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

Will Aiyuk make the first mortgage payment on his $10M home

Salary Cap implications for 9ers are hugely favorable is BA keeps this up. I had no idea they could conceivably get most of his contract back as salary cap credit even if BA never returns a dime they paid him.

Originally posted by HearstFan:
Salary Cap implications for 9ers are hugely favorable is BA keeps this up. I had no idea they could conceivably get most of his contract back as salary cap credit even if BA never returns a dime they paid him.

This is old news to the WZ.

I brought this up awhile ago as maybe he could do jail time for not being able to pay this back. But it looks like he won't and that's why the dead cap could be removed due to failure of paying back the 49ers

Originally posted by Midbay:

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.

A reason the owners might go for it is to avoid precedent of a ruling in BA's favor.

If BA can cite his injury as the reason for his collapse, and win. Then it becomes a tougher case for the next team(s) that may have better chances. It could even change the dynamic of the voiding the bonus stuff initially.

Originally posted by jdt84_2:
A reason the owners might go for it is to avoid precedent of a ruling in BA's favor.

If BA can cite his injury as the reason for his collapse, and win. Then it becomes a tougher case for the next team(s) that may have better chances. It could even change the dynamic of the voiding the bonus stuff initially.

What do you think a 'ruling in BA's favor' looks like here?

There doesn't seem to be a possible situation where the league and NFLPA carve out an exception to the language in the CBA regarding potential cap credits for the 49ers, and the ruling requiring that action is in BA's favor. If the 49ers are in line to receive cap credits, whether it goes by the language in the CBA, or this hypothetical exception made for the 49ers, that means BA lost (which he will).

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by jdt84_2:
A reason the owners might go for it is to avoid precedent of a ruling in BA's favor.

If BA can cite his injury as the reason for his collapse, and win. Then it becomes a tougher case for the next team(s) that may have better chances. It could even change the dynamic of the voiding the bonus stuff initially.

What do you think a 'ruling in BA's favor' looks like here?

There doesn't seem to be a possible situation where the league and NFLPA carve out an exception to the language in the CBA regarding potential cap credits for the 49ers, and the ruling requiring that action is in BA's favor. If the 49ers are in line to receive cap credits, whether it goes by the language in the CBA, or this hypothetical exception made for the 49ers, that means BA lost (which he will).

If BA had done things right he could've been the one with leverage, but that's all out the window now.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
What do you think a 'ruling in BA's favor' looks like here?

There doesn't seem to be a possible situation where the league and NFLPA carve out an exception to the language in the CBA regarding potential cap credits for the 49ers, and the ruling requiring that action is in BA's favor. If the 49ers are in line to receive cap credits, whether it goes by the language in the CBA, or this hypothetical exception made for the 49ers, that means BA lost (which he will).

A court case ruling they can not recover the signing money. Not the league and NFLPA agreeing, but a judge making a ruling.

I think the point is - if the 9ers file paperwork to declare he didn't complete his contract (left the team) and recover the signing bonus because he left the team and never completed his contract - then they don't even need to recover any of the signing bonus and still receive credit back to their cap of his existing contract and the signing bonus paid. That is huge in terms of team building in coming years. It almost behooves the 9ers to signal BA that they want him to miss the dates and keep the bonus -- they just want the Cap relief.

Originally posted by HearstFan:
I think the point is - if the 9ers file paperwork to declare he didn't complete his contract (left the team) and recover the signing bonus because he left the team and never completed his contract - then they don't even need to recover any of the signing bonus and still receive credit back to their cap of his existing contract and the signing bonus paid. That is huge in terms of team building in coming years. It almost behooves the 9ers to signal BA that they want him to miss the dates and keep the bonus -- they just want the Cap relief.

This should raise a red flag to the claim's legitimacy (if reading the language of the CBA isn't enough).

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

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.

You're not looking at both sections that deal with the credits. It's in sections 4 and 9. You're talking about salary repayments, not necessarily forfeitures from the letter of demand process. I double checked this through gemini and grok and both cited sections 4 and 9 that the two ecosystems don't coexist. Once judgement is rendered, the cap will be credited back at the end of this season. To get actual dollars back, the 49ers would have to take him to civil court to enforce the judgement.

Originally posted by jdt84_2:

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
What do you think a 'ruling in BA's favor' looks like here?

There doesn't seem to be a possible situation where the league and NFLPA carve out an exception to the language in the CBA regarding potential cap credits for the 49ers, and the ruling requiring that action is in BA's favor. If the 49ers are in line to receive cap credits, whether it goes by the language in the CBA, or this hypothetical exception made for the 49ers, that means BA lost (which he will).

A court case ruling they can not recover the signing money. Not the league and NFLPA agreeing, but a judge making a ruling.

That's a separate issue. The judgment on cap credits isn't made by a judge - it's made by an independent arbiter. A civil court ruling on if BA actually has to return that money is a civil court matter. Those are two separate ecosystems

Originally posted by jonnydel:
You're not looking at both sections that deal with the credits. It's in sections 4 and 9. You're talking about salary repayments, not necessarily forfeitures from the letter of demand process. I double checked this through gemini and grok and both cited sections 4 and 9 that the two ecosystems don't coexist. Once judgement is rendered, the cap will be credited back at the end of this season. To get actual dollars back, the 49ers would have to take him to civil court to enforce the judgement.

It's article 4 section 9 and I linked it earlier, JD. You can see that in a post I made before the one you are replying to here. That was the post that questioned what you said about his signing bonus forfeiture.

You cited it in your video. Feel free to highlight the language.

(also, you can take a look at the last post I made in the salary cap thread regarding the use of AI in this case).