body .Using your mortgage analogy, back in the days when I had one, it was common to sign up for mortgage at the best rate available and often multiple year ones offered lower rates. If next next year things changed and rates were down that was unfortunate particularly if you had two years left on your mortgage.Too bad so sad you take your lumps.I might wish I took a one year but didn't, yes I would live with it, I made a decision.
I didn't say Calgary offered him a contract now did I? I did say ,using your bank analogy ,there were other options. If all he was offered was a contract in contravention to the CBA I am sure the option would be for the league to step in either force the team to comply or allow him to negotiate elsewhere. Prevously you accused me of saying the club "bears no responsibility" which was also a misquote. I also never said I would sign an illegal mortgage or would live with one In fact I said if a bank offered me a bad deal I would go elsewhere, once again your erroneous interpretation. I am glad the mortgage you signed is legal and I don't think you're unique at least in that regard.Too bad you never had a chance to advise CW and his agent about contracts. Frankly I think you are so blinded by your assumption of the team taking advantage of CW that nothing will change your mind. Therefore I think we can agree to disagree before this gets personal.[/quote]
If he was on the Lions neg list what were his options?
You said if you took a bad and voidable deal you would live with it - not shop around. You said anyone with a mortgage has had this experience, and that you would "take your lumps" and shop around next time. That means living with what you signed no matter what.
How is "taking your lumps" consistent with shopping around, and how was my interpretation erroneous? Please explain what you meant by taking your lumps. It sounds like living with a bad deal to me.
Quote:
And frankly if I was foolish enough to take a bad deal , yes I would take my lumps and look for a better one next time. Anyone with a mortgage has lived through this.
And don't forget we aren't simply talking about a bad deal - the allegation is that the deal was in explicit violation of a governing agreement.[/quote]
Well let me make it simple in case I have confused you. If I was offered a illegal deal, I wouldn't take it, plain and simple. If the only place offering me a deal was offering an illegal one I would walk away, in this case, report the illegal activity to the governing body .Using your mortgage analogy, back in the days when I had one, it was common to sign up for mortgage at the best rate available and often multiple year ones offered lower rates. If next next year things changed and rates were down that was unfortunate particularly if you had two years left on your mortgage.Too bad so sad you take your lumps.I might wish I took a one year but didn't, yes I would live with it, I made a decision.
If I knew the banks conduct was illegal, I would report the misconduct, hire an ambulance chaser to sue them, and go to a different bank. I can't see anyone being able to force me to deal with an organization thats conduct was so questionable that their contracts would be voidable. What kind of faith could I have in such an organization? But that supposes that the banks dealings have been found to be illegal and not that the final deal favoured the bank more than me in the long run. I'm not sure how you can prove what was offered in this situation? I suspect that the basic deal was on the table, but a significantly sweeter one was also out there for a longer committment and realisticly that makes sense from a clubs perspective. I am not sure that the current rule, if it is simply that you must offer a 1+1, unless that is a minimum, is practical.Wouuldn't that mean all contracts for rookies that offer longer terms are voidable? If so why doesn't the rule then state you can only offer a 1+1 to a rookie? As it stands could you not just say I'll give you league minimum for 1+1 but 200k for 3+1, the 1+1 is there but maybe not palatable to the player?Tighthead wrote:What if the bank's conduct allowed you to void a deal that you wanted to walk away from? Would you take your lumps or exercise your rights?
If a player is on a teams neg list and the team offers him nothing near his real worth, are you saying he must accept that and sign?
So you would exercise your rights if you found out post execution?ziggy wrote:If I knew the banks conduct was illegal, I would report the misconduct, hire an ambulance chaser to sue them, and go to a different bank. I can't see anyone being able to force me to deal with an organization thats conduct was so questionable that their contracts would be voidable.Tighthead wrote:What if the bank's conduct allowed you to void a deal that you wanted to walk away from? Would you take your lumps or exercise your rights?
The only way that Wake can get out of his contract is if the Lions breached the CBA - it is that simple. So if they did, Wake will have the right to opt out and go his own way, just like you would. If they complied with the CBA, he has to stick to his bargain. The only conduct that is in any way relevant is that of the Lions'.
Conduct doesn't have to be "so questionable" for a deal to be voidable - it just takes a technicality.
There are league minimums for player salaries........and I don't think rookies see a lot more than that in their initial contract, particularly in the first year.......but I could see a raise in the 3rd year being an incentive to sign the 2+1.DanoT wrote:At this point we don't know what Wally offered to CW. We do know that it is Lions policy to sign rookies to 2+1, so If I'm Wally I would have offered CW what I thought he was worth and would be happy with on a 2+1 as well as offering a 1+1 for way, way below market value just to satisfy league rules.
If the above is true, and given CW's phenom year, and NFL interest, then perhaps the argument is being made by CW's agent that the 1+1 offer was so low as to not be an offer at all. At the time of the signing CW was probly happy with 2 years and until the CLFPA stirred things up combined with NFL interest there was no point in renegotiating or trying to void a contract.
Just speculation.
Lloyd
I thought the CBA was already in effect and available to the player and his agents prior to any signing? Wouldn't that make it reasonable to assume if any thing illegal took place it wasn't post execution, it was there all along? Are you suggesting that perhaps his agents weren't familiar with the CBA when negotiating the contract and were mislead into thinking that a clause clearly wriitten in the CBA did not apply? If that is your point then I guess I would have to agree he should be able to get out of this deal because he was mislead. But what if the agents actually were familiar with the CBA and still encouraged him to sign, wouldn't they also be complicit in this conspriacy? Would you want them negotiating for you? I'd be interested to see if the CFLPA is looking at agents conduct as well. I guess we will see when the whole story is known.Tighthead wrote:So you would exercise your rights if you found out post execution?ziggy wrote:If I knew the banks conduct was illegal, I would report the misconduct, hire an ambulance chaser to sue them, and go to a different bank. I can't see anyone being able to force me to deal with an organization thats conduct was so questionable that their contracts would be voidable.Tighthead wrote:What if the bank's conduct allowed you to void a deal that you wanted to walk away from? Would you take your lumps or exercise your rights?
The only way that Wake can get out of his contract is if the Lions breached the CBA - it is that simple. So if they did, Wake will have the right to opt out and go his own way, just like you would. If they complied with the CBA, he has to stick to his bargain. The only conduct that is in any way relevant is that of the Lions'.
Conduct doesn't have to be "so questionable" for a deal to be voidable - it just takes a technicality.