Brown's contract laughable

From an outside view I can see why je might feel cheated by the management. I know it is his own fault but neither him or his agent called the FO to point out that clause and the FO is the one who benefitted from Browns ignorance. I'm sure he is wondering why he never got a phone call to warn him he could lose 2 mill by not showingup or they simply could have waived it altogether.

In a nutshell he made a mistake snd the organization capitalized on it. That is not looking out for your players or team. It also risks causing turbulance in the locker room and obviously caused you to lose a key player in a position of pretty despatrate need.

If the same situation happened on my team I would hope they see the bigger picture and at a minimum at least contact the player and make sure he knows the cost of not showing up. At least then you could sat he made an informed decision. Or he shows up for the voluntary work outs and the team and homself benefit from it.

In truth I would be upset with the player the team and the agent.

Not sure what relationship the niners have with their player's agents, but it seems kind of an oversight on all ends. Brown should have known every little aspect that could cost him money...or make him money. But if he's not the brightest candle in the window his agent should have stayed in touch and mentioned this detail when Brown announced his intention to work out on his own.



The only question I have at this point is if the clause is legal. Making millions of dollars dependent on attending non-mandatory events seems to circumvent the unions intent...to limit year round team control. Yes, they are paying for the privilege but is that the point. The union obviously doesn't intend to make this an issue--more money in the players pockets--but if they decided to challenge this caveat would they have grounds? I would think so.

Originally posted by 12thfan:

From an outside view I can see why je might feel cheated by the management. I know it is his own fault but neither him or his agent called the FO to point out that clause and the FO is the one who benefitted from Browns ignorance. I'm sure he is wondering why he never got a phone call to warn him he could lose 2 mill by not showingup or they simply could have waived it altogether.

In a nutshell he made a mistake snd the organization capitalized on it. That is not looking out for your players or team. It also risks causing turbulance in the locker room and obviously caused you to lose a key player in a position of pretty despatrate need.

If the same situation happened on my team I would hope they see the bigger picture and at a minimum at least contact the player and make sure he knows the cost of not showing up. At least then you could sat he made an informed decision. Or he shows up for the voluntary work outs and the team and homself benefit from it.

In truth I would be upset with the player the team and the agent.

Any fan knows teams don't care about players over winning. Contracts are torn up all the time every year when teams get done with players. T Brown hired the wrong agent. It was the agents paid sole purpose to get T Brown in camp. That's his JOB!! Our job is to pay him coach him and if he's good enough play him. We did our part but we didn't babysit him either. It would have been nice if we reminded him to not forfeit $2 million and not focus on our budget. But that would have been player first. It would have been nice if T Brown had been focused on working with the TEAM and the rookies to WIN and not focus on his own upcoming free agency but that would have been team first. The way I see it T Brown was focused on him and the team on themselves as you would expect but I ask WTF was the agent focused on? It should have been his job which was to ensure T Brown met his incentives and got his money! This is real life folks and this happens to us all when we don't make a deadline or hit that quota or meet that expectation on our jobs we don't get that bonus! That's grown man talk cousin!

I have a question. I'm sure this has been brought up and answered many times, but maybe I'm glazing over it.

Could the 49ers legally (i.e. within the confines of NFL rules) have given Brown the $2M he missed out on? I assume they couldn't, because allowing teams to do things like that would probably open up a lot of loopholes and under-the-table payments and things like that. But it seems like the whole thing was an honest mistake; it's not like Brown is some lazy slob that just skipped workouts completely. Just a miscommunication or ignorance.

Throughout the process, it seemed like the 49ers were helpful -- like they were trying to get the issue resolved (iirc, they even gave him a nice bonus at the end of the year). But why would they not just give him the $2M? Was something preventing them from doing so?

Originally posted by kray28:

What the Niners did with that workout bonus was nothing short of a dick move. Classless would another adjective that comes to mind. Stuff like that would never have happened under Eddie D's watch. If you want to consider why free agents didn't come flocking to SF, you might want to consider that little episode with Tarell Brown did not go unnoticed.

Fail

Originally posted by theduke85:
I have a question. I'm sure this has been brought up and answered many times, but maybe I'm glazing over it.

Could the 49ers legally (i.e. within the confines of NFL rules) have given Brown the $2M he missed out on? I assume they couldn't, because allowing teams to do things like that would probably open up a lot of loopholes and under-the-table payments and things like that. But it seems like the whole thing was an honest mistake; it's not like Brown is some lazy slob that just skipped workouts completely. Just a miscommunication or ignorance.

Throughout the process, it seemed like the 49ers were helpful -- like they were trying to get the issue resolved (iirc, they even gave him a nice bonus at the end of the year). But why would they not just give him the $2M? Was something preventing them from doing so?

Because the 49ers are pinching pennies to pay for the extensions for Kap Aldon and maybe Crab and Iupati. Every penny not spent last year rolls over to this year. The same reason the team just won't give him the full $2 million is the same reason Brown stayed out of our workout program to enroll in his own. The reason is both we and he have to look after our own best interests!

Originally posted by SFL49ER:

Originally posted by kray28:
What the Niners did with that workout bonus was nothing short of a dick move. Classless would another adjective that comes to mind. Stuff like that would never have happened under Eddie D's watch. If you want to consider why free agents didn't come flocking to SF, you might want to consider that little episode with Tarell Brown did not go unnoticed.

Fail

And us seemingly opting to stay with Gore and not yet ask him to take a pay cut is a class move in my book. Not that he hasn't earned it but some teams are asking their lifetime franchise vets to either take substantial cuts or just cut them altogether. Ask Steve Smith! The d*** move was by his own agent. Instead of banging some foreign broad he should have been focused on his client getting paid!

Originally posted by theduke85:

I have a question. I'm sure this has been brought up and answered many times, but maybe I'm glazing over it.

Could the 49ers legally (i.e. within the confines of NFL rules) have given Brown the $2M he missed out on? I assume they couldn't, because allowing teams to do things like that would probably open up a lot of loopholes and under-the-table payments and things like that. But it seems like the whole thing was an honest mistake; it's not like Brown is some lazy slob that just skipped workouts completely. Just a miscommunication or ignorance.

Throughout the process, it seemed like the 49ers were helpful -- like they were trying to get the issue resolved (iirc, they even gave him a nice bonus at the end of the year). But why would they not just give him the $2M? Was something preventing them from doing so?

You give him the $2 million.

Originally posted by English:

You give him the $2 million.

The team gave him 300,000--that was a nothing but a gift.

Brown has, or had, the option of suing his agent.

The responsibility for this fiasco lies primarily with the agent and secondarily with Brown.

Good question about the union stepping in. Seemd like taking pay away for not attending a voluntary workout kind of makes it not very voluntary.

Why hasn't the union been brought in I wonder.

Originally posted by 12thfan:
Good question about the union stepping in. Seemd like taking pay away for not attending a voluntary workout kind of makes it not very voluntary.

Why hasn't the union been brought in I wonder.

Because its an incentive, the workout is still voluntary, you just don't get paid for it if you don't show up. They can write up all kinds of incentives for attending workouts, that money is never guaranteed, if the player wants to earn that money, they have to follow through. So in essence you're never being "forced" to attend voluntary workouts, the team simply says "if you go to these workouts, you earn x amount of money more" The player can then decide whether or not the incentive is big enough to be worth the time.


Not sure why this is so hard to understand?

If you go to a store and there is a discount you take it. If you have to work something into a budget you take the breaks you can get. No matter how rich the owners of the 49ers are they have to work under their budget because of the salary cap. Their job is to give us the highest quality team. If they dont then why should we spend our hard earned money on their merchandise and/or going to their games. I've watched my team suck become a little better only to fail again. The ownership has finally turned this ship around and become perrenial finalist for the biggest prize in the game. I don't want them to change how they do business because that is the way I would run my own.

Originally posted by 12thfan:

Good question about the union stepping in. Seemd like taking pay away for not attending a voluntary workout kind of makes it not very voluntary.

Why hasn't the union been brought in I wonder.

Why would any reasonable person make the assumption that the union was not brought in or involved in helping Brown?

The union has a legal responsibility to represent Brown and if the union did not do so, the union could be sued for a failure to represent.

The wording of the contract and established past practices define the parameters within which they union operates.

These voluntary off season work out clauses are common and legitimate in the wording of contracts and are established past practices.

As far as I can tell the 49ers did not violate the contract or cause any harm to Brown. In fact, they gave him a 300,000 dollar bonus after the season ended. The team voluntarily contributed money to a free agent without knowing if he would return to the team.

It seems reasonably clear that his agent did violate established, perhaps legally defined, professional standards and has a contractual and legal responsibility to ensure that Brown is made whole.

Originally posted by buck:

Originally posted by 12thfan:
Good question about the union stepping in. Seemd like taking pay away for not attending a voluntary workout kind of makes it not very voluntary.

Why hasn't the union been brought in I wonder.

Why would any reasonable person make the assumption that the union was not brought in or involved in helping Brown?

The union has a legal responsibility to represent Brown and if the union did not do so, the union could be sued for a failure to represent.

The wording of the contract and established past practices define the parameters within which they union operates.

These voluntary off season work out clauses are common and legitimate in the wording of contracts and are established past practices.

As far as I can tell the 49ers did not violate the contract or cause any harm to Brown. In fact, they gave him a 300,000 dollar bonus after the season ended. The team voluntarily contributed money to a free agent without knowing if he would return to the team.

It seems reasonably clear that his agent did violate established, perhaps legally defined, professional standards and has a contractual and legal responsibility to ensure that Brown is made whole.

There is always conflict between a union doing what is best for an individual and what is in the best interest of the whole. It could be the union turning a blind eye to the intent of the contract (union contract) to allow players more bargaining power to gain income in individual contracts. Wouldn't be the first time. The intent of the voluntary versus involuntary was to allow players off time as they saw fit, while still having the option of working out at the team's facility if desired.

There is no research that I've read saying players who work out at team's facilities produce better results...as a matter of fact guys like Drew Brees and others have gained a lot by working out with other specialists, who introduce varied work out methods...seems like a win win as they can take them back to the team for review.

If it becomes a wink and a nod kind of deal within individual contracts that's OK by me, but I still wonder if it is circumventing the notion of down time, individual choices, etc. But I don't know if this is a common item that's put into contracts or whether it's only in situations where the player has demonatrated neglect during the off season. The SF Giants should definately have this in Panda's contract! Bubba Paris could have used more supervision...just don't know in this case.

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

There is always conflict between a union doing what is best for an individual and what is in the best interest of the whole.

Always???

I am sure that these conflicts have and do occur, but be real, but this always exists in a world of conjecture, and that is not the world in which we live.

I spent most of my working life in union shops. I was a shop steward for close to five years.

Based upon my experience as a union member and my experience as an elected union official, you are at best overstating your case.