Brandon Aiyuk is a Quitter! Pick #25, 2020 NFL Draft

Originally posted by jonnydel:
I explained it in rhe video posted, but not really. That woukd give the 49ers just as much leverage. If he doesnt show up, that gives them more evidence to hold him in breach of contract.

I also mentioned in the video - the 49ers can send a letter of demand to the NFLPA for full forfeiture of his 23m signing bonus. It goes to a 3rd party arbitrator and if approved, will return the signing bonus.

Getting the salary cap back and the actually money back are 2 different things. They dont have to receive payment back from BA to get the cap space back. Once hes found in full breach of contract, the full 23m in signing bonus will be credited back at the end of this season. Then, we'll cut him after the arbitration is resolved and we owe no dead cap and receive the 10m in credits back.

I believe this is also incorrect. The reasoning you provided sounds great from a fan's perspective, but this rule actually protects ownership (considering they have to spend up to a certain percentage of the cap over 3/4 year periods. This protects them from having spent money that doesn't actually count as spent money. Try to remember that the cap protects ownership spending):

https://overthecap.com/collective-bargaining-agreement/article/13/section/6/

Credit for Salary Forfeited or Refunded.In the event that a Club receives a refund from the player of any previously-paid Salary, or the Club fails to pay any previously allocated portion of a signing bonus (including any amount treated as signing bonus), such amount as has previously been included in Team Salary shall be credited to the Club's Team Salary for the next League Year. For purposes of this Subsection, to the extent that they constitute reimbursement for previously paid Salary, insurance proceeds received by a Team as beneficiary to cover the player's inability to perform services required by his Player Contract shall be deemed a "refund from the player" if (a) the Club or the player purchased the policy (b) the amounts covered by the policy are so specified in the Player Contract; and (c) the policy is made available for inspection upon request by the NFL or the NFLPA.

Originally posted by Since07:

Originally posted by RiceOwensStokes:
Shoutout to that one 49ers fan who yelled at Jayden Daniles during the World Cup.

Crazy how much that affected Aiyuk. Something that I noticed in the after math that I don't think anyone mentioned was Aiyuk quoting Daniels "You're on my team now, you follow my rules" it definitely sounds and looks like Aiyuk had it all lined up to go to Washington but couldn't stay off social media or do the basic process to be reinstated. It's starting to come off as cowardly at this point

It's been cowardly ever since he admitted Lynch showed up at his house and he didnt answer the door. Instead he proceeded to threaten him via the keyboard. Not much more cowardly then that.

Did you guys see the new drama with Jayden Daniels. His mom wrote a cease and desist letter to LSU to stop using the likeliness of Jayden because they let another player wear his old jersey number. What a douche
__PRESENT
__PRESENT

Originally posted by miked1978:

Originally posted by Since07:

Originally posted by RiceOwensStokes:
Shoutout to that one 49ers fan who yelled at Jayden Daniles during the World Cup.

Crazy how much that affected Aiyuk. Something that I noticed in the after math that I don't think anyone mentioned was Aiyuk quoting Daniels "You're on my team now, you follow my rules" it definitely sounds and looks like Aiyuk had it all lined up to go to Washington but couldn't stay off social media or do the basic process to be reinstated. It's starting to come off as cowardly at this point

It's been cowardly ever since he admitted Lynch showed up at his house and he didnt answer the door. Instead he proceeded to threaten him via the keyboard. Not much more cowardly then that.

Did you guys see the new drama with Jayden Daniels. His mom wrote a cease and desist letter to LSU to stop using the likeliness of Jayden because they let another player wear his old jersey number. What a douche
__PRESENT
__PRESENT

Jayden seems to have his head on his shoulders but if I'm a commanders fan.. Him being/was bfs with Brandon and his mom being a control squeeze every penny freak is alarming.

You can push it to if Young or Montana did this, fans would agree but actually suing over a number is very douchey. I don't think they have chance in hell either, how can you tie name and likeness to a digit?

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
I believe this is also incorrect. The reasoning you provided sounds great from a fan's perspective, but this rule actually protects ownership (considering they have to spend up to a certain percentage of the cap over 3/4 year periods. This protects them from having spent money that doesn't actually count as spent money. Try to remember that the cap protects ownership spending):

https://overthecap.com/collective-bargaining-agreement/article/13/section/6/

Credit for Salary Forfeited or Refunded.In the event that a Club receives a refund from the player of any previously-paid Salary, or the Club fails to pay any previously allocated portion of a signing bonus (including any amount treated as signing bonus), such amount as has previously been included in Team Salary shall be credited to the Club's Team Salary for the next League Year. For purposes of this Subsection, to the extent that they constitute reimbursement for previously paid Salary, insurance proceeds received by a Team as beneficiary to cover the player's inability to perform services required by his Player Contract shall be deemed a "refund from the player" if (a) the Club or the player purchased the policy (b) the amounts covered by the policy are so specified in the Player Contract; and (c) the policy is made available for inspection upon request by the NFL or the NFLPA.

The CBA is a contract not a set of rules. Either side can sue to enforce the provisions, but not everything has to be specified in it.

Taking the second part... if the owners choose to amend the cap on an arbitrator's award (as opposed to actual recovery of money) in fringe cases like this, I don't see why to NFLPA would object. Both sides may have reasons to not codify this into the CBA.

Not making a determination, just pointing out that parsing CBA language as a set of rules misses the larger picture.

To your first paragraph, the cap protects ownership spending in a specific sense, but it would clearly benefit owners in some cases (and players in cases) to be able to have cap relief on arbitrator award.

Originally posted by Since07:

Originally posted by miked1978:

Originally posted by Since07:

Originally posted by RiceOwensStokes:
Shoutout to that one 49ers fan who yelled at Jayden Daniles during the World Cup.

Crazy how much that affected Aiyuk. Something that I noticed in the after math that I don't think anyone mentioned was Aiyuk quoting Daniels "You're on my team now, you follow my rules" it definitely sounds and looks like Aiyuk had it all lined up to go to Washington but couldn't stay off social media or do the basic process to be reinstated. It's starting to come off as cowardly at this point

It's been cowardly ever since he admitted Lynch showed up at his house and he didnt answer the door. Instead he proceeded to threaten him via the keyboard. Not much more cowardly then that.

Did you guys see the new drama with Jayden Daniels. His mom wrote a cease and desist letter to LSU to stop using the likeliness of Jayden because they let another player wear his old jersey number. What a douche
__PRESENT
__PRESENT

Jayden seems to have his head on his shoulders but if I'm a commanders fan.. Him being/was bfs with Brandon and his mom being a control squeeze every penny freak is alarming.

You can push it to if Young or Montana did this, fans would agree but actually suing over a number is very douchey. I don't think they have chance in hell either, how can you tie name and likeness to a digit?

aiyuk infected him, it's contagious and has spread to the nations capital, go to defcon 5 or whatever the bad one is

Originally posted by Midbay:
The CBA is a contract not a set of rules. Either side can sue to enforce the provisions, but not everything has to be specified in it.

Taking the second part... if the owners choose to amend the cap on an arbitrator's award (as opposed to actual recovery of money) in fringe cases like this, I don't see why to NFLPA would object. Both sides may have reasons to not codify this into the CBA.

Not making a determination, just pointing out that parsing CBA language as a set of rules misses the larger picture.

To your first paragraph, the cap protects ownership spending in a specific sense, but it would clearly benefit owners in some cases (and players in cases) to be able to have cap relief on arbitrator award.

Respectfully, I'm not sure what the point of the bolded is? That's what a CBA is. It's an agreed upon contract that sets rules the employer(s)/employee(s) will follow, and everything relevant in this discussion is specified in the existing CBA.

I might agree that the NFLPA wouldn't reject amending the language regarding cap credits, but I don't see any relevance to this situation. I could see this being an issue on ownership side. I guess we'll see when they renegotiate down the road.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by Midbay:
The CBA is a contract not a set of rules. Either side can sue to enforce the provisions, but not everything has to be specified in it.

Taking the second part... if the owners choose to amend the cap on an arbitrator's award (as opposed to actual recovery of money) in fringe cases like this, I don't see why to NFLPA would object. Both sides may have reasons to not codify this into the CBA.

Not making a determination, just pointing out that parsing CBA language as a set of rules misses the larger picture.

To your first paragraph, the cap protects ownership spending in a specific sense, but it would clearly benefit owners in some cases (and players in cases) to be able to have cap relief on arbitrator award.

Respectfully, I'm not sure what the point of the bolded is? That's what a CBA is. It's an agreed upon contract that sets rules the employer(s)/employee(s) will follow, and everything relevant in this discussion is specified in the existing CBA.

I might agree that the NFLPA wouldn't reject amending the language regarding cap credits, but I don't see any relevance to this situation. I could see this being an issue on ownership side. I guess we'll see when they renegotiate down the road.

CBAs are not rigid boundaries the way you are portraying them. A CBA is not a set of rules. You can do stuff not specifically outlined in the CBA. You don't even have to formally amend the CBA.

Example... if a CBA calls for a 45 minute lunch break and the company allows a 50 minute lunch break for no change in pay for some reason, it can just happen because it benefits both parties. 45 minute lunch break is not a rule.

Edit: I should not have made the comment that the a CBA is not a set of rules, because it is context dependent.

Originally posted by Midbay:

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by Midbay:
The CBA is a contract not a set of rules. Either side can sue to enforce the provisions, but not everything has to be specified in it.

Taking the second part... if the owners choose to amend the cap on an arbitrator's award (as opposed to actual recovery of money) in fringe cases like this, I don't see why to NFLPA would object. Both sides may have reasons to not codify this into the CBA.

Not making a determination, just pointing out that parsing CBA language as a set of rules misses the larger picture.

To your first paragraph, the cap protects ownership spending in a specific sense, but it would clearly benefit owners in some cases (and players in cases) to be able to have cap relief on arbitrator award.

Respectfully, I'm not sure what the point of the bolded is? That's what a CBA is. It's an agreed upon contract that sets rules the employer(s)/employee(s) will follow, and everything relevant in this discussion is specified in the existing CBA.

I might agree that the NFLPA wouldn't reject amending the language regarding cap credits, but I don't see any relevance to this situation. I could see this being an issue on ownership side. I guess we'll see when they renegotiate down the road.

CBAs are not rigid boundaries the way you are portraying them. A CBA is not a set of rules. You can do stuff not specifically outlined in the CBA. You don't even have to formally amend the CBA.

Example... if a CBA calls for a 45 minute lunch break and the company allows a 50 minute lunch break for no change in pay for some reason, it can just happen because it benefits both parties. 45 minute lunch break is not a rule.

sir this the brandon aiyuk thread i'm gonna have to ask you check your IQ at the door to keep on topic, sophisticated cba convos are way above aiyuk's head this is not fair to brandon who doesn't even know what the cba is

Originally posted by Midbay:
CBAs are not rigid boundaries the way you are portraying them. A CBA is not a set of rules. You can do stuff not specifically outlined in the CBA. You don't even have to formally amend the CBA.

Example... if a CBA calls for a 45 minute lunch break and the company allows a 50 minute lunch break for no change in pay for some reason, it can just happen because it benefits both parties. 45 minute lunch break is not a rule.

He never came back from his lunch break though…

Originally posted by Since07:

Originally posted by Midbay:
CBAs are not rigid boundaries the way you are portraying them. A CBA is not a set of rules. You can do stuff not specifically outlined in the CBA. You don't even have to formally amend the CBA.

Example... if a CBA calls for a 45 minute lunch break and the company allows a 50 minute lunch break for no change in pay for some reason, it can just happen because it benefits both parties. 45 minute lunch break is not a rule.

He never came back from his lunch break though…

maybe he read it as 45 month lunch break

Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
sir this the brandon aiyuk thread i'm gonna have to ask you check your IQ at the door to keep on topic, sophisticated cba convos are way above aiyuk's head this is not fair to brandon who doesn't even know what the cba is

Originally posted by Since07:
He never came back from his lunch break though…

Good stuff.

Originally posted by Midbay:
CBAs are not rigid boundaries the way you are portraying them. A CBA is not a set of rules. You can do stuff not specifically outlined in the CBA. You don't even have to formally amend the CBA.

Example... if a CBA calls for a 45 minute lunch break and the company allows a 50 minute lunch break for no change in pay for some reason, it can just happen because it benefits both parties. 45 minute lunch break is not a rule.

Let's try this a different way. Can you explain what this general point has to do specifically with Aiyuk's situation? I can't wrap my head around the point's relevance, or your example.

Is it simply a matter of believing the 49ers will, or could, end up getting cap credit for money that isn't actually returned (in spite of the language in the CBA)?

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
Let's try this a different way. Can you explain what this general point has to do specifically with Aiyuk's situation? I can't wrap my head around the point's relevance, or your example.

Is it simply a matter of believing the 49ers will, or could, end up getting cap credit for money that isn't actually returned (in spite of the language in the CBA)?

Yeah, my point is that even though the language of the CBA uses "received" (or whatever the actual word was) that is not necessarily a hard limitation. If the arbitrator finds against Aiyuk, and awards the 49ers some money, but the 49ers have not recovered it yet, the league could potentially add that to the salary cap as long as both sides (NFLPA and the League) agree. It can be a side agreement, or even as simple as the league doing it and the NFPLA not filing an grievance.

The NFLPA wins because that means more money for other players. The league wins because it fixes a messy precedent.

Originally posted by Midbay:
Yeah, my point is that even though the language of the CBA uses "received" (or whatever the actual word was) that is not necessarily a hard limitation. If the arbitrator finds against Aiyuk, and awards the 49ers some money, but the 49ers have not recovered it yet, the league could potentially add that to the salary cap as long as both sides (NFLPA and the League) agree. It can be a side agreement, or even as simple as the league doing it and the NFPLA not filing an grievance.

The NFLPA wins because that means more money for other players. The league wins because it fixes a messy precedent.

Gotcha. Yea, as I mentioned, I wouldn't think the NFLPA would reject this (for the reason you stated) but I could see this being an issue from the collective ownership side (league side as you called it).

I think viewing this as a 'messy' precedent is a pretty 49ers-centric, specific to this situation, view honestly. And I don't think somebody should be saying it will happen, citing the CBA, as JD did.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
Gotcha. Yea, as I mentioned, I wouldn't think the NFLPA would reject this (for the reason you stated) but I could see this being an issue from the collective ownership side (league side as you called it).

I think viewing this as a 'messy' precedent is a pretty 49ers-centric, specific to this situation, view honestly. And I don't think somebody should be saying it will happen, citing the CBA, as JD did.

You have raised a really interesting question about the other owners' interests if such a thing comes to pass. Maybe you are on to something.

Agree that there is nothing definite about this.