Chiefs Larry Johnson loses Grievance - Page 4

Frankie · 04-06-2009, 11:42 AM

Per profootballtalk.com

http://www.profootballtalk.com/2009/...teed-salaries/

Larry Johnson Loses Grievance On Future Guaranteed Salaries
Posted by Mike Florio on April 6, 2009, 1:11 p.m. EDT

The good news for NFL players coming out of last week’s combined Plaxico Burress/Larry Johnson grievance is that the forfeiture of signing bonus money has been significantly limited.

The bad news for NFL players is that Special Master Richard Burbank upheld player contract language invalidating future guaranteed base salaries.

Per a league source, Johnson’s grievance failed as to the question of whether the Chiefs are permitted to erase $3.5 million in guaranteed base salary due in 2009 and $250,000 in guaranteed base salary due in 2010 based on Johnson’s one-game suspension in 2008 for violation of the personal conduct policy.

With the future guaranteed payments now off the books, the Chiefs are expected to cut or trade Johnson.

Meanwhile, we’re told that Johnson’s grievance prevailed as to the partial forfeiture of his signing bonus allocation applicable to 2008, for the same reasons that the Burress grievance prevailed on that point — according to Burbank, suspensions don’t trigger a forfeiture of signing bonus money.

(Sorry if repost.)

orange · 04-06-2009, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Claythan

It makes more sense to keep him if he's cheaper now.

We won't find another starting RB as talented this offseason for that money.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Flopnuts

Unfortunately that won't be the case under any circumstances. If we keep him, we pay him all the money. The only way he's cheaper is if he agrees to renegotiate with the Chiefs. I don't think any of us LJ fans are disillusioned enough to believe he'll do that.

He wants to play here now if he can make that money because he knows he's not going to make it anywhere else. If he makes $1 less, he'd rather do it anywhere but with the Chiefs.

But if they keep him, he's NOT cheaper. He still has the same contract, just not guaranteed - plus the Chiefs have to pay him back money they deducted last year for the suspended game. IF Larry stays on, he will cost the Chiefs MORE than if they had simply honored the contract and not filed the grievance.

**Mr. Flopnuts** · 04-06-2009, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaChapelle

They have money to burn and he showed up to voluntary workouts. Thinking in business terms, I don't see the advantage is cutting him.

We can definitely afford the salary, and the bonus. I just don't see why you bring the grievance in the first place if you intend on keeping him should you win. I want him on the team this year as much as anyone, but it's time to be realistic now.

**Mr. Flopnuts** · 04-06-2009, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by orange

But if they keep him, he's NOT cheaper. He still has the same contract, just not guaranteed - plus the Chiefs have to pay him back money they deducted last year for the suspended game. IF Larry stays on, he will cost the Chiefs MORE than if they had simply honored the contract and not filed the grievance.

Exactly. He's as good as gone.

**Kyle DeLexus** · 04-06-2009, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrazyCoffey

but there's no certainty that we ARE cutting him. We just saved alot of money, we can shop him and if we don't like the options available, pioli and hailey go to LJ and say, here's your chance, play for a trade next year.

How did we save a lot of money? If we cut we save money, if he plays he makes whats in his contract.

LaChapelle · 04-06-2009, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Flopnuts

We can definitely afford the salary, and the bonus. I just don't see why you bring the grievance in the first place if you intend on keeping him should you win. I want him on the team this year as much as anyone, but it's time to be realistic now.

Realistic?

Is he publicly acting the bitch? Is there even the slimiest chance you could get something for him? Take emotion out of it and you should keep him until proven otherwise.

**DeezNutz** · 04-06-2009, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaChapelle

Is he publicly acting the bitch?

At this very moment? Probably...

**Mr. Flopnuts** · 04-06-2009, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaChapelle

Realistic?

Is he publicly acting the bitch? Is there even the slimiest chance you could get something for him? Take emotion out of it and you should keep him until proven otherwise.

You get millions of dollars by cutting him. You also get less risk in his off the field trysts for the next season. What's the distraction going to be this year? It's risk vs. reward and I can't think of anyone that would sign LJ to the contract the Chiefs did back in 2007, today. So that being said, as completely emotionless as possible, would you honor his contract right now if you didn't have too? Will Scott Pioli?

acesn8s · 04-06-2009, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrazyCoffey

but there's no certainty that we ARE cutting him. We just saved alot of money, we can shop him and if we don't like the options available, pioli and hailey go to LJ and say, here's your chance, play for a trade next year.

I could see that but I don't think that they want anyone tearing down what they are trying to build.

crazycoffey · 04-06-2009, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by acesn8s

I could see that but I don't think that they want anyone tearing down what they are trying to build.

but it was just in arguement for the cutting him stance in negotiations for trading him. I agree they don't want him, it's just not smart to give him away, right? Unless the wheels have really fallen off and they just cut him.

Really I'm ok eitherway, stay and be a team player, or get cut. That's my personal stance.

LaChapelle · 04-06-2009, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Flopnuts

You get millions of dollars by cutting him. You also get less risk in his off the field trysts for the next season. What's the distraction going to be this year? It's risk vs. reward and I can't think of anyone that would sign LJ to the contract the Chiefs did back in 2007, today. So that being said, as completely emotionless as possible, would you honor his contract right now if you didn't have too? Will Scott Pioli?

As far as I can tell the money is going to either be spent or wasted. Unless there are conditions in his contract that have to be met on some bonuses. You can recoup next year.

kcxiv · 04-06-2009, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bowser

I can see him going to either Cleveland or Seattle. Cleveland especially, with Mangini's love of play-action.

Isnt Jamal Lewis in Cleveland still? he's basically the same as LJ. He may even be able to block. lol

orange · 04-06-2009, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Flopnuts

We can definitely afford the salary, and the bonus. I just don't see why you bring the grievance in the first place if you intend on keeping him should you win. I want him on the team this year as much as anyone, but it's time to be realistic now.

They filed the grievance not to save money, but to get back their leverage.

"Larry - act up again, and we've got something for you."

LaChapelle · 04-06-2009, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaChapelle

As far as I can tell the money is going to either be spent or wasted. Unless there are conditions in his contract that have to be met on some bonuses. You can recoup next year.

He could actually help them for being fined for being under the cap limit.

crazycoffey · 04-06-2009, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kyle DeLexus

How did we save a lot of money? If we cut we save money, if he plays he makes whats in his contract.

but when do we HAVE to make that decision? The grievance bought us time if we want to trade him/ or cut him. We essentially could have just saved money from next year if he plays this year. We just opened up several options. Plus it could be a "fire" for LJ, to play mad again.

So if there's no trade options this year, we pay him this years salary. But from winning the grievance we then could be in the same position next year. He does poorly, he's cut. he does very well, he's traded or resigned. Either way we would only HAVE to pay him for this year, not next. Winning the Grievance was awesome in dealing with this diaper wearing primadonna..

kcsam07 · 04-06-2009, 01:27 PM

i dont think this means lj is for sure gone. i really dont think this changes the way the chiefs feel about him me personally im on the fence i like larry as a player but as a person hes an a-hole

04-06-2009, 11:42 AM
Frankie Banned Join Date: Jul 2001 Casino cash: $10004900	Larry Johnson loses Grievance Per profootballtalk.com http://www.profootballtalk.com/2009/...teed-salaries/ Larry Johnson Loses Grievance On Future Guaranteed Salaries Posted by Mike Florio on April 6, 2009, 1:11 p.m. EDT The good news for NFL players coming out of last week’s combined Plaxico Burress/Larry Johnson grievance is that the forfeiture of signing bonus money has been significantly limited. The bad news for NFL players is that Special Master Richard Burbank upheld player contract language invalidating future guaranteed base salaries. Per a league source, Johnson’s grievance failed as to the question of whether the Chiefs are permitted to erase $3.5 million in guaranteed base salary due in 2009 and $250,000 in guaranteed base salary due in 2010 based on Johnson’s one-game suspension in 2008 for violation of the personal conduct policy. With the future guaranteed payments now off the books, the Chiefs are expected to cut or trade Johnson. Meanwhile, we’re told that Johnson’s grievance prevailed as to the partial forfeiture of his signing bonus allocation applicable to 2008, for the same reasons that the Burress grievance prevailed on that point — according to Burbank, suspensions don’t trigger a forfeiture of signing bonus money. (Sorry if repost.)
Posts: 26,959

04-06-2009, 01:27 PM	#60
kcsam07 Starter Join Date: May 2008 Casino cash: $10004900	i dont think this means lj is for sure gone. i really dont think this changes the way the chiefs feel about him me personally im on the fence i like larry as a player but as a person hes an a-hole
Posts: 53