DaFunky1 Posted January 8, 2004 Share Posted January 8, 2004 Maybe some of you lawyers can explain this to me... Why if Spurrier wanted to quit would he need to negotiate his "quitting"? Maybe I am off base on this, but I wonder if the negotiations were to help him save face since Snyder was planning on bringing Gibbs in all along, or at least knew he was interested in coaching again? Seens odd he would have to negotiate his own separation from the organization. Then again I don't know much about contracts. Peace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaFunky1 Posted January 8, 2004 Author Share Posted January 8, 2004 Maybe some of you lawyers can explain this to me... Why if Spurrier wanted to quit would he need to negotiate his "quitting"? Maybe I am off base on this, but I wonder if the negotiations were to help him save face since Snyder was planning on bringing Gibbs in all along, or at least knew he was interested in coaching again? Seens odd he would have to negotiate his own separation from the organization. Then again I don't know much about contracts. Peace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EagleSteve Posted January 8, 2004 Share Posted January 8, 2004 He signed a contract. He's obligated to abide by the terms of the contract. If he wants to quit, then Snyder would have to release him from the contract. Obviously Snyder wants to protect his interests (as does Spurrier), so this has to be negotiated. Regardless, Spurrier is not eligible to work in the NFL for three more years unless the Redskins get compensation from whoever hires him. Spurrier also negotiated some cash for himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EagleSteve Posted January 8, 2004 Share Posted January 8, 2004 He signed a contract. He's obligated to abide by the terms of the contract. If he wants to quit, then Snyder would have to release him from the contract. Obviously Snyder wants to protect his interests (as does Spurrier), so this has to be negotiated. Regardless, Spurrier is not eligible to work in the NFL for three more years unless the Redskins get compensation from whoever hires him. Spurrier also negotiated some cash for himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riggins44 Posted January 8, 2004 Share Posted January 8, 2004 We still own Spurrier's rights. For him to go back into the NFL, over the next 3 years, we could ask for some form of compensation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riggins44 Posted January 8, 2004 Share Posted January 8, 2004 We still own Spurrier's rights. For him to go back into the NFL, over the next 3 years, we could ask for some form of compensation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskin56 Posted January 8, 2004 Share Posted January 8, 2004 I believe the negotiations that you refer to were somewhat of a "severance pay" issue. Both parties could mutually agree to terminate the contract earlier than enunciated in the contract. Its called mutual recission. However, I think Spurrier knew that Snyder wouldn't put up any fuss over Spurrier leaving and had his agent say to Snyder that Spurrier was willing to walk away from the remaining 15 million if Snyder paid his moving expenses back to what ever swamp he climed out of and Snyder snapped it up without thinking twice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskin56 Posted January 8, 2004 Share Posted January 8, 2004 I believe the negotiations that you refer to were somewhat of a "severance pay" issue. Both parties could mutually agree to terminate the contract earlier than enunciated in the contract. Its called mutual recission. However, I think Spurrier knew that Snyder wouldn't put up any fuss over Spurrier leaving and had his agent say to Snyder that Spurrier was willing to walk away from the remaining 15 million if Snyder paid his moving expenses back to what ever swamp he climed out of and Snyder snapped it up without thinking twice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toddlerdurden Posted January 8, 2004 Share Posted January 8, 2004 Yeah, Spurrier tried to angle for a loophole where he could get some of the 15 million - or even manage to obtain a package for 'transition'. Snyder is paying him a paltry sum for "transition expenses" (hey, Steve, where did you leave your playbook - we need to know what doesn't work?") and some dollars to cover the expenses incurred while he moves back to Florida. No green fees, though. He'll have to cover those with whatever he has left of the $10 million he has from the last two seasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toddlerdurden Posted January 8, 2004 Share Posted January 8, 2004 Yeah, Spurrier tried to angle for a loophole where he could get some of the 15 million - or even manage to obtain a package for 'transition'. Snyder is paying him a paltry sum for "transition expenses" (hey, Steve, where did you leave your playbook - we need to know what doesn't work?") and some dollars to cover the expenses incurred while he moves back to Florida. No green fees, though. He'll have to cover those with whatever he has left of the $10 million he has from the last two seasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NBlue Posted January 8, 2004 Share Posted January 8, 2004 Originally posted by toddlerdurden Yeah, Spurrier tried to angle for a loophole where he could get some of the 15 million - or even manage to obtain a package for 'transition'. that's bs. if spurrier wanted the money he could have stayed and coached another year for $5 mil. He didn't and did the honorable thing by not negotiating a buyout. The comments regarding his failure to make the redskins a winner in two years are valid, but these cheap shots at him are classless, imo. the only $$ he was paid was for his moving expenses -- if you are saying that is being greedy on his part when leaving $15mil on the table, I think you are going just a touch overboard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NBlue Posted January 8, 2004 Share Posted January 8, 2004 Originally posted by toddlerdurden Yeah, Spurrier tried to angle for a loophole where he could get some of the 15 million - or even manage to obtain a package for 'transition'. that's bs. if spurrier wanted the money he could have stayed and coached another year for $5 mil. He didn't and did the honorable thing by not negotiating a buyout. The comments regarding his failure to make the redskins a winner in two years are valid, but these cheap shots at him are classless, imo. the only $$ he was paid was for his moving expenses -- if you are saying that is being greedy on his part when leaving $15mil on the table, I think you are going just a touch overboard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted January 8, 2004 Share Posted January 8, 2004 Spurrier needed an agent FIRST, to more than likely have an under the table buyout that some are speculating and SECOND, to make sure there are no suprises down the road if Spurrier decides to coach again. Spurrier never used an agent when doing his contract with Snyder and in all likelyhood, he never expected to quit, so he didn't think ahead to plan for a worst case scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted January 8, 2004 Share Posted January 8, 2004 Spurrier needed an agent FIRST, to more than likely have an under the table buyout that some are speculating and SECOND, to make sure there are no suprises down the road if Spurrier decides to coach again. Spurrier never used an agent when doing his contract with Snyder and in all likelyhood, he never expected to quit, so he didn't think ahead to plan for a worst case scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG Posted January 8, 2004 Share Posted January 8, 2004 The SOS coming back to the NFl and the Skins being compensated has nothing to do with the terms of the contract. That is an NFL rule. Just like a player who holds out or retires in mid contract. What Blazers said is correct. You can't just say I quit and everything is negated. It has to be resolved where both sides can reach an agreement as to the resignation of the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG Posted January 8, 2004 Share Posted January 8, 2004 The SOS coming back to the NFl and the Skins being compensated has nothing to do with the terms of the contract. That is an NFL rule. Just like a player who holds out or retires in mid contract. What Blazers said is correct. You can't just say I quit and everything is negated. It has to be resolved where both sides can reach an agreement as to the resignation of the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted January 8, 2004 Share Posted January 8, 2004 Originally posted by 'THE REAL BALLCOACH' The SOS coming back to the NFl and the Skins being compensated has nothing to do with the terms of the contract. That is an NFL rule. Just like a player who holds out or retires in mid contract. What Blazers said is correct. You can't just say I quit and everything is negated. It has to be resolved where both sides can reach an agreement as to the resignation of the other. Spurrier is technically still under contract with the Redskins, he signed on for 5 years of service and he has only completed 2 of those 5 years. Snyder has the power to tear up the contract if he wanted to IF he and Spurrier agree because they are the 2 parties involved. We don't know if Spurrier and Snyder already have an arrangement regarding the future. For example, Spurrier could have been given a lump sum of money to just go away. It's not "just" an NFL rule, Spurrier is obligated to fulfil the contract that he signed and when you quit any contracted job, you have to agree on certain things at the time the employee is quitting, at least that's how it is here in Va. Because Spurrier is still under an NFL contract to Snyder, he can't work in the NFL again unless Snyder decides to let him out of the contract or agrees on compensation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted January 8, 2004 Share Posted January 8, 2004 Originally posted by 'THE REAL BALLCOACH' The SOS coming back to the NFl and the Skins being compensated has nothing to do with the terms of the contract. That is an NFL rule. Just like a player who holds out or retires in mid contract. What Blazers said is correct. You can't just say I quit and everything is negated. It has to be resolved where both sides can reach an agreement as to the resignation of the other. Spurrier is technically still under contract with the Redskins, he signed on for 5 years of service and he has only completed 2 of those 5 years. Snyder has the power to tear up the contract if he wanted to IF he and Spurrier agree because they are the 2 parties involved. We don't know if Spurrier and Snyder already have an arrangement regarding the future. For example, Spurrier could have been given a lump sum of money to just go away. It's not "just" an NFL rule, Spurrier is obligated to fulfil the contract that he signed and when you quit any contracted job, you have to agree on certain things at the time the employee is quitting, at least that's how it is here in Va. Because Spurrier is still under an NFL contract to Snyder, he can't work in the NFL again unless Snyder decides to let him out of the contract or agrees on compensation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.