Jump to content

Random Packer News & Notes


Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, Scoremore said:

Yah that's what I was thinking.  It's his first show so maybe he can improve a bit.  Overall pretty damn good. Hard comparison going against Alex T who's been doing it for decades.

To be fair - there's just an automatic weirdness, but his arrow could point up. There just isn't a whole lot of room for the host of that show to interject personality. Might just come down to voice IMO. He said he wants the gig.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/4/2021 at 5:28 PM, incognito_man said:

I'm not convinced that Jones + 2 TBD new starters on the OL is better than Williams/Dillon + same OL as last season.

Jones cap n7mber in 21 is under 5 million, Williams got 3.5, you can get Lindsey and wags for the  1.5 m/yr difference?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/7/2021 at 9:52 PM, Sasquatch said:

LOL, Crabtree!

 

I wanna see Davante with the wine, in a smoking jacket that goes over football pads, and in a deep leather chair on the sideline in between drives.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Andrew Brandt  -    Heard from a Packer player today (not Aaron Rodgers): "So I hear you're the one responsible for us all having big workout bonuses?"

Guilty. We could never get guys to stay in the offseason, knew I had to break off salary/other bonus money into workout bonuses to get them to stay.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, packfanfb said:

Perhaps some clarity on the Rodgers situation...

Thanks, fanfb.  Some Packer-related media doc claimed the team can convert base-to-bonus unilaterally.  An accounting practice, with zero impact on the player payments or timing thereof; so that the team doesn't need the player to sign off on that.  

This seems perhaps inconsistent with that claim?  Either the claim is wrong, and the Packers could NOT convert base-to-bonus without Rodgers approval.  Or else, I suppose, perhaps the claim is true and the Packers could have done so, but chose not to for relationship reasons?  Didn't want to do so without Aaron's OK?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, craig said:

Thanks, fanfb.  Some Packer-related media doc claimed the team can convert base-to-bonus unilaterally.  An accounting practice, with zero impact on the player payments or timing thereof; so that the team doesn't need the player to sign off on that.  

This seems perhaps inconsistent with that claim?  Either the claim is wrong, and the Packers could NOT convert base-to-bonus without Rodgers approval.  Or else, I suppose, perhaps the claim is true and the Packers could have done so, but chose not to for relationship reasons?  Didn't want to do so without Aaron's OK?  

I don't recall who it was, but they said that majority of the contracts are signed with auto-restructure in the contract.  So long as the players isn't paid less or later, teams are allowed to restructure without the approval of the player.  It's possible the Packers wanted to restructure Rodgers with the desire to add some dummy years onto the deal, and that would need Rodgers' approval.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, CWood21 said:

I don't recall who it was, but they said that majority of the contracts are signed with auto-restructure in the contract.  So long as the players isn't paid less or later, teams are allowed to restructure without the approval of the player.  It's possible the Packers wanted to restructure Rodgers with the desire to add some dummy years onto the deal, and that would need Rodgers' approval.

Adding voidable years, there is no question that teams aren't free to do that without player approval. 

Simple base-to-bonus conversion, without voidable years extension, is different.  The question remains open whether that really is allowable or not. 

CW, your note that "majority of the contracts are signed with auto-restructure in the contract" suggests that it may require a voluntary inclusion?  "Majority" is not universal, and doesn't suggest that the CBA gives teams that right without a voluntary contractual permission.  

I could easily see why a big-ticket QB would NOT want to sign that permission in, for obvious leverage reasons.  If I was Rodgers' agent, I'd not have voluntarily given the base-to-bonus option to the team.  Facing management with a large cap hit is good  leverage for getting an extension; so why would the agent have given that away unnecessarily, if it's not actually in the CBA?  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...