Carl Banks quasi-defends T.O. on Sirius

Its called a 'signing bonus'. That is the guaranteed money. The rest of the contract should be honored. If he wants to renegotiate the contract, he should then agree to return ALL of the signing bonus. The bonus is contingent to signing the CONTRACT. Carl Banks is a moron and I'm not taking any of his uneducated arguments seriously. TO is to football, what Peter King is to journalism.

Excellent point. Let's not understate this point either guys. If you want to draw comparisons between businessmen and atheletes, then let's really consider how T.O.'s actions in the business world would be dealt with.

Scenario: Donald Trump contracts with a world-famous architect to design a new, high-tech, new-age apartment building. The terms of the contract are that Trump pays 7 million dollars up front as GUARANTEED money to get the architect to come and work for Trump (in this scenario, there is a ton of competition out there for this architect's services......he's one of the top two or three architects in the world). After the $7 million dollar up front bonus, the architect is to work on the design and construction of the apartment building over the course of the next 5 years for $500,000 per year. Trump has built into the contract that EVEN THOUGH HE ALREADY PAID the architect $7 million dollars in signing bonus, if Trump has artistic differences with the architect, and he is not happy with the way the building is looking, he can fire the architect at any time and not have to pay him any of the remaining $500,000 yearly salary (but he CANNOT recoup the $7 million already paid).

Now, it's one year into the design and construction of the apartment building and everything is going great. Trump is thrilled with the architect's job so far. Knowing this, the architect decides to walk off the job, and refuses to come back until Trump forks over another couple of Million $ and a higher salary. He says: "I want to renegotiate, and if you don't give me a better deal, I'll sit at home and refuse to perform under my contract."

Now, in the business world guess what happens? Trump hires a big time law firm to file suit against the architect for breach of contract. And guess what.....He wins.

So as you can probably all tell, I think Carl Banks' argument is rediculous and the analogy isn't well thought out. Does Trump want to make another billion next year? Yep, of course he does. Does the architect want to make millions more? You bet. CAN THE ARCHITECT BREACH HIS CONTRACT TO DO IT? NO It's not only not right, it not legal in any other setting than professional sports.

Very well put. Again, TO doesn't have a single leg to stand on in this argument.

Excellent point. Let's not understate this point either guys. If you want to draw comparisons between businessmen and atheletes, then let's really consider how T.O.'s actions in the business world would be dealt with.

Scenario: Donald Trump contracts with a world-famous architect to design a new, high-tech, new-age apartment building. The terms of the contract are that Trump pays 7 million dollars up front as GUARANTEED money to get the architect to come and work for Trump (in this scenario, there is a ton of competition out there for this architect's services......he's one of the top two or three architects in the world). After the $7 million dollar up front bonus, the architect is to work on the design and construction of the apartment building over the course of the next 5 years for $500,000 per year. Trump has built into the contract that EVEN THOUGH HE ALREADY PAID the architect $7 million dollars in signing bonus, if Trump has artistic differences with the architect, and he is not happy with the way the building is looking, he can fire the architect at any time and not have to pay him any of the remaining $500,000 yearly salary (but he CANNOT recoup the $7 million already paid).

Now, it's one year into the design and construction of the apartment building and everything is going great. Trump is thrilled with the architect's job so far. Knowing this, the architect decides to walk off the job, and refuses to come back until Trump forks over another couple of Million $ and a higher salary. He says: "I want to renegotiate, and if you don't give me a better deal, I'll sit at home and refuse to perform under my contract."

Now, in the business world guess what happens? Trump hires a big time law firm to file suit against the architect for breach of contract. And guess what.....He wins.

So as you can probably all tell, I think Carl Banks' argument is rediculous and the analogy isn't well thought out. Does Trump want to make another billion next year? Yep, of course he does. Does the architect want to make millions more? You bet. CAN THE ARCHITECT BREACH HIS CONTRACT TO DO IT? NO It's not only not right, it not legal in any other setting than professional sports.

That's not the way it is at all! Okay...Trump hires the architect and says I'll guarantee that you get your $7 million over the first 3 years of the contract and then you'll get $3,500,000 over the next 7. So what happens is he gets his 7 mil, but he gets something like

Year 1: $300,000
Year 2: $300,000
Year 3: $350,000
Year 4: $400,000

And then Trump fires him before the architect sees any of the real money they agreed he would be paid OR He says that needs to sign architects to build some new hotels so he needs him to go ahead and get rid of the last fews years where he was going to make his money and Trump will give him another $8 million over the new contract which will be longer and even more backloaded. That's the NFL.

TO is gonna make something like $756,000 next year and $1 million the year after that. All of the rest of the money is at the back end of the deal. So what he wants is to have the backloaded money moved forward. The Eagles never get close to the salary cap so financially it makes no difference.

Athletes are all a bunch of overpaid crybabies who dont realize how good they really have it, and its all of the fans fault. I f the fans didnt support sports as much as they do and there were less demand; then there would be less money paid into the sport. With that said there would be less money paid to players. If it were a perfect world then to watch a game would be extremely cheap, and football would be a part time job to players. More players would play for the love of the game and owners would be happy just to own a team. But it is not a perfect world. Fans demand a winning team, and will pay alot of money to see it. Owners are greedy and want to capitalize, and players are the workhands that want a piece of the profit for their labor.

In closing, bitch about it all you like, but its our fault that the situation is the way it is.

That's kinda the point I was trying to make. When I get upset with an organization they stop getting my money. That's why athletes get paid so much. It's the jersey sales, The team decals, The team blankets, the throwbacks, etc. All of that. Anything with an NFL Logo on it contributes to the money players get paid. You're right it is the fan's fault and that's why I'm not mad.

I hear what your saying JDLEA.......but business is a business is a business.
My company laid off tenured employees that were making near the top of their salary range, so they can hire newbies that can come in and do the same job but at the minimum range of the salary scale. It happens to all workers.

I don't begrudge athletes their big buck salaries, but what I have a problem with are non-loyal prima donna players who after one year want more money and put their team in cap hell, so the team can't sign other players to improve their team because of the few that hog the salary cap. That's what I have a problem with.

We kinda agree. Do I think TO should be asking for a new contract? No. Do I think he should be asking for backloaded money to be moved to the front? Yes. He makes nothing for a player at his level. And in an earlier post I put rough figures I heard on NFL Radio so read that before you spout off about $49 million. TO has every right to want more money. Just as anyone else in America has the right to want a raise.

Think about this for a second:

I don't know how many of you know teachers/are teachers/know what I'm gonna talk about, but here it is:

Last year teachers wanted a raise. Legally they can't go on strike. We all know that teachers take a lot of work home with them. So when they wanted a raise, what they do? They started "not a minute more" which meant that after the students were on buses they would not do anything. Club leaders cancelled meetings. Teachers held picket signs on the side of the road (lead to an accident I was involved in). A lot of people agreed with them. Think about this for a second: Did it help the school or the kids by not having clubs? Did they not know that they would have to grade papers at home when they got into it? Tell me where the line is drawn. I need to know...I actually do know. It's the fact that TO has made a ton of money and does make a lot right now. However, since teachers can't legally strike they did the only thing the could. Pretty similar to a hold out, wouldn't you say?

It is human nature to want more. You better believe I’d be saying good bye to all my co-workers tomorrow if Airbus offered me a significant amount more (15K would do it) than what I make at Boeing today. I don’t have any kids but who doesn’t a nice boat in their garage?

That's not the way it is at all! Okay...Trump hires the architect and says I'll guarantee that you get your $7 million over the first 3 years of the contract and then you'll get $3,500,000 over the next 7. So what happens is he gets his 7 mil, but he gets something like

Year 1: $300,000
Year 2: $300,000
Year 3: $350,000
Year 4: $400,000

And then Trump fires him before the architect sees any of the real money they agreed he would be paid OR He says that needs to sign architects to build some new hotels so he needs him to go ahead and get rid of the last fews years where he was going to make his money and Trump will give him another $8 million over the new contract which will be longer and even more backloaded. That's the NFL.

TO is gonna make something like $756,000 next year and $1 million the year after that. All of the rest of the money is at the back end of the deal. So what he wants is to have the backloaded money moved forward. The Eagles never get close to the salary cap so financially it makes no difference.

Ok, I don't know where in the world you are getting your numbers from, but last year, TO made $9,160,700 in salaries and bonuses. HOW is that back loaded?

Regardless, my point remains. A comparison was made between TO and Donald Trump or Ralph Lauren, whoever, doesn't matter. And what I'm saying is in the business world, it doesn't matter how greedy you are, when you sign a contract, you are bound to that contract. As part of their contract, the Eagles paid TO a TON of money last year (over $8 million of that was from bonuses). They certainly didn't do that with the understanding that it would only buy them one year of TO's services. The reason players get so much up front money is so that they are guaranteed to be set financially. Do the teams have the right to fire the players? Yes, of course. But they've already paid for that right when they made them a multi-millionaire before the player even takes the field for them.

Again, it's just a simple matter of contract law here. TO signed a contract, if he starts missing mandatory events he will be breaching that contract. The teams have reserved the right to terminate that contract whenever they want........they paid up front money to TO to get him to agree to that. Any analogy between TO and Donald Trump or Ralph Lauren ends with the fact that they both want to be rich. Other than that small commonality, Carl Banks needs to recognize that pro atheletes are given an extreme amount of slack compared to the way corporate America normally works........thus, his analogy is poor.

PSUSkinsFan,

When I say I don't hate T.O. for wanting more money, I don't base that lack of disgust/hate on legal theories. Rather, I am simply saying that T.O. outperformed his deal and regardless of the terms of his deal, I don't blame him for wanting more.

That's kinda the point I was trying to make. When I get upset with an organization they stop getting my money. That's why athletes get paid so much. It's the jersey sales, The team decals, The team blankets, the throwbacks, etc. All of that. Anything with an NFL Logo on it contributes to the money players get paid. You're right it is the fan's fault and that's why I'm not mad.

Add to that the simple economics of supply and demand. There can only be so many NFL players in this world at one time. That limited supply means increased demand for the best football players and thus the price goes up.

Now Matty will tell us what the optimal input choice is... :biggthump

I gotta love the way PSUSkins fan broke it down. The bottom line is, owners are on top of the food chain. Sorry. Boo fucking hoo. It's a fact of life. Sorry. Let's stop it now. The Donald Trump scenario was perfect. He's the guy IN POWER!. Not the guy working for him. Does TO have the right to bitch? Absolutely. But it don't hold squat. The End. Move on.