Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 63
  1. #1
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,483
    Rep Power
    154

    Upset about Jackson's holdout? Remember... Faulk did it, too!

    Let's take a walk back through memory lane here, courtesy of news items from KFFL, CBS, and the New York Times (and radiohead235, who dug up the CBS item on another board).


    -Marshall Faulk was traded to the Rams from the Colts on April 15th, 1999. Faulk, who was unhappy about his contract situation while in Indy, was now seeking a new contract from his new team.

    -As of June, a contract agreement still had not been reached. A June minicamp holdout was looming, as Faulk's agent Rocky Arceneaux had previously stated that he had expected something to get done before that event.

    -Well, nothing happened. And when minicamp started on June 10th, Faulk was a no-show. According to the Post-Dispatch, he skipped a team meeting the night before, and since the minicamp was mandatory, Faulk was subject to fines.

    -After skipping the entire minicamp, little headway was made in negotiations through the rest of the month. On June 28th, KSDK TV reported that Faulk and his agent were upset with the organization for trading for Faulk, knowing he wanted to be among the top paid running backs in the league, and then not delivering. Both Faulk and his agent said that he would be prepared to hold out into training camp or longer if necessary.

    -Training camp was scheduled to begin on July 22nd, but it started without Faulk. "I think everybody knows it's business when it comes down to contract time," Adam Timmerman said of Faulk's holdout. D'Marco Farr: "I'll see him when I see him."

    -According to various reports, negotiations heated up through the training camp holdout, but the big hang up for Faulk's side was making sure the Rams couldn't franchise tag Faulk after voiding the final three years of a seven-year deal. Eventually, the Rams and Faulk officially agreed on a new deal, but that didn't happen until... the first week of August (4th or 5th, depending on the report).


    So those of you who are upset at the way Steven Jackson is doing business, just keep in mind that this is nothing new to football nor is it new for Rams running backs. In some circles, Faulk tarnished his reputation in Indianapolis by demanding a new contract, and after being traded to the Rams, he proceeded to hold out of both minicamp and training camp in order to get his new deal. Eventually, he got his pay day and the rest is history.

    Hopefully Jackson's holdout won't last as long, but fans should keep in mind that this wouldn't be the first time we've seen a Rams running back look to protect his own interests.


  2. #2
    Bald_81's Avatar
    Bald_81 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Age
    25
    Posts
    894
    Rep Power
    22

    Re: Upset about Jackson's holdout? Remember... Faulk did it, too!

    Thanks a lot Nick. Now we are going to have even more people point out the similarities between the '99 and '08 season. I hope you're happy!

  3. #3
    HUbison's Avatar
    HUbison is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Kentucky
    Age
    40
    Posts
    13,592
    Rep Power
    145

    Re: Upset about Jackson's holdout? Remember... Faulk did it, too!

    I remember. And I didn't like it then either.
    "Before the gates of excellence the high gods have placed sweat; long is the road thereto and rough and steep at first; but when the heights are reached, then there is ease, though grievously hard in the winning." --- Hesiod

  4. #4
    rammiser's Avatar
    rammiser is online now Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
    Age
    41
    Posts
    2,009
    Rep Power
    58

    Re: Upset about Jackson's holdout? Remember... Faulk did it, too!

    Quote Originally Posted by HUbison View Post
    I remember. And I didn't like it then either.

    I think the point Nick is making is that everyone is talking about Jackson like he is selfish and his heart isnt in it for holding out. Thanks nick for pointing out the fact that even great rb's who are good guys hold out. It doesnt make them T.O.
    Just Fix It

  5. #5
    NewJerseyRam is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    22
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Upset about Jackson's holdout? Remember... Faulk did it, too!

    Faulk was much more established and successful,than SJ has been and had more of a leg to stand on. SJ has had 1 greatr season and a bunch of average to below average ones.

    2 different situations and much different players

  6. #6
    ramdavis is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    MO
    Posts
    6
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Upset about Jackson's holdout? Remember... Faulk did it, too!

    I think alot of Rams fans need to step off of SJ.He is not the only Ram who's done this.Its business Faulk did it Pace did it Bulger did it.Get off the guys back.He is in the last year of his contract not second not third.He could have held out last year,but he didn't.He's a classy guy who's been good to the franchise.There are players that are in the second year of there second contract with three to four years left wanting new deals.He hasn't even done it as publicly as they've done it.I've read people dissing on SJ saying there ready for Pittman are you crazy!!!!!My god what is wrong with you people?If you think Pittman can pool half of what SJ can your crazy.They're gonna sign him soon and he'll be in camp and won't miss a beat.

  7. #7
    Fortuninerhater's Avatar
    Fortuninerhater is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    L.A., Ca.
    Posts
    2,627
    Rep Power
    37

    Re: Upset about Jackson's holdout? Remember... Faulk did it, too!

    I don't remember Marshall's holdout, but I certainly remember the most famous holdout in Rams history. That was Eric Dickerson's, which did not end so well for Rams fans.
    So here's to hoping this one ends up more like Faulk's than Dickerson's.

  8. #8
    general counsel's Avatar
    general counsel is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    atlanta, georgia
    Age
    52
    Posts
    5,607
    Rep Power
    82

    Re: Upset about Jackson's holdout? Remember... Faulk did it, too!

    Apples to oranges. The rams knew that faulk was demanding a new contract before they traded for faulk. I dont think faulk should have held out either however, so even though i am the biggest faulk fan on the board, i am not going to defend that behavior.

    The bottom line is that jackson is under contract. No one forced him to sign it. He is in breach. He wants more money and i want to give it to him, however, not reporting is unprofessional and inappropriate.

    Let me ask you this. You want a raise in your job. You refuse to show up to work while your boss, who has offered you a HUGE raise, is contemplating offering you even more, do you think you are going to get what you want that way? In the real world, what you get is FIRED.

    If the rams negotiating position was that they wouldnt discuss an extension at all, i might have a softer view on this. However, given that by all reports the rams are and have been negotiating in good faith, i think jackson is WAY out of line.

    You dont see the rams asking any players that got huge bonuses and havent earned it (ie bennett, pace etc injury or otherwise) to give money back do you? No. The problem with the players is that they want it both ways. They view their contractual obligations as minimums. IF they play well, they want a raise, if they dont play well or get hurt, of course they keep all the guaranteed money. RARELY does it work that way in the real world of business.

    He should get his butt in camp and the rams should pay him top running back money. He is worth it.

    ramming speed to all

    general counsel


  9. #9
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,483
    Rep Power
    154

    Re: Upset about Jackson's holdout? Remember... Faulk did it, too!

    Quote Originally Posted by general counsel View Post
    Apples to oranges. The rams knew that faulk was demanding a new contract before they traded for faulk.
    Just as the Rams had to have known that, should Jackson perform to the level they expected, he'd eventually need a new contract as well. I really don't see how this aspect makes it an apples to oranges comparison.

    Quote Originally Posted by general counsel View Post
    Let me ask you this. You want a raise in your job.
    Comparing the average person's job to the way the NFL works is an exercise in futility.

    Quote Originally Posted by general counsel View Post
    You dont see the rams asking any players that got huge bonuses and havent earned it (ie bennett, pace etc injury or otherwise) to give money back do you? No.
    Actually, teams have often gone to players to restructure and renegotiate contracts when the current contractual terms aren't favorable for the organization. That's assuming the team doesn't just terminate the player outright, thus freeing themselves from future contractual obligations.

    If your position is that NFL players should be obligated to fulfill all terms of the contract since they signed it without being forced, then I would think it only logical that your position should also be that teams should be obligated to fulfill all terms of the contract since they also agreed to it without being forced. Right?

  10. #10
    general counsel's Avatar
    general counsel is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    atlanta, georgia
    Age
    52
    Posts
    5,607
    Rep Power
    82

    Re: Upset about Jackson's holdout? Remember... Faulk did it, too!

    Restructure and renogotiate is NOT the same thing as asking someone to give back guaranteed money that they already earned, its simply deferring payment.

    The difference between faulk and jackson from my point of view is that i dont think that the rams had a reason to believe that jackson was going to hold out, whereas based on the circumstances, they knew that there was a high liklihood he would hold out. This is different to me than looking at this as two guys both simply wanting new contracts. Teams can terminate the contract, but absent vick like misconduct, they NEVER get the guarantee money back.

    Again, i put a huge amount of faith in balzer. When he says the rams made an offer that would put jackson in the top echelon of backs, i call that negotiating in good faith and on that basis, under contract, i will never defend his decision to stay out of camp.

    ramming speed to all

    general counsel


  11. #11
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,483
    Rep Power
    154

    Re: Upset about Jackson's holdout? Remember... Faulk did it, too!

    Quote Originally Posted by general counsel View Post
    Restructure and renogotiate is NOT the same thing as asking someone to give back guaranteed money that they already earned, its simply deferring payment.
    Depends on how you look at it. A team asking a player to renegotiate and take a pay cut - which again happens quite a bit - could be looked at as a player giving money back he's already earned. It's just money that's not in their possession yet, but both parties agreed it would be paid to the player. The player had to do something to earn that new contract and the terms within it.

    Would I make a good lawyer?

    In all seriousness though, NFL teams can terminate contracts as they please. Players cannot, however, get out of deals in the same way. NFL teams can also essentially force renegotiation or pay cuts with their ability to cut players - a player with a high salary can either renegotiate, or he can risk being cut later on.

    My point is this - there are numerous examples all the time of teams not being bound by the terms of the contract. Because of that, I find it hard to get too upset when players do the same and look out for themselves, especially given the nature of the sport and the effects it can have on a person's body long-term.

    Quote Originally Posted by general counsel View Post
    Teams can terminate the contract, but absent vick like misconduct, they NEVER get the guarantee money back.
    The Eagles got some back from T.O. as well, for what's the worth. There's another example as well that slips my mind right now, I believe.

    Quote Originally Posted by general counsel View Post
    Again, i put a huge amount of faith in balzer. When he says the rams made an offer that would put jackson in the top echelon of backs, i call that negotiating in good faith and on that basis, under contract, i will never defend his decision to stay out of camp.
    If you're referring to this story, Balzer was quoting Zygmunt who talked about the contract. I don't get the impression from that write-up that Howard is in on the specifics of the contract offer the Rams made. And as you can see in that thread, there are many reasons why a contract vaguely described in that way may not be acceptable.

  12. #12
    HUbison's Avatar
    HUbison is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Kentucky
    Age
    40
    Posts
    13,592
    Rep Power
    145

    Re: Upset about Jackson's holdout? Remember... Faulk did it, too!

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    My point is this - there are numerous examples all the time of teams not being bound by the terms of the contract.
    Then why don't players cut from a team sue the team for breach of contract?

    The answer of course, is because the team terminating a contract (ie. cut) IS part of the contract, or at least part of the collective bargaining agreement, which I assume has to be understood as underlying every contract.

    Teams get to cut players. That's kosher.

    Players don't get to cut teams. That's breach of contract.
    "Before the gates of excellence the high gods have placed sweat; long is the road thereto and rough and steep at first; but when the heights are reached, then there is ease, though grievously hard in the winning." --- Hesiod

  13. #13
    Nick's Avatar
    Nick is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Age
    31
    Posts
    19,483
    Rep Power
    154

    Re: Upset about Jackson's holdout? Remember... Faulk did it, too!

    Quote Originally Posted by HUbison View Post
    Then why don't players cut from a team sue the team for breach of contract?

    The answer of course, is because the team terminating a contract (ie. cut) IS part of the contract, or at least part of the collective bargaining agreement, which I assume has to be understood as underlying every contract.
    Thanks for answering your own question.

    Quote Originally Posted by HUbison View Post
    Teams get to cut players. That's kosher.

    Players don't get to cut teams. That's breach of contract.
    Which is why, when they're unhappy about the terms of that contract specifically as it relates to their monetary compensation, I usually don't get too upset when they hold out of camps.

    Because as you pointed out, teams have options when they're unhappy about a deal they've agreed to. The players don't have those same options, so they find others. Again, everyone is looking out for themselves in this business. Teams are, and players would be stupid not to.

    It's not as if Jackson is doing this without consequence - Zygmunt himself said he'd be fined.

  14. #14
    ramsanddodgers's Avatar
    ramsanddodgers is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Arroyo Grande, CA
    Age
    58
    Posts
    2,258
    Rep Power
    51

    Re: Upset about Jackson's holdout? Remember... Faulk did it, too!

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    There's another example as well that slips my mind right now, I believe.
    Might you be thinking Barry Sanders?
    RnD

    GO RAMS!!

  15. #15
    Chris58's Avatar
    Chris58 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Age
    64
    Posts
    672
    Rep Power
    15

    Re: Upset about Jackson's holdout? Remember... Faulk did it, too!

    Quote Originally Posted by Nick View Post
    Thanks for answering your own question.



    Which is why, when they're unhappy about the terms of that contract specifically as it relates to their monetary compensation, I usually don't get too upset when they hold out of camps.

    Because as you pointed out, teams have options when they're unhappy about a deal they've agreed to. The players don't have those same options, so they find others. Again, everyone is looking out for themselves in this business. Teams are, and players would be stupid not to.

    It's not as if Jackson is doing this without consequence - Zygmunt himself said he'd be fined.
    So let's let the players all decide how much they should be paid at any given moment in their careers and go strike if the owners don't pay it (sarcasm). This is nuts. The CBA allows the owners the outs they have in these contracts and the guarantees are there regardless of how well the player performs or doesn't. The terms of the contract are known at the time they sign. No one is surprised down the road. It's all there in black and white. Want to always be paid as a top back? Sign an incentive laden contract that rewards you for being the best based on your yearly output. Otherwise, live by whatever you agreed to.

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Faulk's Finest Hour
    By RamWraith in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: -12-19-2007, 10:15 PM
  2. Faulk talks as though he's retired
    By RamWraith in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: -08-17-2006, 07:22 AM
  3. Faulk Prepares for Life After Football
    By RamWraith in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: -08-16-2006, 10:27 PM
  4. St. Louis fans might have seen the last of Faulk
    By RamWraith in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: -12-26-2005, 02:11 AM
  5. Faulk Feeling Comfortable in the Middle
    By RamsFan16 in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: -11-30-2005, 07:50 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •