Quote
RockRam
C'mon Zn.
You don't have to know the details to know that the Rams have a set of terms in mind and the AD side has a set of terms in mind and they don't agree on key issues (key to both sides). That much of it is not a matter of who's right and who's wrong.
The only right and wrong in this situation is who is abiding by the contract and who is not. AD is not.
And the Rams have agreed that that contract underpays him and has to be replaced.
Plus when they said they would respect a decision to hold out, that means they let go any idea of doing the "hold him to the old contract" talk. That's precisely what that means. It means they are not making THAT an issue.
And remember, since they said that, they have not watered it down, changed it, disavowed it, or any of that.
The Rams essentially are saying that they are not making the hold out an issue which means they are not making the old contract an issue. They're not bringing it up, they're not playing PR with that, and so on.
There is no "right or wrong" in 2 sides disputing a contract this way. Anymore than there was "right or wrong" when the Rams asked Wells to restructure and take less on his contract.
The idea that football contracts are these ironclad things has been disproven over and over.
NO, they're NOT, when the contract itself is the issue in dispute. That just the way it works. In terms of my own experience of this, that goes all the way back to Brooks and Youngblood holding out in 1980.
I would hate to be Donald, report, get injured, and therefore never see the big contract I was promised.
.....
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/02/2017 07:24AM by zn.
