The Melvin Gordon Saga - Holdout Over

[maurile]

The standard player contract isn't entirely clear, but it suggests that a player under contract has to show up for at least half the season (eight games) in order to avoid having his contract tolled. (The contract talks about tolling to the nearest full season.)

Another interpretation suggests that a player must report by Week 13 (30 days before the end of the season, after with the Commissioner cannot reinstate him).

There is no reasonable argument for Week 10.

[Boltjolt]

Week 10 is when players not under contract must report in order to earn an Accrued Season.

That's completely irrelevant to Gordon's situation because he doesn't need an Accrued Season and he's not under contract. (If he did need an Accrued Season, he'd have had to report by August 6, the date for players who are under contract.)

He is under contract to play out the 5th year option the team excercised in his rookie deal. You know, the one that pays him 5.6 million.

He isnt hurt and this last year just goes by that runs his contract out. He didn't report. He will do this again next season if he sits out.
Your right , he don't need the accrued season but he does need to be a free agent and he won't get that by not reporting.

Why would anybody need to report by week 10 if they aren't under contract? That makes no sense.

[maurile]

He is under contract to play out the 5th year option the team excercised in his rookie deal. You know, the one that pays him 5.6 million.

He isnt hurt and this last year just goes by that runs his contract out. He didn't report. He will do this again next season if he sits out.
Your right , he don't need the accrued season but he does need to be a free agent and he won't get that by not reporting.

Why would anybody need to report by week 10 if they aren't under contract? That makes no sense.

I don't understand your post. I understand he's currently under the fifth-year option. That means he has one year left on his contract.

Because he's under contract, he had to report by August 6 (not Week 10) to earn an Accrued Season. But that's irrelevant because he already has all the Accrued Seasons he needs.

The reason that players not under contract (rookies holding out, franchise-tagged players holding out) have to report by Week 10 is because that's the cut-off for them to earn an Accrued Season. But that doesn't apply to players who are under contract, and it extra doubly doesn't apply to players who don't need an Accrued Season.

Melvin Gordon is under contract. He's got a year left. He can't become a free agent until he plays out that year. Sitting out the whole season a la Le'Veon Bell (who, like Gordon, already had four Accrued Seasons and therefore didn't need another, but unlike Gordon, wasn't under contract) would leave Gordon in the same situation again next year. He'd sill have a year left on his contract because you don't discharge years by holding out all season.

So he has to report sometime. When?

That's not governed by the CBA. It's governed by his player contract. I haven't seen his contract specifically, but the standard player contract has a paragraph that says:

Unless this contract specifically provides otherwise, if Player becomes a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or any other country, or retires from professional football as an active player, or otherwise fails or refuses to perform his services under this contract, then this contract will be tolled between the date of Player's induction into the Armed Forces, or his retirement, or his failure or refusal to perform, and the later date of his return to professional football. During the period this contract is tolled, Player will not be entitled to any compensation or benefits. On Player's return to professional football, the term of this contract will be extended for a period of time equal to the number of seasons (to the nearest multiple of one) remaining at the time the contract was tolled. The right of renewal, if any, contained in this contract will remain in effect until the end of any such extended term.

The most natural way to read that is that he has to report by Week 9 so that he's available for half the season. If he sits out more than that, his contract will be tolled for one year instead of zero years (since it's tolled to the nearest full season).

No player under contract has ever sat out for more than half the season before, so this specific issue has not been litigated. When Joey Galloway sat out half the season, his contract was not tolled -- so it seems safe for a player to sit out half the season. But can he sit out more than that? It's taking a big risk. One argument is that if a player shows up at all, that counts as performance under his contract. So the deadline in that case is Week 13 (since he won't be reinstated, and therefore won't be available at all, if he shows up after that).

So there's a good argument for Week 9 and a decent argument for Week 13. There is no argument for Week 10. It's just a commonly repeated fiction that gets thrown around because people mistake it for the Accrued Season deadline for unsigned players.

[Panamamike]

I don't understand your post. I understand he's currently under the fifth-year option. That means he has one year left on his contract.

Because he's under contract, he had to report by August 6 (not Week 10) to earn an Accrued Season. But that's irrelevant because he already has all the Accrued Seasons he needs.

The reason that players not under contract (rookies holding out, franchise-tagged players holding out) have to report by Week 10 is because that's the cut-off for them to earn an Accrued Season. But that doesn't apply to players who are under contract, and it extra double doesn't apply to players who don't need an Accrued Season.

Melvin Gordon is under contract. He's got a year left. He can't become a free agent until he plays out that year. Sitting out the whole season a la Le'Veon Bell (who, like Gordon, already had four Accrued Seasons and therefore didn't need another, but unlike Gordon, wasn't under contract) would leave Gordon in the same situation again next year. He'd sill have a year left on his contract because you don't discharge years by holding out all season.

So he has to report sometime. When?

That's not governed by the CBA. It's governed by his player contract. I haven't seen his contract specifically, but the standard player contract has a paragraph that says:



The most natural way to read that is that he has to report by Week 9 so that he's available for half the season. If he sits out more than that, he contract will be tolled for one year instead of zero years (since it's tolled to the nearest half season).

No player under contract has ever sat out for more than half the season before, so this specific issue has not been litigated. When Joey Galloway sat out half the season, his contract was not tolled -- so it seems safe for a player to sit out half the season. But can he sit out more than that? It's taking a big risk. One argument is that if a player shows up at all, that counts as performance under his contract. So the deadline in that case is Week 13 (since he won't be reinstated, and therefore won't be available at all, if he shows up after that).

So there's a good argument for Week 9 and a decent argument for Week 13. There is no argument for Week 10. It's just a commonly repeated falsehood that gets thrown around because people mistake it for the Accrued Season deadline for unsigned players.

100 % correct IMO. The safest thing is to follow the precedent already laid out, which is to report by week 9. No way does he want to risk being back at square 1 next yr regarding a tolled 5th yr.

[wu-dai clan]

I don't understand your post. I understand he's currently under the fifth-year option. That means he has one year left on his contract.

Because he's under contract, he had to report by August 6 (not Week 10) to earn an Accrued Season. But that's irrelevant because he already has all the Accrued Seasons he needs.

The reason that players not under contract (rookies holding out, franchise-tagged players holding out) have to report by Week 10 is because that's the cut-off for them to earn an Accrued Season. But that doesn't apply to players who are under contract, and it extra double doesn't apply to players who don't need an Accrued Season.

Melvin Gordon is under contract. He's got a year left. He can't become a free agent until he plays out that year. Sitting out the whole season a la Le'Veon Bell (who, like Gordon, already had four Accrued Seasons and therefore didn't need another, but unlike Gordon, wasn't under contract) would leave Gordon in the same situation again next year. He'd sill have a year left on his contract because you don't discharge years by holding out all season.

So he has to report sometime. When?

That's not governed by the CBA. It's governed by his player contract. I haven't seen his contract specifically, but the standard player contract has a paragraph that says:



The most natural way to read that is that he has to report by Week 9 so that he's available for half the season. If he sits out more than that, his contract will be tolled for one year instead of zero years (since it's tolled to the nearest half season).

No player under contract has ever sat out for more than half the season before, so this specific issue has not been litigated. When Joey Galloway sat out half the season, his contract was not tolled -- so it seems safe for a player to sit out half the season. But can he sit out more than that? It's taking a big risk. One argument is that if a player shows up at all, that counts as performance under his contract. So the deadline in that case is Week 13 (since he won't be reinstated, and therefore won't be available at all, if he shows up after that).

So there's a good argument for Week 9 and a decent argument for Week 13. There is no argument for Week 10. It's just a commonly repeated fiction that gets thrown around because people mistake it for the Accrued Season deadline for unsigned players.

This could end up in court as a threshhold case.

Galloway is ancient history.
Gordon is a RB.
Bell claimed status as a WR.

The next CBA will surely have new position-based provisions.

We are there already with Melvin Gordon III's circumstances.

There are lots of moving parts, as TT says.

[PR#1]

He is under contract to play out the 5th year option the team excercised in his rookie deal. You know, the one that pays him 5.6 million.

He isnt hurt and this last year just goes by that runs his contract out. He didn't report. He will do this again next season if he sits out.
Your right , he don't need the accrued season but he does need to be a free agent and he won't get that by not reporting.

Why would anybody need to report by week 10 if they aren't under contract? That makes no sense.

Ok, this is wrong. I was asked to do some research by Mike and I did.

According to the CBA ratified in 1993, and I quote:

"The new CBA provided players with unlimited free agency after playing four years in the league, subject to an exception for one franchise player per club after first year of the new CBA. "

I have provided the link.


In 2011, the CBA was modified to add a 5th year player option for 1st rounders. Most players elect to play their 5th year. If Gordon elects to hold out the entire 5th year he will be a FA because he already has 4 years of service. There is nothing in the CBA that states a 5th year option player has to report by week 8 or 10 to accrue credit for the year. Nothing.

In the 6th year, the only power the Chargers have over Gordon is to Franchise tag him and I don't think Telesco will do that and even if he did Gordon would most likely hold out again like Bell.

I quote from Leigh Steinbergs article:

"The team has all the leverage in these situations, being able to force the first-rounder to play five years, with the ability to then use a franchise tag and keep the player from freely negotiating for six or seven years."


So the CBS Sports article was right. Gordon can walk after the 5th year (holding out the entire year) and the only thing the Chargers can do to stop him is to franchise tag him on the 6th year.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Leigh Stienberg Article

https://www.forbes.com/sites/leighst.../#4e15c2ef537f

[SYB]

This could end up in court as a threshhold case.

Galloway is ancient history.
Gordon is a RB.
Bell claimed status as a WR.

The next CBA will surely have new position-based provisions.

We are there already with Melvin Gordon III's circumstances.

There are lots of moving parts, as TT says.

It makes logical sense, but I don't see it happening because I can't imagine players of all the other positional groups agreeing to an exception for just one of them.

[maurile]

If Gordon elects to hold out the entire 5th year he will be a FA because he already has 4 years of service. There is nothing in the CBA that states a 5th year option player has to report by week 8 or 10 to accrue credit for the year. Nothing.

It's not in the CBA. It's in his contract (assuming it has the same language as the standard player contract).

[maurile]

In the 6th year, the only power the Chargers have over Gordon is to Franchise tag him and I don't think Telesco will do that and even if he did Gordon would most likely hold out again like Bell.

It's a five-year contract, so there isn't a sixth year. But if we take "sixth year" to mean "the year following the expiration of the contract," he won't get to the sixth year by sitting out all season. He'd still be in his fifth year in 2020 if he sits out all of 2019.

[maurile]

The position (RB vs. WR, etc.) has nothing to do with this.

[PR#1]

It's not in the CBA. It's in his contract (assuming it has the same language as the standard player contract).

It is in the CBA. Gordons contract follows the standard template for contracts established by the CBA. He is a first rounder, 4 years with a 5th year option.

He is under contract for this year for 5.6 million or whatever the amount.

He can walk after this year never showing up again and the only thing the Chargers can do to stop him is to franchise tag him on the 6th year and most likely Telesco wont.

[dmac_bolt]

Not sure why the team would buy him an insurance policy, since his indication is to leave as a FA . I agree in the tag waive.

They offered $10M/per for 3 yrs. no one knows how much was guaranteed. Pay him $5.6M or 2019 and there's money in 2019 left for insurance. Maybe they can get creative and its not included in cap dollars (dunno if rules would prohibit). Or pay him $10m and give him a biz card of an insurance agent. The reason is to get him to play out the last year without offering the long term security he wants. Gives him partial security via insurance.

Maybe i'm Just too nice.