Quote
laram
Quote
dzrams
Quote
laram
Quote
dzrams
Quote
napoli
You signed the contract, now play it OUT!!
I've always wondered why people don't apply this rationale to teams when they cut a player.
I've never heard anyone say, "That's not fair to the player. The team signed a contract, they should play it out!!!"
Its called a CBA.
IF you don't like something go through the proper channels and change it.
The rules as they stand today are what they are and you agreed to them.
YOU have a contract...honor it!!
I've said all along the should TRADE HIM!
TRADE HIM!!
There are 2 contracts involved.
The CBA is a contract. The individual contract they sign with their team is another contract.
Contract law is contract law buddy. In regard to the contract with the team, there are no higher requirements for players than there are for the other party in the contract.
The teams break those contracts at their whim. They do it when it's not beneficial to them anymore.
When a player does the same thing, it's literally the same thing teams are doing.
It's hypocritical for fans to be mad an one and not the other.
Teams do what they do because they're allowed to in the CBA.
Individual contracts have to pass mustard with the CBA.
Sorry sir.
I've read a huge chunk of the CBA and work in contract law. So of course I know that...
The CBA is a contract that governs what the individual contract between player and team can contain.
Being a contract, there are rights and duties for all parties – all players and all teams.
The contract between player and team is an entirely
separate contract governed by provisions in the CBA.
Being a contract, there are rights and duties in that contract too for all parties – player and team.
There is absolutely nothing in the CBA that says a team can cut a player whenever they want to. It doesn’t have to be said because it’s all governed by contract law.
Which means that either party can break a contract at any time; they just have to pay the consequences written into the agreement.
But from a contractual and ethical standpoint, Donald has no more obligations to abide by his contract with the Rams than the Rams do to uphold their promises to him.
The only difference is, Donald has more consequences writing into the language of the CBA that penalizes him if he doesn’t perform.
His willingness to suffer those consequences is no different than a team who decides to cut a player early when they still owe them guaranteed money. In both cases, the party that is breaking the contract is willing to do so despite the consequences.
The ethical obligations are always the same for all parties in a contract.
Sorry sir!
