Sorry man, this is goofiness. You're essentially saying it's ok for the team to have a recourse when they're not happy with a contract but not ok for the player to have one. A contract is a two party agreement. It's not just on the player to have to honor it if you're going to go down the road of "sorry, you signed the contract."
Absolutely it's ok, why? Because that's what the players association agreed to with the NFL in structuring their contracts. I'm not saying I agree with the structure, but Kam knew how it works when signing his deal and yet he didn't protect himself enough apparently. A contract is an AGREEMENT by multiple parties in which was signed by both parties stating that they are on the same page. Kam took advantage of the opportunity to sign early, but now doesn't want to follow through on what they agreed too. The whole, "well, they can back out when they want without recourse" excuse is hogwash. The players know this going into any contract in the NFL, and therefore it's their responsibility to protect themselves BEFORE signing the contract in the chance that a release takes place. The dude is one year into his contract........he's on his own cause that's BS. FWIW, Kam is one of my favorite players on the team and does bum me out about his antics.
That's hilarious considering I'm a freelance contractor that deals with business contracts on a regular basis. If I make a deal with my clients before a job is started, fly across country and decide that I need a raise or I'm not showing up to the job site I wouldn't have a successful business. I know what I'm getting into on every job before accepting any terms, and once agreed it is on both parties to follow through with that agreement. Not by any means, as I have stated in a previous post, do I agree with the way the NFLPA & NFL have structured their contracts. With that being said, Kam knew this when he signed his contract and should have protected himself knowing how it works. If he wanted more security he should have settled that issue before signing on the dotted line, period.
Mmmm he agreed that if he played for the Seahawks he would get paid X amount, but there is nothing in the agreement that says he has to play. He's decided he's not playing and it will take a little more $ to change his mind. Sounds fair to me. He's going to lose this battle IMO, but I harbor no ill feelings about it.
Right, not following through on his agreement that HE signed in the contract. It's a bitch move, sorry. He should be a man of his word because he said he would agree to play for X amount of dollars and thus should stick to that agreement. It's also in the agreement, that HE signed, the team can terminate his contract at any time without recourse. He flip flopped and now the team suffers.
It does? Explain.
Right, but he also can't find work elsewhere because he agreed to a contract that's binding.
And you won't?
Or when the Hawks were on the hook for roughly $9 million after shipping Harvin out due to the structure of his contract.
See here's the difference in our opinions. I love that the teams hold the upper hand in the NFL, hate what happens in baseball and basketball. However I just don't get upset about players squacking because it's a one sided deal as a rule, yes there are exceptions, but generally the team holds the cards. If you were in those players shoes, you would not like the hand dealt to you. So while I want the team to hold firm, I don't mind the complaints, because I can understand them.
I guess the thing with me is that he knew what he was signing when he signed that deal. When you sign a contract it basically states that you agree to certain terms. Kam knew the terms, why shouldn't he be binded to those terms? If the Hawks cut him before his guaranteed money had been realized they would still have to pay him, should he have to give that back in that situation?
