Originally Posted by Otter (Post 8928909)

I can't believe some of you guys are talking about Carl Peterson. Just go away. Seriously. Go get drunk and jerk off over your high school sweet heart while your at it.

Originally Posted by RedNFeisty (Post 8928922)

I'm still excited for this team and know they can turn it around, they have the weapons.

Originally Posted by Cassel's Reckoning (Post 8928957)

And in two weeks, you'll want them out.

Originally Posted by L.A.Chieffan (Post 8929455)

Eachus should be in more pass protect.

Originally Posted by O.city (Post 8928972)

I don't really know whats up with Asamoah. Wasn't he a mauler coming out?

Originally Posted by Otter (Post 8928909)

I can't believe some of you guys are talking about Carl Peterson. Just go away. Seriously. Go get drunk and jerk off over your high school sweet heart while your at it.

Originally Posted by KC Fish (Post 8929675)

You would think that having the Executive of the Decade would make one forget about Carl Peterson. But his name sticks around....

:cuss:

Originally Posted by RedNFeisty (Post 8928922)

I'm still excited for this team and know they can turn it around, they have the weapons.

Originally Posted by L.A.Chieffan (Post 8929455)

Eachus should be in more pass protect.

Originally Posted by KC Fish (Post 8929675)

You would think that having the Executive of the Decade would make one forget about Carl Peterson. But his name sticks around....

:cuss:

Originally Posted by BlackBob (Post 8929823)

Eachus should be bagging groceries.



Very true... I don't think many people expected an epic failure like this one.

Originally Posted by Fritz88 (Post 8924994)

No you don't.

Originally Posted by KCUnited (Post 8930430)

And now they've hired Adam Teicher to craft their slogans.

Eliminate Bad Football

http://www.arrowheadpride.com/2012/9...e-bad-football

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 8925451)

Tendered? Wha?

Originally Posted by BlackBob (Post 8925460)

Carr was tendered for a first round pick just before training camp last season. When Pioli did this, negociations were off until after the season. A team could have traded for Carr but would have had to give a first round pick. He never should have been tendered. He should have gotten a contract.

Right now Belcher has a 2nd round tender . He will probably walk too.

A tender is sort of like a mini tag....

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 8925474)

Bullshit.

And it's spelled negotiations. This is second time I've seen you misspell the word.

Carr's agent and Pioli could have negotiated a contract, which Carr could have signed the minute the season was over.

It didn't happen.



LMAO

The reason he was tendered was so that he wouldn't go anywhere and the Chiefs could continue to negotiate. He was absolutely right to give him the First Round Tender, otherwise, he could have walked without ANY compensation.

JFC.



Good. He ****ing sucks ass. It's awesome that the Chiefs continue to pass on ILBer's. Daryl Washington, anyone?




No, it's not.

Originally Posted by BlackBob (Post 8925557)

It looks to me like you just researched some of this which is a good thing. There is no reason to be rude man. I treated you with respect in my reply. However, I didn't explain the tender process in detail.

Maybe the most important thing that is being left out is that after he was tendered, we could only offer him up to 120% of his tender salary the following year (2012). This is the only offer we could make before free agency began and he wasn't going to take that. The new cba is designed to set players free.

Pioli blew it when we tendered him.

http://www.cincyjungle.com/2012/2/15...ive-bargaining

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 8925654)

LMAO

You're an idiot.

Originally Posted by BlackBob (Post 8925984)

.


Here it is in a nutshell... This is another angle with an explanation that is even easier to understand. There were several rules with Carr's tag.


Dwayne Bowe could not be franchised unless we allowed Carr to hit the open market. Period. There's a rule in the NFL that requires a player hit UFA status if he is given a raise in base salary of more than 30% from one season to the next. When the Chiefs gave him the one-year restricted tender (increasing his base salary from around 400K to 2.6mil), Carr was instantly guaranteed to hit the open market unless franchised.

The only course of action Pioli could take to retain both players was to re-sign Bowe and franchise Carr...

here's the official link... http://nfllabor.files.wordpress.com/...-2011-2020.pdf


Is that a better explanation?

Originally Posted by BlackBob (Post 8926268)

With all due respect, Dane is incorrect and I think you know it. Here's an old thread from this website of the same thing I was talking about.

You are posting in the thread Boss. We couldn't prevent Carr from becoming a UFA without tagging him.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showt...253308&page=15

Edit:

Also, the answer is yes to your next question. The 30% rule from the old CBA applied last August. With the new CBA you can't go over 30% in the first place...

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 8926333)

How about a big healthy dose of shut the **** up?

Originally Posted by BlackBob (Post 8932285)

Hey Dane,

**** YOU! YOU ARE A GOD DAMN LIAR.

Originally Posted by BlackBob (Post 8932285)

Hey Dane,

**** YOU! YOU ARE A GOD DAMN LIAR.

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 8932303)

Listen, you illiterate goat ****er, you don't have a goddamned clue.

Originally Posted by bevischief (Post 8929830)

http://www.sportsnola.com/sports/spo...or-week-3.html

KANSAS CITY AT NEW ORLEANS (-9.5)- It's the last chance for this Saints team. Because as bad as they've looked, perhaps nobody has been worse than the Chiefs thus far. They can't stop a parked car let alone an opposing NFL offense. Still, could you really trust New Orleans' defense to hold down Kansas City enough to win by double figures? Their defense has struggled in many aspects, and although offensively they committed a bit more to the running game, it still wasn't enough. This is the last chance I'm giving the Saints and if they don't pull it off, you might as well put them at 0-5 heading to their bye week.

NEW ORLEANS-35 KANSAS CITY-23

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 8932303)

Listen, you illiterate goat ****er, you don't have a goddamned clue.

First off, as I stated earlier, you ****scycle, Carr had to be tendered because if not, had he signed with another team, the Chiefs would have only received a 5th round pick, which is where he was drafted.

If they hadn't tendered Belcher (who ****ing sucks) with a second rounder and he had signed with another team, the Chiefs would have received nothing in return because he was an undrafted free agent.

I don't know where your stupidass got the idea that you could post on Chiefsplanet without getting called out for your continued dumbassery but your "Grace Period" is over, Mother****er.

Now, hit the sack. Mommy's got a new dildo and needs help. Chop-Chop!

Originally Posted by BlackBob (Post 8932308)

**** you LIAR. It's about Carr and 30% rule ****er

Originally Posted by jspchief (Post 8932464)

Are you really this stupid?

That 30% rule refers to the tender for a FRANCHISE TAG for an UNRESTRICTED free agent.

The 1st round tender they placed on Brandon Carr was a RESTRICTED free agent tender.

You need to educate yourself on the difference between restricted and unrestricted free agents.

In the 2011 free agency period, Carr was a restricted free agent. At that point, the Chiefs are allowed to place a tender on Carr. Carr can negotiate with other teams, but the Chiefs have a right to match any offer. If the Chiefs decide to not match another team's offer, that team must give KC a draft pick that corresponds with the draft pick tender they placed on Carr. In other words, once the chiefs placed a 1st round tender on Carr, any team that wanted to sign Carr while he was a restricted free agent forfeits a 1st round pick to KC.

That tender has absolutely zero bearing on what happens to Carr in the 2012 free agency period, when he becomes an unrestricted free agent. That tender is not what makes Carr an unrestricted free agent. He becomes unrestricted by nature of serving his 4th year in the league.

The 30% stuff that you are talking about is related to a franchise tag tender which is in no way related/tied to the UFA tender. They are two completely different kinds of tenders.

You are an idiot and have wasted several posts arguing with Dane over something you are completely ****ing confused about.

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 8932289)

I have to say, in my 12+ years as a member of Chiefsplanet, I've never come across someone as asinine and delusional as yourself.

What planet are you from?

Oh, and yes, as everyone else pointed out, YOU ARE ****ING WRONG!

Originally Posted by Nzoner (Post 8932545)

I know the Internet encourages new membership and the like but I think it's time that we had some kind of a test one must pass to become a full fledged member.

Originally Posted by jspchief (Post 8932464)

Are you really this stupid?

That 30% rule refers to the tender for a FRANCHISE TAG for an UNRESTRICTED free agent.

The 1st round tender they placed on Brandon Carr was a RESTRICTED free agent tender.

You need to educate yourself on the difference between restricted and unrestricted free agents.

In the 2011 free agency period, Carr was a restricted free agent. At that point, the Chiefs are allowed to place a tender on Carr. Carr can negotiate with other teams, but the Chiefs have a right to match any offer. If the Chiefs decide to not match another team's offer, that team must give KC a draft pick that corresponds with the draft pick tender they placed on Carr. In other words, once the chiefs placed a 1st round tender on Carr, any team that wanted to sign Carr while he was a restricted free agent forfeits a 1st round pick to KC.

That tender has absolutely zero bearing on what happens to Carr in the 2012 free agency period, when he becomes an unrestricted free agent. That tender is not what makes Carr an unrestricted free agent. He becomes unrestricted by nature of serving his 4th year in the league.

The 30% stuff that you are talking about is related to a franchise tag tender which is in no way related/tied to the UFA tender. They are two completely different kinds of tenders.

You are an idiot and have wasted several posts arguing with Dane over something you are completely ****ing confused about.

Originally Posted by Molitoth (Post 8932632)

Or a Messageboard roadmap.

Do you like Cassel?

If No then GOTO Chiefsplanet.
If YES then GOTO Chiefscoallition

Etc...

Originally Posted by BlackBob (Post 8932663)

Dane's argument was that we could resign him and he was ****ing wrong. We never had a shot until he hit the UFA market. The players love this rule. They always have. Sometimes guys even get released because of it. The 30% rule was a different angle I was taking to the same fact.

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 8925474)

Carr's agent and Pioli could have negotiated a contract, which Carr could have signed the minute the season was over.

It didn't happen.

Originally Posted by Urc Burry (Post 8932853)

Blackbob is right about B. Carr. It was pretty widely known that we couldn't sign Carr until March. And he took his dream job for the cowboys

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 8932894)

No, it wasn't, you ****ing illiterate Mongoloid. This is EXACTLY what I said:



Now, get back to double-teaming your Mom and favorite Aunt.

Originally Posted by BlackBob (Post 8932905)

This just in ****tard...

They couldn't have signed a contract when the season was over. That's the point idiot.

He would have had to wait until the free agency period began in March. Get a ****ing clue.

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 8925474)

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 8932909)

:facepalm:

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 8932909)

:facepalm:

Seriously, ARE YOU ILLITERATE?



HOW MANY ****ING TIMES DO I NEED TO POST THIS QUOTE?

Originally Posted by BlackBob (Post 8932914)

I see. You are to stupid to understand.

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 8932915)

Understand what, Mother****er? That you're raging ****ing moron?

Believe me, we ALL get that.

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 8932915)

Understand what, Mother****er? That you're raging ****ing moron?

Believe me, we ALL get that.

Originally Posted by BlackBob (Post 8932923)

If you would have read things in the first place, we wouldn't be here right now dickhead.

Originally Posted by BlackBob (Post 8932663)

You're an idiot. Read my post. "The 30% rule" has NOTHING to do with TENDERS. The argument was that he had to reach UFA status before we could attempt to resign him bcause the raise he got was over 30% of his 2010 salary. That is called the 30% rule and I posted a link.

Yes, we could have signed to a bigger contract IF a team had offered him a deal and we wanted to match it but that was the only way we could have tried to sign him before March. No one offered and therefore the 30% rule was in effect. In fact it was in effect by the old cba definition for 2011 as part of the new cba agreement.

Dane's argument was that we could resign him and he was ****ing wrong. We never had a shot until he hit the UFA market. The players love this rule. They always have. Sometimes guys even get released because of it. The 30% rule was a different angle I was taking to the same fact.

THE FACT THAT WE COULD NOT RESIGN CARR UNTIL MARCH.

Don't try and spin this. You don't know the whole deal either but, just like Dane, you should. I described it in detail and gave a link you dumb ****. Hell, I even posted a link to the CP discussion about it months ago.

This exactly the sort of thing I am talking about. People don't read around here. There is a whole ****ing section in the cba about the "30 PERCENT RULE."

Originally Posted by jspchief (Post 8932932)

There is nothing in the CBA that says that a player has to become a free agent if he receives a 30% raise.

You provided 2 links. One was about franchise tags and entirely irrelevant. The second link was to the actual CBA. I challenge you to show me the portion that says a player has to become a FA once he receives a 30% raise. To make it easier for you, the 30% rules are listed in article 13, section 7.

The only thing it states is that a renegotiation cannot contain annual base increases of 30% above the base of the final year of the existing contract.

Originally Posted by BlackBob (Post 8932914)

I see. You are to stupid to understand.

The season is over the first week of February.

Free agency begins in March.

You have no idea what you are talking about. He couldn't have signed shit the second the season was over.

Go educate yourself dumb ****.

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 8932934)

This guy HAS to be a troll or joke account. Seriously.

No one is this ****ing dumb.

Originally Posted by jspchief (Post 8932939)

He keeps claiming he has provided links to back up his stupid ****ing comments, yet none of his links actually say shit about what he is trying to claim.

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 8932934)

This guy HAS to be a troll or joke account. Seriously.

No one is this ****ing dumb.

Originally Posted by BlackBob (Post 8932914)

I see. You are to stupid to understand.

The season is over the first week of February.

Free agency begins in March.

You have no idea what you are talking about. He couldn't have signed shit the second the season was over.

Go educate yourself dumb ****.

Originally Posted by Rausch (Post 8932942)

Clay has a metric ****-ton of spare time...

Originally Posted by jspchief (Post 8932932)

There is nothing in the CBA that says that a player has to become a free agent if he receives a 30% raise.

You provided 2 links. One was about franchise tags and entirely irrelevant. The second link was to the actual CBA. I challenge you to show me the portion that says a player has to become a FA once he receives a 30% raise. To make it easier for you, the 30% rules are listed in article 13, section 7.

The only thing it states is that a renegotiation cannot contain annual base increases of 30% above the base of the final year of the existing contract.

Originally Posted by ChiefsandO'sfan (Post 8257195)

Carr in 10 was on his rookie deal making 400k and in 11 signed his tender of 2million that was a 30% jump.Under the 30% rule carr cant sign a new deal till Mar 13 start of league year he has to hit the open market.

The Steelers and Woodley, a former second-round pick, are currently hamstrung with working out a long-term deal because of difficulties with the 30-percent rule under the old CBA, which expires in March. The franchise tag would keep Woodley off the open market and would buy both sides time to work out a long-term deal once a new CBA is reached.



The 30 percent rule applies to the renegotiation of any contracts.

It means that the player’s salary in 2010 can’t be more than 30 percent greater than the player’s salary in 2009. For players still operating under the minimum base salaries of a slotted rookie deal, that’s a problem. A big problem.



http://profootballtalk.nbcspor...-uncapped-year/

I cant find out anywhere if the 30% rule is in the new CBA need some help.Does anyone here know?

Originally Posted by Marcellus (Post 8257376)

Found this, and yea this could be an issue.

Anatomy of the NFL 30-Percent Rule

By Dominic Perilli

Often times with young, stud players such as Chris Johnson, Darrelle Revis, DeSean Jackson, and Patrick Willis, we hear a lot about what is called the 30% rule. The 30% rule basically states that a player’s new deal cannot be an increase of the annual salary of the rookie deal by more than 30 percent. When calculating the 30% amount of a contract, you must add everything but the signing bonus and other escalators (base salary + Option Bonus + Roster Bonus). Here is a quick example:
<table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody> <tr> <td valign="top" width="74">Year</td> <td valign="top" width="74">Base Salary</td> <td valign="top" width="74">Option Bonus</td> <td valign="top" width="74">Roster /Workout Bonus</td> <td valign="top" width="74">Total Salary</td> <td valign="top" width="74">30% Amount</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="74">2010</td> <td valign="top" width="74">$550,000</td> <td valign="top" width="74">0</td> <td valign="top" width="74">$100,000</td> <td valign="top" width="74">$650,000</td> <td valign="top" width="74">$195,000</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> As you can see, 30% of the total salary in 2010 is $195,000. Therefore, in the new deal the total salary each year can only increase or decrease by $195,000, and nothing more. Here is how the rule will be applied after signing a new deal:
<table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody> <tr> <td valign="top" width="74">Year</td> <td valign="top" width="74">Base Salary</td> <td valign="top" width="74">Prorated Option Bonus</td> <td valign="top" width="74">Roster /Workout Bonus</td> <td valign="top" width="74">Total Salary</td> <td valign="top" width="74">Increase from Previous Year</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="74">2011</td> <td valign="top" width="74">$650,000</td> <td valign="top" width="74">$195,000</td> <td valign="top" width="74">0</td> <td valign="top" width="74">$845,000</td> <td valign="top" width="74">+$195,000</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="74">2012</td> <td valign="top" width="74">$845,000</td> <td valign="top" width="74">$195,000</td> <td valign="top" width="74">0</td> <td valign="top" width="74">$1.04 million</td> <td valign="top" width="74">+$195,000</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="74">2013</td> <td valign="top" width="74">$1.1 million</td> <td valign="top" width="74">0</td> <td valign="top" width="74">$135,000</td> <td valign="top" width="74">$1.235 million</td> <td valign="top" width="74">+$195,000</td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top" width="74">2014</td> <td valign="top" width="74">$1.295 million</td> <td valign="top" width="74">0</td> <td valign="top" width="74">$135,000</td> <td valign="top" width="74">$1.43 million</td> <td valign="top" width="74">+$195,000</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> Some of you may be asking why we sometimes see players like Patrick Willis getting these mega deals while still on his rookie contract. Well, that is what signing bonuses and escalators are for. Teams often give a player like Willis a huge signing bonus and a lot of easily achievable escalators.
Let’s face it – The rules in the NFL CBA are mostly on the side of the individual teams and not the players. This is mostly evident in the fact that a club can end a player’s contract if he doesn’t perform well enough. The player cannot just terminate his contract if he’s not happy, so that’s why we hear a lot about holdouts. When I was younger boy entering my teens, I would often stage holdouts at my house. I knew I had no say in my household and the rules heavily favored my parents. In order to combat that, I would refuse to go out when my parents wanted to. That’s kind of a random example, but hopefully makes the situation more clear.

Originally Posted by ChiefsandO'sfan (Post 8257621)

http://www.610sports.com/topic/play_...udioId=5620695

Yup its the 30% rule nick wright talked about it today

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 8932948)

You're a ****ing idiot and everyone knows exactly to what I was talking about, except you.

The league year (i.e., SEASON) is over the day before Free Agency starts. That's exactly what I said.

JFC. You're an imbecile.

Originally Posted by BlackBob (Post 8932956)

Hey dumbass, maybe it will help if someone else says it.....and **** youTOO.

I have explained it enough and provided you with links. Look up "the 30% rule" in the table of contents in the cba. Check the old and the new cba.

Originally Posted by BlackBob (Post 8932911)

**** your face palm. Don't just avoid it. You weren't born a mongloid but you are one after that donkey punch.

Originally Posted by jspchief (Post 8932972)

Again, there is not a single thing that says a player must become a UFA after receiving a 30% increase.

I suggest you read the CBA. Article 13, section 7. THERE IS NOTHING THAT SAYS A PLAYER MUST BECOME A UFA

Originally Posted by BlackBob (Post 8932663)

In fact it was in effect by the old cba definition for 2011 as part of the new cba agreement.

Originally Posted by BlackBob (Post 8933085)

What are you missing man? You are looking at the wrong ****ing section and like everyone else around here, you wouldn't have done this if you had read what I said. You are wasting my ****ing time making me look this shit up.

Yes, in the new cba, the 30% rule was revised to say you can't go over 30% PERIOD. That's what you are reading right?

In the previous CBA, you could go over 30% but if you did, you had to let the guy become a free agent in March...




WHAT ARE YOU MISSING?

Originally Posted by FAX (Post 8933148)

Ummm ... I'm a little confused about this whole free agent tender 30% deal thing ...

Can someone explain this?

FAX

Originally Posted by Pestilence (Post 8933023)

I've never put anyone on ignore before (not even Hootie) but FFS.....BlackBob might be the first.

Originally Posted by jspchief (Post 8932972)

Again, there is not a single thing that says a player must become a UFA after receiving a 30% increase.

I suggest you read the CBA. Article 13, section 7. THERE IS NOTHING THAT SAYS A PLAYER MUST BECOME A UFA

Originally Posted by BlackBob (Post 8933183)

If you sensor someone you are truly a pussy.

Originally Posted by Pestilence (Post 8933185)

It's censor, you ****ing dipshit.

And I'd be censoring you to save my sanity. A person can only read so many reeruned takes in one ****ing day. You consistently put me over my limit.

Originally Posted by BlackBob (Post 8933195)

censor?...sensor?...**** you

Originally Posted by BlackBob (Post 8932963)

Bullshit. If that were true you would have said it along time ago you ****ing LIAR.