Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

ESPN: Patriots don't owe Aaron Hernandez


isle-hawg

Recommended Posts

BOSTON -- The New England Patriots don't owe "another penny" to former tight end Aaron Hernandez, who is charged in three killings, a team lawyer told a judge Wednesday.

Attorney Andrew Phelan said the team terminated its contract with Hernandez shortly after he was charged last year in the death of semi-pro football player Odin Lloyd. He said the team does not believe it owes Hernandez a $3.25 million contract signing bonus.

 

http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/_/id/11169696/new-england-patriots-lawyer-tells-judge-team-does-not-owe-aaron-hernandez-another-penny

 

Well the Pats may win this, but hope they don't.  Just seems unfair to me, since our team took a major cap hit for Sean getting murdered in his own home, Fat Albert deciding he did not want to play after getting paid.  Then took another cap hit for not complying with the cap during an uncapped year....   Different set of rules for some teams it seems.... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This should be interesting. Besides a pending court ruling, the NFLPA has filed grievances for Hernandez.

 

"Hernandez's attorney, John Fitzpatrick, argued in court papers that the attempt to prevent the team from paying Hernandez is "fundamentally unfair" because Hernandez needs the money to pay for his defense in the three killings and the civil cases.

 

Depriving Hernandez access to his earnings "would impair his state and federal constitutional rights to counsel and to due process," he wrote."

 

If the Pats want to erase the books or cap hit, where is Mara?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You want a murderer to be paid millions of dollars because of some salary issues you'd had?

The families of the victims will sue and get the money.  Yes I would like the victims families to get the money and yes I would like to see the Pats experience the salary cap penalty for signing a murderer.  Especially in light of the fact the Pats sided with Mara's collusion scheme to penalize the Redskins for not complying with the salary cap during an uncapped year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The families of the victims will sue and get the money.  Yes I would like the victims families to get the money and yes I would like to see the Pats experience the salary cap penalty for signing a murderer.  Especially in light of the fact the Pats sided with Mara's collusion scheme to penalize the Redskins for not complying with the salary cap during an uncapped year.

 

Very well put!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, can't really argue with isle on that one.  I think most of us would agree with that, but on the other hand I can see where the other side is coming from.  Not looking far enough into it and I could see how some people just like to see the murderer be broke, his family to be broke, and his girlfriend to be broke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, first, the OP had 2 examples of a salary cap hit under bad circumstances: 1) ST's murder, and the 'Skins still being on the hook for his contract from a salary cap perspective, and 2) the AH debacle/Salary Cap Penalty.

 

Let's put the second one to bed immediately.  There is no correlation between what the Pats are arguing and the AH contract and Salary Cap penalty.  They are arguing that they terminated the contract, presumably under some type of behavior clause, that makes all future payments null and void.  

 

AH not wanting to play after he got paid is the fault of the 'Skins (Vinny/Dan) for signing the loser to a stupid contract to begin with.  There is no legal recourse to signing a guy to a stupid contract.  The Cap Penalty was completely unjust and unfair, (And there's a chance that will come out in court with the NFLPA lawsuit) but it has nothing to do with terminating a contract.

 

So, let's just separate that issue out, because legally, it's not similar.

 

The ST issue, however, is a little more interesting.  I think the question legally is going to come down to contract law: Unless the Pats have an "out" in the contract, they are subject to the terms of the contract regardless of the reason they terminated the contract.  If they had released Hernandez because of bad play, they would have had to pay him the bonus and eat the cap penalty.

 

So, unless there is a clause in the contract that states the Pats can terminate the contract based on bad behavior (which being charged with 3 murders would probably qualify), I can see the Pats having to pay Hernandez the money.  Now, the victim's families could sue for the entirety of that money, and if he's guilty, could probably win.  

 

I think the difference with the 'Skins is that they didn't terminate the contract, ST was murdered, and so they had to abide by the contract. I'm guessing, as I haven't seen the contract.  But that seems like the difference between the two cases.

 

I should have gone to law school so I could understand this stuff better. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The families of the victims will sue and get the money.  Yes I would like the victims families to get the money and yes I would like to see the Pats experience the salary cap penalty for signing a murderer.  Especially in light of the fact the Pats sided with Mara's collusion scheme to penalize the Redskins for not complying with the salary cap during an uncapped year.

 

And...to me...he has the right to defend himself.  Until he is proven to be guilty, he is innocent (and therefore, entitled to the monies he is owed).

 

 

As others have said...once convicted, he'll likely lose most/all in civil court.

 

I should have gone to law school so I could understand this stuff better. :)

 

 

Pretty sure you understand it just fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The families of the victims will sue and get the money.  Yes I would like the victims families to get the money and yes I would like to see the Pats experience the salary cap penalty for signing a murderer.  Especially in light of the fact the Pats sided with Mara's collusion scheme to penalize the Redskins for not complying with the salary cap during an uncapped year.

Yes and no. Most likely this money will go to his attorneys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The families of the victims will sue and get the money.  Yes I would like the victims families to get the money and yes I would like to see the Pats experience the salary cap penalty for signing a murderer.  Especially in light of the fact the Pats sided with Mara's collusion scheme to penalize the Redskins for not complying with the salary cap during an uncapped year.

The families of the victims won't see a dime of that money, as it will all be more than spent on legal fees before any civil cases can be made.  The lawyer wants Hernadez to get that money, because he is the one who will end up pocketing every penny of it.  It's the same with the OJ case.  When Ron Goldman won the civil trial, OJ couldn't pay up because all of his money had been spent during his trials.  Goldman is still waiting, 20 years later, to see the majority of the money he "won" in the case.

 

It comes down to whether or not the Pats legally owe him the money.  Most companies and employment contracts have some sort of clause that  nullifies the contract under certain conditions, and committing murder would fall under the umbrella of most of those clauses.  IF there is such a clause, Hernadez should expect to get that money once aquited.  If found guilty, he wouldn't see any of it.  I know that people are innocent until proven guilty, but this falls under a whole separate set of rules.  For instance, most employers have the power to fire an employee if they are charged with a major crime, whether or not they are found guilty or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The families of the victims won't see a dime of that money, as it will all be more than spent on legal fees before any civil cases can be made.  The lawyer wants Hernadez to get that money, because he is the one who will end up pocketing every penny of it.  It's the same with the OJ case.  When Ron Goldman won the civil trial, OJ couldn't pay up because all of his money had been spent during his trials.  Goldman is still waiting, 20 years later, to see the majority of the money he "won" in the case.

 

It comes down to whether or not the Pats legally owe him the money.  Most companies and employment contracts have some sort of clause that  nullifies the contract under certain conditions, and committing murder would fall under the umbrella of most of those clauses.  IF there is such a clause, Hernadez should expect to get that money once aquited.  If found guilty, he wouldn't see any of it.  I know that people are innocent until proven guilty, but this falls under a whole separate set of rules.  For instance, most employers have the power to fire an employee if they are charged with a major crime, whether or not they are found guilty or not.

 

Exactly ... unless theres language in the contract that says "we can terminate this contract and not actually pay you guaranteed money if you commit a felony", its should be the same as if he was cut or injured

 

I believe the Falcons were on the hook for Vick, the same should apply to the Patriots - buyer beware

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

In all fairness, he is only accused. So I doubt there is any legal recourse right now.  Once he is convicted (and I think he will be), then that is a different story, but right now he is just accused of murder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Does no one else have issue with the NFLPA argument that he needs the money for his defense,etc? How many other people charged with murder get that kind of defense fund? You can agree or disagree if he should get paid but their reasoning for it is ludicrous!

I think it's a stupid argument.  The only argument that the NFLPA can make is if there was no behavioral "out" in the contract, that he is due the money just like any player who is released for any reason.  And, frankly, they'd be right.

 

For some reason, I've got to think this is a pretty simple legal matter: Either the Pats could end the contract without penalty because of some clause IN the contract allowed them to do that, or they can't, and they are on the hook for any money stipulated in the contract, and whatever cap ramifications those might have.

 

Whether that's morally right or wrong really isn't the issue.  The law doesn't have morals. It just interprets the language put forth in the contract.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...