49ers vs. Cowboys Tickets Available! →

There are 755 users in the forums

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

Shop Find 49ers gear online
Nov 2, 2026 at 5:24 PM
Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:
there was something i saw if he didn't get everything done before 9/1, then this year he can't be reinstated to play this season.

JD said it in a video. It wasn't correct.
Nov 2, 2026 at 5:44 PM
Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
And now he'd be choosing to come back. What you're asking for is the league to pretend this contract doesn't exist because it's bad for SF. That doesn't help other owners. It helps the 49ers to the disadvantage of other teams. The protections for the team in this situation are clearly defined and have been at play for months here.

That's not even factoring any rights the players have. Teams don't get to hold players outside of their roster and not pay them independent of the players actions, lol.

If they miss half the season because of a tantrum absolutely they should get to do that. Dude has been breech of contract for a year and a half. Why does the commish need to reward that.

He couldn't do the bare minimum of reporting to the facility. This is unchartered territory.
Nov 2, 2026 at 5:47 PM
Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:
there was something i saw if he didn't get everything done before 9/1, then this year he can't be reinstated to play this season.

JD said it in a video. It wasn't correct.
i didn't see the video.. what i saw was the stuff here up until 9/1.

Which part is wrong?
Nov 2, 2026 at 5:52 PM
Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:
i didn't see the video.. what i saw was the stuff here up until 9/1.

Which part is wrong?

The video was the origination of the claim.

The part that's wrong, among many other things, was that 9/1 was any kind of hard deadline for his reinstatement. Barrows put out an article today that said week 13 is the deadline… which actually makes sense given week 13 would be the point in which Aiyuk had surrendered 100 percent of his forfeitable bonus allocations for the year - 25 percent for missing the preseason and 1/17th every week up until week 13.
Nov 2, 2026 at 6:02 PM
Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:
i didn't see the video.. what i saw was the stuff here up until 9/1.

Which part is wrong?

The video was the origination of the claim.

The part that's wrong, among many other things, was that 9/1 was any kind of hard deadline for his reinstatement. Barrows put out an article today that said week 13 is the deadline… which actually makes sense given week 13 would be the point in which Aiyuk had surrendered 100 percent of his forfeitable bonus allocations for the year - 25 percent for missing the preseason and 1/17th every week up until week 13.
I believe that might not be accurate also. That might be for players who went on the list during the season. Like what we experienced last year.

I've seen it here before JD and it looks like have some searches on it. I got to double check those now that maybe more info is out on the subject.

A few things that i think why it's not accurate, Cap and roster spot
Nov 2, 2026 at 6:18 PM
Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:
I believe that might not be accurate also. That might be for players who went on the list during the season. Like what we experienced last year.

I've seen it here before JD and it looks like have some searches on it. I got to double check those now that maybe more info is out on the subject.

A few things that i think why it's not accurate, Cap and roster spot

Not clear what you believe might be inaccurate? Are you talking about Barrows claim? I'm not 100 percent sure of the accuracy of that claim, but it at least tracks with the financial penalties Aiyuk would incur through week 13 (like I mentioned above).
Nov 2, 2026 at 6:31 PM
Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
Originally posted by 49AllTheTime:
I believe that might not be accurate also. That might be for players who went on the list during the season. Like what we experienced last year.

I've seen it here before JD and it looks like have some searches on it. I got to double check those now that maybe more info is out on the subject.

A few things that i think why it's not accurate, Cap and roster spot

Not clear what you believe might be inaccurate? Are you talking about Barrows claim? I'm not 100 percent sure of the accuracy of that claim, but it at least tracks with the financial penalties Aiyuk would incur through week 13 (like I mentioned above).
I assumed MM was inaccurate as it looks like the team still gets the short end of the stick.

Now that i re-researched it, it's accurate. Cap is already earmarked with his cap hit and for Roster, we get a two week roster exemption to find a trade or just cut him. We still get hit with his cap hit next year and that would be 21m.. but we have some type of way to bring that down to 16m saving us 5m
Nov 2, 2026 at 6:35 PM
Originally posted by 9ers4eva:
Originally posted by lamontb:
I don't t see a reason why he wouldn't be reinstated. He doesn't have any criminal issues. He's just an idiot

Because the owners don't want players forcing themselves off teams by sitting out. Goodell works for them.

Think there is a good shot he doesn't get reinstated until after season.

That smells like collusion and another lawsuit. He didn't force himself anywhere but to his house. This is a Niner vs BA issue not a league wide problem. How many guys followed the Le'veon Bell model? The exact same that will follow what BA did.
Nov 2, 2026 at 6:38 PM
Originally posted by lamontb:
That smells like collusion and another lawsuit. He didn't force himself anywhere but to his house. This is a Niner vs BA issue not a league wide problem. How many guys followed the Le'veon Bell model? The exact same that will follow what BA did.

Yup. The 49ers have been well protected here within the existing rules.
Nov 2, 2026 at 7:10 PM
he must be running out of money already what a shame
Nov 2, 2026 at 7:18 PM
Originally posted by lamontb:
That smells like collusion and another lawsuit. He didn't force himself anywhere but to his house. This is a Niner vs BA issue not a league wide problem. How many guys followed the Le'veon Bell model? The exact same that will follow what BA did.

What's his grounds? He decided not to report which allowed the Commissioner to now have control over if and when he gets reinstated.
Nov 2, 2026 at 9:11 PM
Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
he must be running out of money already what a shame

Or he loves this beautiful game and misses the camaraderie that comes from being part of a team and the thrill of victory and all that comes with it?

He has decided he's not going to let Paraag and Jed keep him away from the game he loves any longer.
[ Edited by 49ersRing on Nov 2, 2026 at 9:12 PM ]
Nov 2, 2026 at 9:15 PM
We don't curr! He needs to report to 49ers HQ and face the SCPD then come back and see that creepy weirdo John Lynch and lil boy Shanahan and then we do the dance and he will be doing business with us just like he said he wouldn't
Nov 2, 2026 at 9:59 PM
Originally posted by 49ersRing:
Originally posted by 49erFaithful6:
he must be running out of money already what a shame

Or he loves this beautiful game and misses the camaraderie that comes from being part of a team and the thrill of victory and all that comes with it?

He has decided he's not going to let Paraag and Jed keep him away from the game he loves any longer.
nah, he needs the money
Nov 2, 2026 at 10:40 PM
  • Buchy
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 2,853
I am pretty sure his contract will include clauses related to conduct and behaviour detrimental to the team, those are standard clauses i believe.

If correct, that allows the Niners some flexibility in fining him or reducing payments.

He didn't just fail to report, he actively undermined the organisation in public and behaved recklessly with the speeding etc.
✕
Open Menu Search Share 49ersWebzone