Bell contract 2018

[warfelg]

4 minutes ago, skywlker32 said:

I think I see where the line of thinking would come from that Bell would be considered as a 3rd franchise tag player, but I didn't look too deep to see if it is more deeply laid out elsewhere. Essentially it looks like the criteria for moving to the next level (number of years under the franchise tag) of tag is the number of times that the franchise tag has been designated as a franchise tag player. I don't know if this is expressed more clearly elsewhere, but the idea would be that the Steelers have designated Bell twice whether or not Bell signed it.

https://www.thefootballeducator.com/nfl-cba-article-10-franchise-transition-players/

I don't know if that is a valid source, or if there are other sections that go against this, but it looks like this would be the source of the thought behind Bell no longer being under the 2nd year tag next year.

So what the loophole is, that I got from someone that's kn the know a bit more, is here's the language they would contest:

Quote

(b) Any Club that designates a player as a Franchise Player for the third time shall, on the date the third such designation is made, 

And they are going to argue that this would be the 3rd tag.

[warfelg]

Yet this passage kinda contradicts that:

Quote

The calculation of any five largest Prior Year Salaries shall include any Player Contract resulting from acceptance of a Tender for the Prior Year pursuant to Section 2(a)(i) or (a)(ii) above, provided that the player played during the Prior League Year pursuant to the Tender, but shall not include the amount of any term of a Player Contract renegotiated after the Monday of the tenth week of the regular season of the Prior League Year that provides for an unearned incentive to be treated as signing bonus.

 

[Chieferific]

3 minutes ago, warfelg said:

So what the loophole is, that I got from someone that's kn the know a bit more, is here's the language they would contest:

And they are going to argue that this would be the 3rd tag.

If that's all that's written it would appear the intent was to mean designated and signed. If the "and signed" part was inexplicably left out, Bell would have a case. If he wins, I'd expect a quick amendment to the rule. 

[Chieferific]

5 minutes ago, warfelg said:

Yet this passage kinda contradicts that:

 

Bingo. This makes sense. It clearly states the Player would have to a played the prior season and therefore signed the Tag for it. 

Edit: Actually this looks as tho this only pertains to the amount of the 5 salaries. This doesn't appear to have anything to do with Bell playing this year. 

[warfelg]

2 minutes ago, Chieferific said:

If that's all that's written it would appear the intent was to mean designated and signed. If the "and signed" part was inexplicably left out, Bell would have a case. If he wins, I'd expect a quick amendment to the rule. 

 

Just now, Chieferific said:

Bingo. This makes sense. It clearly states the Player would have to a played the prior season and therefore signed the Tag for it. 

Yup very much the intent.  His agent and lawyers would argue that it doesn't matter the intent, the language isn't consistent.  As I wrote elsewhere, this seems more the NFL and Steelers don't want to pursue it because they don't want to deal with the battle.

[Chieferific]

1 minute ago, warfelg said:

 

Yup very much the intent.  His agent and lawyers would argue that it doesn't matter the intent, the language isn't consistent.  As I wrote elsewhere, this seems more the NFL and Steelers don't want to pursue it because they don't want to deal with the battle.

Yes they would argue it and should win based on the language. 

[warfelg]

11 minutes ago, Chieferific said:

Yes they would argue it and should win based on the language. 

Personally I don't think they would. I say this because I've been burnt on a contract with similar language before.

[skywlker32]

21 minutes ago, warfelg said:

So what the loophole is, that I got from someone that's kn the know a bit more, is here's the language they would contest:

And they are going to argue that this would be the 3rd tag.

This is what I saw, also.

18 minutes ago, warfelg said:

Yet this passage kinda contradicts that:

 

That, as @Chieferific pointed out also, is discussing the calculation of the tag amount and not the number of designations.

Again, I don't know if that source for the CBA is correct, or if it is stated elsewhere that a designation is null and void without being accepted by the player.

[Chieferific]

 

3 minutes ago, skywlker32 said:

This is what I saw, also.

That, as @Chieferific pointed out also, is discussing the calculation of the tag amount and not the number of designations.

Again, I don't know if that source for the CBA is correct, or if it is stated elsewhere that a designation is null and void without being accepted by the player.

This is the important part. I would think it would be. But if it isn't, Bell benefits IMO. Unlike @warfelg's unfortunate experience(s), I don't think you can assume intent. Just what's written. 

[warfelg]

6 minutes ago, skywlker32 said:

This is what I saw, also.

That, as @Chieferific pointed out also, is discussing the calculation of the tag amount and not the number of designations.

Again, I don't know if that source for the CBA is correct, or if it is stated elsewhere that a designation is null and void without being accepted by the player.

I've seen it written the same way multiple places.  The question is does the later provision superceed the first iteration of language.  I was told in my contract dispute that yes later language can superceed the earlier language.

[warfelg]

Just now, Chieferific said:

 

This is the important part. I would think it would be. But if it isn't, Bell benefits IMO. Unlike @warfelg's unfortunate experience(s), I don't think you can assume intent. Just what's written. 

@Chieferific I added some context, and it comes down to does later language (AKA Provisions) superceed the earlier language (statement of commonality).

[Chieferific]

2 minutes ago, warfelg said:

I've seen it written the same way multiple places.  The question is does the later provision superceed the first iteration of language.  I was told in my contract dispute that yes later language can superceed the earlier language.

What later provision? The 2nd post didn't seem to have anything with whether the player signed the 2nd Tag. It was about how they calculate the Average 5 salaries. 

[warfelg]

3 minutes ago, Chieferific said:

What later provision? The 2nd post didn't seem to have anything with whether the player signed the 2nd Tag. It was about how they calculate the Average 5 salaries. 

This:

Quote

 provided that the player played during the Prior League Year pursuant to the Tender

So the later portion of the same section says the player gets the average of the top 5 salaries provided he played during the prior league year.  If Bell sits the entire year he technically doesn't play the prior league year, so that would mean the later language that he doesn't get the top 5 salary because he didn't play.

[Chieferific]

1 minute ago, warfelg said:

This:

So the later portion of the same section says the player gets the average of the top 5 salaries provided he played during the prior league year.  If Bell sits the entire year he technically doesn't play the prior league year, so that would mean the later language that he doesn't get the top 5 salary because he didn't play.

The way I read it, the "provided the player played during the Prior League Year...." pertains to that player being considered into the Top 5 Average salaries. NOT whether the player signing the Tag played the prior year. 

[warfelg]

2 minutes ago, Chieferific said:

The way I read it, the "provided the player played during the Prior League Year...." pertains to that player being considered into the Top 5 Average salaries. NOT whether the player signing the Tag played the prior year. 

And this is why they don't want to bother to challenge that language.  They don't care to keep him now, and this can get muddled really quick.

 

Oh well.  $14.5 mil on the cap in 2019.