Lions | C. Rogers might be able to keep his bonus

Lions | C. Rogers might be able to keep his bonus
Fri, 24 Mar 2006 05:21:48 -0800
Mike O'Hara, of the Detroit News, reports Detroit Lions (http://www.kffl.com/team/16/nfl) WR Charles Rogers (http://www.kffl.com/player/5911/nfl) may be able to keep his full signing bonus because of the new collective bargaining agreement being reached. As part of the extension, the power has swung from owners to the players in the so-called "disciplinary" clauses. For Rogers, that means the Lions (http://www.kffl.com/team/16/nfl) aren't likely to prevail in their bid to reclaim more than $10 million of the $14 million rookie signing bonus Rogers received as a first-round draft pick in 2003. The NFL (http://www.kffl.com/team/77/nfl) Players Association's position last year was that the Lions (http://www.kffl.com/team/16/nfl) had no right to go after a player's signing bonus and that forfeiting the game checks was the appropriate punishment. The union's position now is that "disciplinary" clauses in the extension, which are still being fine-tuned as negotiations continue, strengthen their stand. Rogers' agent, Kevin Poston, has been in contact with the union and said he never doubted that the signing bonus was off limits.



so apparently doing drugs is alright. you don't have to work and you still get paid... I hope pwned doesn't learn the wrong lesson from this.

That's something that really did piss me off about the new CBA. Basically it means that the players can act like total jackasses and get away with it.

because rogers signed that deal prior to the new cba,would that contract be grandfathered to the old cba

apparently not. I think the SB thing was in response to what happened to Ricky Williams. Its really hard to give back money you've already spent, and in the real world, it'd be illegal (unless you had behavoir clauses in the contract or some such. But even then, you'd think those clauses would be tied to future option bonuses, and not money they've already given you).

In other words, it sucks, but (after the rookie contract) It makes sense. Rookie contracts have to have a lot of guaranteed money though and generally don't have an easy way to tie money to clauses with so much in unguarded signing bonus.

Yeah I believe tha t2 and I also don't agree with that part of the new CBA I believe that the NFLPA did wrong putting that in the CBA.