MisterPinstripe Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 The agents for San Diego Chargers receiver Vincent Jackson and New England Patriots guard Logan Mankins reportedly are demanding their clients become unrestricted free agents once the lockout is lifted or receive $10 million payments as part of the settlement of the Brady vs. NFL antitrust lawsuit. Both players are among 10 named plaintiffs in the lawsuit and both received franchise tags from their teams before the NFL locked out its players in March. Yahoo! Sports reported the demand, citing unnamed sources. A league source confirmed to ESPN NFL Insider Adam Schefter the demands made by Jackson's agents, but Mankins and his agent, Frank Bauer, have not given their damages or repayment number to the NFL Players Association or its attorneys yet, according to the source. The Brady lawsuit is one of the final items that needs to be resolved before the NFL and its players can agree to a new collective bargaining agreement. One league source told Schefter that he doubted the reported issue would hold up a settlement, however. "Is Vincent Jackson going to hold up the NFL season for 1,900 players, the clubs and the fans? Too smart a guy for that," the source told Schefter. Sources told ESPN.com's John Clayton that neither Jackson nor Mankins have been contacted recently about a settlement to the Brady lawsuit. However, the NFLPA is drawing up a draft of the settlement to review Tuesday, a player source told Schefter. League sources had told ESPN senior NFL analyst Chris Mortensen that the limit of franchise tags on the plaintiffs in the Brady antitrust lawsuit could be the anchor to a settlement in that case. http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/6783030/report-vincent-jackson-san-diego-chargers-logan-mankins-new-england-patriots-eye-freedom-10m Apparently Brees and Manning are trying to leverage something out of this as well... Ridiculous. They signed up to represent the players, not themselves. ---------- Post added July-19th-2011 at 03:00 PM ---------- Here is a good article from PFT also about whats going on: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/19/manning-brees-mankins-jackson-need-to-quit-trying-to-cut-their-own-deals/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sideshow24 Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 So much for looking after the players who have short careers and low pay. These 2 guys are set for life and have cemented a place in the league, now we see what their real motive was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrecker Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 ATN forum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downbeat87 Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 on the surface it could look like the leverage is for themselves, but it actually could be them trying to get leverage for everyone... like getting rid of franchise tags or something Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boston Skins Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 ATN forum? :cop: Excuse me, Sir. Are you aware of what forum you're in? This news is so freaking frustrating man. 3-4 players are going to screw up this whole thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dukes and Skins Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 on the surface it could look like the leverage is for themselves, but it actually could be them trying to get leverage for everyone... like getting rid of franchise tags or something Franchise tags aint going anywhere from what i've read they are still in this new CBA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boston Skins Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 on the surface it could look like the leverage is for themselves, but it actually could be them trying to get leverage for everyone... like getting rid of franchise tags or something I thought this was already resolved? I guess since they got tagged before the lockout, their situation stays the same? This is all so confusing. I just want football... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 Franchise tags aint going anywhere from what i've read they are still in this new CBA I think the players want it to be one time only. Currently they can be franchised or transitioned as many times as the club wants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elbaryn Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 Drew Brees and Peyton Manning have asked the same thing of the courts. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/19/peyton-manning-and-drew-brees-request-settlement-terms/ This enrages me beyond belief. I love football. LOVE IT, but if this is the way its going to be with every player trying to cut their own deal, shut the doors board up the windows cancel it all and tell them to get real jobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boston Skins Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 I think the players want it to be one time only. Currently they can be franchised or transitioned as many times as the club wants. I thought that the reports that came out was exactly that, that the new CBA stipulates limits on franchise tags. The owners had gained the upperhand, and have bent over backwards IMO to expedite this thing. The players neeed to give a little, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan2k Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 Franchise tags are a joke. You shouldn't be able to keep captivate a player if he doesnt want to be there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zhouse Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 “Sigh, and once again greed is the operative byword. Congrats Brees, Manning, Mankins, and Jackson for being ‘that guy’. #douchebags.“ - Chris Kluwe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unforgiven Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 “Sigh, and once again greed is the operative byword. Congrats Brees, Manning, Mankins, and Jackson for being ‘that guy’. #douchebags.“ - Chris Kluwe It would carry more weight if it was a real player and not a punter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartinC Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 Franchise tags are a joke. You shouldn't be able to keep captivate a player if he doesnt want to be there The franchise tag for a QB is $16M. You can hold me "captive" for a lot less than that. Plus the plaintiffs are not demanding no franchise tag for all players, just for themselves. Greedy and selfish. I recommend locking them in a room with James Harrison one by one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unforgiven Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 It's impossible to feel bad for someone who gets franchised for 10+ million. Keep in mind though if they're worth franchising they'll get similar money wherever they sign at. Imagine you could go to another job you liked way better for the same pay right now, but your current job said "nope, you're staying here!". If you remove the financial portion of it, it would be incredibly frustrating. I'm not going to get angry over this because I really can't see it holding up much of anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zhouse Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 It would carry more weight if it was a real player and not a punter. Punter or not, it can't be good when players are turning on each other Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo#44 Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 What ***holes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unforgiven Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 Punter or not, it can't be good when players are turning on each other Oh I agree, just laughed when I saw who it was complaining, someone who would never ever have to deal with the issue they're complaining about. Either way, I'll end up calling for their heads if this does hold things up and screw up the timetable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxiumone Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 The will work this out just like they did in 93 when Reggie White sued that brought about free agency and the franchise tag. One of the terms of the settlement for White was that he had a life time exemption from the franchise tag From the espn article There is precedent for Jackson and Mankins to demand free agency. As part of the Reggie White antitrust lawsuit vs. the NFL in 1993 that instituted free agency, the plaintiffs were granted a lifetime exemption from the franchise tag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiggosMohawk Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 To play devils advocate, all named plantiffs in the 1993 antitrust case got the same deal: "The request from Manning and Brees is not without precedent. When the 1993 antitrust lawsuit was settled, all the lead plaintiffs were exempt from the tag for their careers." http://www.boston.com/sports/football/patriots/extra_points/2011/07/brees_manning_r.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter Still, I think it stinks and the four of them should be ashamed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan2k Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 The franchise tag for a QB is $16M. You can hold me "captive" for a lot less than that. Plus the plaintiffs are not demanding no franchise tag for all players, just for themselves. Greedy and selfish.I recommend locking them in a room with James Harrison one by one. when players make so much money, sometimes u want a new scenery or just want to start fresh somewhere else. they are probably one of few peoples that have been screwed by the rule thats why Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins island connection Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 This is one of the reasons why I'd like to see a season of no football; both sides are overpaid crybabies, whether one side has more money or not, point is, you are being paid more than 99% of the world's population, and you demand more? Cut both sides' income, drop the price of tickets to the 1970's market and fight for your right to earn more money, while every stadium in the NFL would be filled with fans seeing players actually playing as a unit, not as an individual attention hog... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Tater Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 The franchise tag for a QB is $16M. You can hold me "captive" for a lot less than that. Plus the plaintiffs are not demanding no franchise tag for all players, just for themselves. Greedy and selfish.I recommend locking them in a room with James Harrison one by one. What it would take to keep you "captive" has no relevance. The only relevant question is would the QB in question be able to go elsewhere that the given QB values more if here was not tagged? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterPinstripe Posted July 19, 2011 Author Share Posted July 19, 2011 ATN forum? I was going to, but because it effects the Redskins as much as anyone if it effects the lockout I thought it could go here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destructis Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 My solution to this would be to make it kind of a poison pill. Teams are allowed to place the franchise tags the first time per the normal rules. If they choose to put a franchise tag on a player for a second consecutive year, then the salary should go up 1.5 times of the first franchise tag. So if Manning were franchised the first year, 16 million, the second year, 24 million, third year 36 million. It would enable teams the option of continuing to do it, but they have to determine if it's worth it after the first year. Also once the player signs the franchise tender, the contract becomes guaranteed. It should have been put in the contract so it's the same for all players. The fact that they are just trying to get something for themselves just because they were named in the lawsuit, does make them douchebags in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.