The Melvin Gordon Saga - Holdout Over

[Big Dog]

The article is incorrect.

According to the CBA adopted in 2011, 2nd round players become FA after 4 years of service.

1st rounders are afforded the same courtesy of becoming FA after 4 years of service except there is a 5th year option. This is a giveaway to allow NFL teams to get their first rounder at bargain basement rates.

Your point about Tolling is accurate only if Gordon held out years 1-4. If he held out years 1-4, then tolling would occur.

He already has 4 years of service which is enough to qualify for Free agency.

Are we saying that 2nd rounders can get FA after 4 years, but 1st rounders with a 5th year option have to play for 5 years to become Free agents so they have to wait an extra year to get the big money deal ? That makes no sense.

My point is tolling does not apply because he already has 4 years of service to be a FA.

But sure, if you could cite a few examples, that would be great.

You are mistaken.

Gordon already qualifies to be a FA because he had 4 years of service ... if not, he would of had to show up at the end of August to have the year count towards FA.

Because the Chargers excerised their 5th year option, Gordon owes them a year of service, as long as he shows up before Week 10 AND within the exemption window to qualify to plan for week 10 (a week or 2 before - someone here will know the exact date). This is why Gordon is saying he will be back between weeks 6-8.

if he doesn't show up, the contract tolls and it is like this whole year never happened, and we are right back here again.

this is why people are saying Gordon has no leverage.

Bell's situation is different because he played out his full contract and a year under the franchise tag ... so he was not under contract ... the Steelers would of had to pay him at the QB franchise rate ... hence the let him go ...

[maurile]

Week 10 is the deadline for an Accrued Season (which Gordon doesn't need) for players not under contract (while Gordon is under contract).

Week 9, not Week 10, appears to be the magic number for Gordon's situation.

[maurile]

Gordon already qualifies to be a FA because he had 4 years of service ... if not, he would of had to show up at the end of August to have the year count towards FA.

Gordon does not qualify for free agency since he is still under contract. No number of years of service (Accrued Seasons in the language of the CBA) can make a player a free agent if he is under contract.

Accrued Season don't have anything to do with whether or when a player becomes a free agent. What Accrued Seasons determine is what TYPE of free agent a player is whenever he becomes a free agent -- exclusive rights, restricted, unrestricted...

[richpjr]

Week 10 is the deadline for an Accrued Season (which Gordon doesn't need) for players not under contract (while Gordon is under contract).

Week 9, not Week 10, appears to be the magic number for Gordon's situation.

The magic number is being on the roster for the last 6 game due to what the arbitrator ruled in the Galloway case. From what I have read almost everyone in the know thinks it would be held up if challenged. The confusion on the reporting date is all about the roster exemption. I personally do not think any team in the league would deliberately screw a player and jerk him around with an unreasonably long roster exemption. It would not go over with the players and potential free agents and I'm sure the team lets the agent know when that date is.

[Panamamike]

Week 10 is the deadline for an Accrued Season (which Gordon doesn't need) for players not under contract (while Gordon is under contract).

Week 9, not Week 10, appears to be the magic number for Gordon's situation.

That is the safest play. He can try for 30 days before the end of the regular season, but that could backfire IMO for reasons I outlined in posts above. I do not think he wants to risk that. He would be fined all this season and if he plays it the same way next year again until he reports. Plus he would have to pay lawyers to try to set a new precedent if the Chargers challenge it. That adds up, or subtracts down very quickly. I am sure he has spent a lot of his rookie bonus, and that is 2 prime earning years and a lot of lost capital for a guy that plays a position with a relatively short peak earning life.

[maurile]

The magic number is being on the roster for the last 6 game due to what the arbitrator ruled in the Galloway case. From what I have read almost everyone in the know thinks it would be held up if challenged. The confusion on the reporting date is all about the roster exemption. I personally do not think any team in the league would deliberately screw a player and jerk him around with an unreasonably long roster exemption. It would not go over with the players and potential free agents and I'm sure the team lets the agent know when that date is.

Not correct. The Week 10 deadline (six games to play) and the roster exemption issue both have to do with getting an Accrued Season.

Neither has to do with tolling a contract.

They are separate issues, although they are often confused in media reports.

Gordon does not have to worry about an Accrued Season. He only has to worry about tolling. There is no precedent, no language in the CBA, and no language in the standard player contract that makes Week 10 relevant to the issue of tolling.

[Panamamike]

Not correct. The Week 10 deadline and the roster exemption issue both have to do with getting an Accrued Season.

Neither has to do with tolling a contract.

They are separate issues, although they are often confused in media reports.

Gordon does not have to worry about an Accrued Season. He only has to worry about tolling. There is no precedent, no language in the CBA, and no language in the standard player contract that makes Week 10 relevant to the issue of tolling.

That is my take on it as well.

[maurile]

That is my take on it as well.

It would be nice if someone who disagrees could quote some language from the CBA, the player contract, a court case, or an arbitrator's ruling supporting their position.

[Panamamike]

Think

The magic number is being on the roster for the last 6 game due to what the arbitrator ruled in the Galloway case. From what I have read almost everyone in the know thinks it would be held up if challenged. The confusion on the reporting date is all about the roster exemption. I personally do not think any team in the league would deliberately screw a player and jerk him around with an unreasonably long roster exemption. It would not go over with the players and potential free agents and I'm sure the team lets the agent know when that date is.

Yes and no re: the exemption. They are all aware it is a business. Gordon is doing what he thinks he has to do to force the issue, so may the Chargers. I don't think too many in the league feel the offer the Chargers put on the table was low ball or disrespecting. It would though completely light a fire to any hopes of signing him.

[richpjr]

Think

Yes and no re: the exemption. They are all aware it is a business. Gordon is doing what he thinks he has to do to force the issue, so may the Chargers. I don't think too many in the league feel the offer the Chargers put on the table was low ball or disrespecting. It would though completely light a fire to any hopes of signing him.

Gordon never really was in a position to force the issue and everyone including he and his noisy agents have known this all along. He is in injury prevention mode by not playing and waiting for the slim chance that some other team is willing to grossly overpay for him due to an injury (which I just don't see happening for the price tag) or whatever the magic report by date is to fulfill his 5th year option.

[Panamamike]

I

Gordon never really was in a position to force the issue and everyone including he and his noisy agents have known this all along. He is in injury prevention mode by not playing and waiting for the slim chance that some other team is willing to grossly overpay for him due to an injury (which I just don't see happening for the price tag) or whatever the magic report by date is to fulfill his 5th year option.

Agreed, and I still think it is bad advice. He needs another top year of production. He should have Got a 1 yr term insurance based on the 10MM per 4 yr offer or at least the guaranteed portion, and agreed to report if they would sign an agreement not to use the franchise tag. I do not see this current strategy helps his future earnings, and it definitely hurts his current earnings. He is risking that he gets the same touches and performs similarly to last year without missing any time from injury. IMO he has had horrible advice.

[jamrock]

It would be nice if someone who disagrees could quote some language from the CBA, the player contract, a court case, or an arbitrator's ruling supporting their position.

Let me comb through the sources you reference, analyze the cases, distinguish when necessary and see if there is any relevant precedent. I will present a fully fleshed out memo for you in the morning