There are 115 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

Raiders want refund from Jamarcus.

Originally posted by WINiner:
Originally posted by blizzuntz:
Originally posted by thojess:
Originally posted by billbird2111:
Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
Russell will be represented in the grievance by the NFL Players Association.

This one line interested me more than anything else. You really think the Player's Association is going to waste a bunch of coin on some slacker who essentially gave the league -- and a lot of other players -- a big black eye?

Remember -- the NFLPA represents ALL players. And if I was paying dues into the NFLPA -- I wouldn't want ONE CENT of my contribution to pay for lawyers to defend Jamarcus.

Think about it. Would you? Most players in the NFL will never even begin to SNIFF the kind of contract money that Jamarcus got. Not even CLOSE.

And now those same players are going to pony up -- through NFLPA dues -- defense money for Jamarcus?

What r u smokin?

Silly argument. The NFLPA is certainly motivated to ensure that signing bonuses and other guaranteed money stays guaranteed. You're argument is emotional and foolish and doesn't consider the legal ramifications of setting such a dangerous precedent.

This.

And the fact that Russel contract helped many veterans get bigger contracts. When a rookie gets a big contract, veterans get happy bc that means future contracts are larger based on precedence(sp)

I disagree completely. Vets HATE rookie contracts because a VERY small percentage of Vets actually get those blockbuster deals while they watch some snot nosed punk gain a contract that's likely to never be seen by that particular Vet, and for potential rather than performance.

Disagree all you like, but guaranteed money effects everyone not just snot nosed punk rookies. No effing way they let old Al get away with this one.
Originally posted by WINiner:
Originally posted by blizzuntz:
Originally posted by thojess:
Originally posted by billbird2111:
Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
Russell will be represented in the grievance by the NFL Players Association.

This one line interested me more than anything else. You really think the Player's Association is going to waste a bunch of coin on some slacker who essentially gave the league -- and a lot of other players -- a big black eye?

Remember -- the NFLPA represents ALL players. And if I was paying dues into the NFLPA -- I wouldn't want ONE CENT of my contribution to pay for lawyers to defend Jamarcus.

Think about it. Would you? Most players in the NFL will never even begin to SNIFF the kind of contract money that Jamarcus got. Not even CLOSE.

And now those same players are going to pony up -- through NFLPA dues -- defense money for Jamarcus?

What r u smokin?

Silly argument. The NFLPA is certainly motivated to ensure that signing bonuses and other guaranteed money stays guaranteed. You're argument is emotional and foolish and doesn't consider the legal ramifications of setting such a dangerous precedent.

This.

And the fact that Russel contract helped many veterans get bigger contracts. When a rookie gets a big contract, veterans get happy bc that means future contracts are larger based on precedence(sp)

I disagree completely. Vets HATE rookie contracts because a VERY small percentage of Vets actually get those blockbuster deals while they watch some snot nosed punk gain a contract that's likely to never be seen by that particular Vet, and for potential rather than performance.

name 1 vet
Originally posted by thojess:
Originally posted by WINiner:
Originally posted by blizzuntz:
Originally posted by thojess:
Originally posted by billbird2111:
Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
Russell will be represented in the grievance by the NFL Players Association.

This one line interested me more than anything else. You really think the Player's Association is going to waste a bunch of coin on some slacker who essentially gave the league -- and a lot of other players -- a big black eye?

Remember -- the NFLPA represents ALL players. And if I was paying dues into the NFLPA -- I wouldn't want ONE CENT of my contribution to pay for lawyers to defend Jamarcus.

Think about it. Would you? Most players in the NFL will never even begin to SNIFF the kind of contract money that Jamarcus got. Not even CLOSE.

And now those same players are going to pony up -- through NFLPA dues -- defense money for Jamarcus?

What r u smokin?

Silly argument. The NFLPA is certainly motivated to ensure that signing bonuses and other guaranteed money stays guaranteed. You're argument is emotional and foolish and doesn't consider the legal ramifications of setting such a dangerous precedent.

This.

And the fact that Russel contract helped many veterans get bigger contracts. When a rookie gets a big contract, veterans get happy bc that means future contracts are larger based on precedence(sp)

I disagree completely. Vets HATE rookie contracts because a VERY small percentage of Vets actually get those blockbuster deals while they watch some snot nosed punk gain a contract that's likely to never be seen by that particular Vet, and for potential rather than performance.

Disagree all you like, but guaranteed money effects everyone not just snot nosed punk rookies. No effing way they let old Al get away with this one.

End discussion. There's no chance in Hell that the union let's this go without a fight. It's not about Jarmarcus it's about ensuring that guaranteed money stays guaranteed. If the Raiders win this you don't think Washington is going to have some buyer's remorse with Albert Haynesworth and ask for some of that 41 million dollars worth of guaranteed money back?
[ Edited by tjd808185 on Jun 1, 2010 at 7:33 AM ]
Originally posted by WINiner:
Originally posted by blizzuntz:
Originally posted by thojess:
Originally posted by billbird2111:
Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
Russell will be represented in the grievance by the NFL Players Association.

This one line interested me more than anything else. You really think the Player's Association is going to waste a bunch of coin on some slacker who essentially gave the league -- and a lot of other players -- a big black eye?

Remember -- the NFLPA represents ALL players. And if I was paying dues into the NFLPA -- I wouldn't want ONE CENT of my contribution to pay for lawyers to defend Jamarcus.

Think about it. Would you? Most players in the NFL will never even begin to SNIFF the kind of contract money that Jamarcus got. Not even CLOSE.

And now those same players are going to pony up -- through NFLPA dues -- defense money for Jamarcus?

What r u smokin?

Silly argument. The NFLPA is certainly motivated to ensure that signing bonuses and other guaranteed money stays guaranteed. You're argument is emotional and foolish and doesn't consider the legal ramifications of setting such a dangerous precedent.

This.

And the fact that Russel contract helped many veterans get bigger contracts. When a rookie gets a big contract, veterans get happy bc that means future contracts are larger based on precedence(sp)

I disagree completely. Vets HATE rookie contracts because a VERY small percentage of Vets actually get those blockbuster deals while they watch some snot nosed punk gain a contract that's likely to never be seen by that particular Vet, and for potential rather than performance.

I have heard the same exact answer from every VET I have ever heard asked this question. They all love the rookie contracts, because it escalates EVERYBODY's contracts in the long run.
phaggot Al Davis always gets his way.
Originally posted by danimal:
Originally posted by WINiner:
Originally posted by blizzuntz:
Originally posted by thojess:
Originally posted by billbird2111:
Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
Russell will be represented in the grievance by the NFL Players Association.

This one line interested me more than anything else. You really think the Player's Association is going to waste a bunch of coin on some slacker who essentially gave the league -- and a lot of other players -- a big black eye?

Remember -- the NFLPA represents ALL players. And if I was paying dues into the NFLPA -- I wouldn't want ONE CENT of my contribution to pay for lawyers to defend Jamarcus.

Think about it. Would you? Most players in the NFL will never even begin to SNIFF the kind of contract money that Jamarcus got. Not even CLOSE.

And now those same players are going to pony up -- through NFLPA dues -- defense money for Jamarcus?

What r u smokin?

Silly argument. The NFLPA is certainly motivated to ensure that signing bonuses and other guaranteed money stays guaranteed. You're argument is emotional and foolish and doesn't consider the legal ramifications of setting such a dangerous precedent.

This.

And the fact that Russel contract helped many veterans get bigger contracts. When a rookie gets a big contract, veterans get happy bc that means future contracts are larger based on precedence(sp)

I disagree completely. Vets HATE rookie contracts because a VERY small percentage of Vets actually get those blockbuster deals while they watch some snot nosed punk gain a contract that's likely to never be seen by that particular Vet, and for potential rather than performance.

I have heard the same exact answer from every VET I have ever heard asked this question. They all love the rookie contracts, because it escalates EVERYBODY's contracts in the long run.

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
Raiders file grievance against Russell


The Oakland Raiders have filed a grievance against former quarterback JaMarcus Russell(notes) seeking repayment of $9.55 million, the team confirmed Thursday.

The grievance is based on the contention by the Raiders that the contract was changed at one point during Russell’s three-year stint with the organization and that he’s not allowed to keep all of the money he had collected prior to his May 7 release. Russell, the No. 1 overall pick in the 2007 NFL draft, was guaranteed $32 million as part of a six-year contract reportedly worth $68 million.

“We have filed a grievance against JaMarcus Russell and that’s all we’re going to say at this time,” Raiders attorney Jeff Birren said.

Part of the guaranteed $32 million was originally in the form of salary advances for the 2010, 2011 and 2012 seasons. A portion of those salaries is in question, according to the grievance.

“The money in question was fully guaranteed. That is why JaMarcus was forced to hold out and miss all of training camp as a rookie,” Metz said. “The Raiders know that and this is our only comment.”

Russell will be represented in the grievance by the NFL Players Association.







http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=jc-russellgrievance052710



Russel was a bust.. straight up
Just heard on ESPN he was arrested.
Originally posted by pelos21:
Just heard on ESPN he was arrested.

driving with a controlled substance
Originally posted by pelos21:
Just heard on ESPN he was arrested.

That explains so much.
Originally posted by LAFortyNinerfan:
Originally posted by pelos21:
Just heard on ESPN he was arrested.

That explains so much.


You welcome.
Originally posted by pelos21:
Originally posted by LAFortyNinerfan:
Originally posted by pelos21:
Just heard on ESPN he was arrested.

That explains so much.


You welcome.

Lol I was referring to the fact that him being arrested for drug possession explains a lot about him.
Originally posted by LAFortyNinerfan:
Originally posted by pelos21:
Originally posted by LAFortyNinerfan:
Originally posted by pelos21:
Just heard on ESPN he was arrested.

That explains so much.


You welcome.

Lol I was referring to the fact that him being arrested for drug possession explains a lot about him.

lol