Carlito Sway Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 ST has to fire this guy in a hurry. He brags about only taking 3%, but then loses his client four game checks. So that's what, 26%? Sean, please pay attention. We love you. Drew does not. Drew wants to put you out on the corner to make some money for him. Don't fall for it. Get a real dude like David Falk or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jett Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 Question: T.O. signed his contract while with a different agent, who gets the agent's percentage Drew or the former agent? I do not beleive Drew did anything as far as a new contract goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahhyeaa Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 I see no way in hell how the Eagles will be able to get away with this. They have every right to suspend him from the team but now they want their money back also. That's BS! TO did not brake any laws and had the right under our Constitution to say what he did. You just can't make a agreement like "Conduct Detremental to the team" if this agreement takes away from your civil rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ntotoro Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 Question: T.O. signed his contract while with a different agent, who gets the agent's percentage Drew or the former agent? I do not beleive Drew did anything as far as a new contract goes. Drew gets nothing. That's why he's trying to do all this to save face. If TO doesn't get a new contract from Philly, Rosenhaus gets stugots and whatever he has done becomes, in essense, pro-bono. He needs TO to get a brand new contract anywhere to get paid a single penny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iheartskins Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 So, Mr. Rosenhaus. Where does this press conference rank on the Unintentional Comedy Scale?Next question! I'm looking forward to reading the Sports Guy's take on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsGuy Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 Its being reported on ESPN News now that the Eagles have said they don't want Owens back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D_Alx Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 The lastest thing I've heard. ESPN reported a response from an inside source was that the Eagles will not take him back, even if they had to pay him for the entire season (including the Skins game missed Sunday night) they just want to get rid of him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ntotoro Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 I see no way in hell how the Eagles will be able to get away with this. They have every right to suspend him from the team but now they want their money back also. That's BS! TO did not brake any laws and had the right under our Constitution to say what he did. You just can't make a agreement like "Conduct Detremental to the team" if this agreement takes away from your civil rights. It's in his contract. He gets suspended in such a fashion, he has to give back a portion of his signing bonus. Simple as that. He signed it. I'm sure they have a nice backlog of goodies in-case he makes an ill-fated attempt at challenging this. Hell, the entire media does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahhyeaa Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 I have also noticed that they are no longer intrested in getting their 1.7 million back and don't care if they have to pay him. The Eagles tried to use him as much as he tried to use them for a big contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahhyeaa Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 It's in his contract. He gets suspended in such a fashion, he has to give back a portion of his signing bonus. Simple as that. He signed it. I'm sure they have a nice backlog of goodies in-case he makes an ill-fated attempt at challenging this. Hell, the entire media does. A contract is not legal if it takes away from your civil rights. They had no grounds to suspend him either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsNeverDie Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 TO is crying right now i bet... Drew: Whats wrong TO TO: You made a complete fool of me *sniff sniff* Drew: It's okay need a hug? TO: Yeah.....Drew...i've always had this attraction towards you... -Andy Reid Walks in- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ntotoro Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 A contract is not legal if it takes away from your civil rights. They had no grounds to suspend him either. How have his civil rights been violated? That's absurd. They had complete grounds to suspend him. If they didn't, they wouldn't have. This isn't something to take lightly by any business owner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stwasm Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 I'm looking forward to reading the Sports Guy's take on this. I just visited his Web site. He wrote about last night's Colts-Pats game. But, soon. I'm sure T.O.'s "My Agent is an Idiot" face/laugh has been born. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iheartskins Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 A contract is not legal if it takes away from your civil rights. They had no grounds to suspend him either. What civil rights did this contract take away exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahhyeaa Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 How have his civil rights been violated? That's absurd.They had complete grounds to suspend him. If they didn't, they wouldn't have. This isn't something to take lightly by any business owner. The guy has a right to SPEAK! I don't care if the Eagles or anyone else dosen't like what he says. I think this is covered by the Freedom of Speech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ntotoro Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 The guy has a right to SPEAK! I don't care if the Eagles or anyone else dosen't like what he says. I think this is covered by the Freedom of Speech. He has the right to speak. No one has taken it away from him. He can amd does say whatever he pleases. Say something stupid, though, and he has to answer for the consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahhyeaa Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 What civil rights did this contract take away exactly? I'm saying everyone says Conduct Deterimental to the team means that he dosen't have the right to speak his mind or give an opinion. Conduct Deterimental to the team could mean getting a penalty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iheartskins Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 The guy has a right to SPEAK! I don't care if the Eagles or anyone else dosen't like what he says. I think this is covered by the Freedom of Speech. I don't think so ahhyeaa, just think about (very common) confidentiality clauses. For example, consider if you are a contract employee with the government, especially with any kind of security clearance, your free speech rights are definitely limited by the terms of the employment agreement that you signed. Confidentiality, and/or limitations on speech, are an integral part of some types of employment. In any case, it's not that what he said was illegal or that his right to say something was restricted, it's that he didn't have free reign to say whatever he wanted without some kind of consequence--that's part of the deal he signed with the team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 A contract is not legal if it takes away from your civil rights. They had no grounds to suspend him either. Giving back part of your signing bonus for conduct detrimental to the team is not violating your civil rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskins55 Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 I actually agree with Rosenhouse and Owens that ESPN has overhyped this story, and in the mix of hearing everyones opinions from Michael Irvin, to Mike Golic they have created an even more negative image of T.O. Yea Irvin is the lone voice that defends T.O but everyone else bashes the guy. Ok I can understand a few "analyst" giving their opinion on the matter. But ESPN drags the story on and on and on. They even highlighted little segments during their sunday night game after the REDSKINS scored a touchdown!! And Salisbary's after game "breakdown" segment highlighted the Eagles wide recievers and how they did in place of T.O... The Redskins won the Game!!! Why not show a break down of how we WON THE GAME!! Now I dont know the guy and dont really like the image that he portraits, but he and his agent have a point that ESPN never covers other players that break laws as much as they have blown up this saga. ESPN has put SPORTS in the back seat and DRAMA in the front! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlsbadd Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 A contract is not legal if it takes away from your civil rights. They had no grounds to suspend him either. The reason the Eagles came out with a very carefully prepared statement on why they suspended TO was to make sure there was no way TO would have grounds to argue it. Every team has lawyers in contact with the NFL regarding player issues for this very reason, there is no gray area here. TO can and does say whatever he wants nobody is taking that away from him. When it comes to team matters I am sure the Eagles have more than enough grounds to do what they did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrocrb96 Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 I glad is being held at his home. That's probably where he's going to be spending the rest of his time. LOL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D_Alx Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 I don't understand this guy, he's what 31? 32? If he's been popping off at the mouth all his life, why has he yet to realize how much trouble it brings? 32 years of experience and you're still basically apologizing for not picking up on this yet? That's retarded Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrocrb96 Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 I really think it's the money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahhyeaa Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 I don't think so ahhyeaa, just think about (very common) confidentiality clauses. For example, consider if you are a contract employee with the government, especially with any kind of security clearance, your free speech rights are definitely limited by the terms of the employment agreement that you signed. Confidentiality, and/or limitations on speech, are an integral part of some types of employment. In any case, it's not that what he said was illegal or that his right to say something was restricted, it's that he didn't have free reign to say whatever he wanted without some kind of consequence--that's part of the deal he signed with the team. Yea, I hear what your saying but a secrecy agreement is something totally different. If TO was going out and telling other teams their whole playbook it would be different. That would be doing something malicious. The Eagles would have no right to tell TO how to talk about anything else. He could go out and say "Andy Reid is so fat that it if he jumped in the ocean it would dry up" and they could do nothing about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.