Larry Johnson loses Grievance

[Frankie]

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.)

[crazycoffey]

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.

winning the grievance means we don't have to pay him this year or next year, we can cut / trade him without cap penelties.

[sedated]

[crazycoffey]

after reading back, let me re-explain what I'm trying to say;

we won the grievance so we don't have to pay him 3.5 mil this year / not 250K next year. We just opened the door for a trade. If teams try to leverage a probable "cut" and wait for him to be on the free market, we can still keep him. Try putting a fire under his butt to perform better. Then next year we can trade him, or keep him for only 250K (if he bratts out in the middle of the year, say) and in two years we could even franchise him, so his ass is still ours and he's wasting precious years to make a name for himself. So we have all the power for trade negotiations THIS YEAR!

I think the grievance was just for leverage, not for money. We'll know for sure very soon. Trade talks come up or he's quiet and practicing it was a leverage move. If he's cut, then it was for money/cutting off dead weight.

[Mr. Flopnuts]

Isn't LJ due 3 million that KC had been withholding pending this decision? Maybe I'm way off, but that was my understanding of the situation.

[LaChapelle]

Originally Posted by CrazyCoffey

after reading back, let me re-explain what I'm trying to say;

we won the grievance so we don't have to pay him 3.5 mil this year / not 250K next year. We just opened the door for a trade. If teams try to leverage a probable "cut" and wait for him to be on the free market, we can still keep him. Try putting a fire under his butt to perform better. Then next year we can trade him, or keep him for only 250K (if he bratts out in the middle of the year, say) and in two years we could even franchise him, so his ass is still ours and he's wasting precious years to make a name for himself. So we have all the power for trade negotiations THIS YEAR!

I think the grievance was just for leverage, not for money.

Agree. Cap may be a problem down the road. Right now it's like unused vacation time. Use it or lose it.

[orange]

Originally Posted by bishop_74

LINK

April 6, 2009 - Bob Gretz |

Special Master Richard Burbank released his decison Monday on the grievance filed against the Chiefs by the NFL Players Association involving guaranteed money in Larry Johnson’s contract.

Burbank ruled in favor of the Chiefs who removed the guarantee on base salary money for the 2009 and 2010 seasons after Johnson was suspended for one game by NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell. The contract contained specific language that would remove that guarantee. One part of the clause was forfeiture of guaranteed money with an NFL suspension. It does not mean Johnson can’t earn the money by making the team, but it’s no longer a guaranteed payment.

But Burbank did have something in his ruling for Johnson on his signing bonus. At the time of his suspension, L.J. forfeited a pro-rata portion of his signing bonus for missing that game. The Special Master ruled that money could not be taken by the Chiefs.

The question now is just what the Chiefs plans are for Johnson. There have been published reports that if the Chiefs prevailed in the grievance they would release the running back. That’s not necessarily the next logical step, however. Releasing him now wouldn’t accomplish anything but get him out of the building. If that’s what the Chiefs want, then he should be released by sundown. If not, then there is no reason to make a move at this time.

Johnson can also expect further sanction from the Commissioner on the two charges where he pled guilty last month. Goodell said he would revisit the issue after the cases were completed

After re-reading this, it's clear that JOHNSON filed the grievance, not the Chiefs. KC was already in the clear as to 2008/2009 being not guaranteed; this ruling just reaffirmed that. Johnson did win on his smaller point and got back money from last year.

In other words, there's no more reason to cut LJ today than there was yesterday.

I don't see where Florio's spin in the PFT article (that the Chiefs were waiting on this ruling to cut LJ) comes from.

[crazycoffey]

Originally Posted by orange

I don't see where Florio's spin in the PFT article (that the Chiefs were waiting on this ruling to cut LJ) comes from.

It said

"There have been published reports that if the Chiefs prevailed in the grievance they would release the running back. That’s not necessarily the next logical step, however. Releasing him now wouldn’t accomplish anything but get him out of the building. If that’s what the Chiefs want, then he should be released by sundown. If not, then there is no reason to make a move at this time."

and that's what started the CP spin....

[Mr. Krab]

We probably just cut him now.

[Bwana]

See ya thug boy.

[Micjones]

I don't think it's a slam dunk that he'll be cut.

If it were that serious to Chiefs brass I think he'd be gone already.

[crazycoffey]

Originally Posted by Micjones

I don't think it's a slam dunk that he'll be cut.

If it were that serious to Chiefs brass I think he'd be gone already.

more than likely

[Micjones]

Originally Posted by CrazyCoffey

more than likely

I'm not so sure.
What does the team stand to gain from cutting him?
More salary cap room that they won't be able to spend?

[LaChapelle]

If they want to hate on him for being a malcontent. Send him to Detriot for a pair of Gun's old yellow glasses.

[Mr. Krab]

Originally Posted by CrazyCoffey

more than likely

why would they cut him already when they can get some money back from him first?

[PastorMikH]

If the Chiefs winning in the grievance doesn't mean LJ's contact isn't considered void, it might be wise to keep LJ. He'll be really, really angry now and he does his best running when he's angry.