Mr. Laz
06-17-2006, 11:07 AM
WELBOURN COULD OWE MONEY TO CHIEFS
www.profootballtalk.com
In retiring three years prematurely from the Kansas City Chiefs, tackle John Welbourn might not have only walked away from $5.1 million in future salary. He also might have put himself in the position of owing a nice chunk of money back to the Chiefs.
Even though the Chiefs didn't pay Welbourn's signing bonus, the Chiefs have the ability to enforce any language in his deal requiring him to pay back bonus money if he quits the game. Two years ago, for example, the Dolphins successfully enforced signing bonus forfeiture language in the contract Ricky Williams had signed with the Saints.
In this regard, two factors will control: (1) the language of the contract Welbourn signed with the Eagles; and (2) whether the new CBA restrictions on bonus forfeiture apply retroactively.
Under the new CBA, a player who retires prematurely must only repay the remainder of the signing bonus allocation. In Welbourn's case, that amount is $416,666. But if the Eagles beefed up his contract to require a greater repayment obligation -- and if the changes to the CBA ultimately aren't determined to be retroactive, the final bill could be much bigger.
Assuming that, at a mimum, the contract signed by Welbourn with the Eagles contains a requirement that any remaining bonus allocation be paid in the event of a retirement, he's looking at a final price tag of more than $5.5 million for his early exit -- more than $400,000 of which he'd have to come up with out of his own pocket.
And although there's a feeling in light of the Ricky Williams situation that clauses like this are essentially meaningless because team's aren't inclined to throw good money after bad, the Fins know that they'll never get a dime out of a guy whose only other life ambitions appear to be practicing yoga and impregnating women. In Welbourn's case, the amount owed would be much lower, he plans to become a lawyer, and (as far as we know) he's not required by law to finance the rearing of multiple children.
Finally, there could be a way for Welbourn to avoid paying back anything to the Chiefs. If the contract generally requires repayment for a "default" and includes within the definition of the term both retirement and league-imposed suspensions, and if the Chiefs didn't file a grievance against Welbourn after he was suspended for four games in 2005, he might be able to argue that the team has waived its ability to pursue him for repayment now. Whether he'd be successful is another story -- but with more than 400 large riding on the outcome it makes sense to throw out any plausible argument he can muster.
WELBOURN WALKED OVER MONEY
Although our first reaction upon learning that Chiefs tackle John Welbourn had retired "on my own terms rather than somebody else's" was that he'd possibly tested positive (again) for banned substances, a league source tells us that Welbourn retired simply because he wanted more money, and that the Chiefs wouldn't give it to him.
Welbourn was traded to Kansas City in April 2004 after asking for more money from the Eagles, not getting it, requesting to be moved out of town, and then blasting the team on the radio -- which included questioning the quality of the team's recent drafts.
Philly selected Welbourn in the fourth round of the 1999 draft. In 2001, he committed to the team through 2008, and received a $2.5 million signing bonus in the process.
The raise he didn't get in Philly he also didn't receive in Kansas City, where the Chiefs paid him at a base rate of $1 million in 2004 and $1.2 million in 2005.
With three years remaining on his contract (at salaries of $1.4 million, $1.7 million, and $2.0 million), the Chiefs had no reason to give in, especially since he'd done little in two years with the team to merit more coin. Injuries limited Welbourn to only 10 games in 2004, and a four-game suspension for violation of the steroids policy kept him to 12 appearances in 2005.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.profootballtalk.com
In retiring three years prematurely from the Kansas City Chiefs, tackle John Welbourn might not have only walked away from $5.1 million in future salary. He also might have put himself in the position of owing a nice chunk of money back to the Chiefs.
Even though the Chiefs didn't pay Welbourn's signing bonus, the Chiefs have the ability to enforce any language in his deal requiring him to pay back bonus money if he quits the game. Two years ago, for example, the Dolphins successfully enforced signing bonus forfeiture language in the contract Ricky Williams had signed with the Saints.
In this regard, two factors will control: (1) the language of the contract Welbourn signed with the Eagles; and (2) whether the new CBA restrictions on bonus forfeiture apply retroactively.
Under the new CBA, a player who retires prematurely must only repay the remainder of the signing bonus allocation. In Welbourn's case, that amount is $416,666. But if the Eagles beefed up his contract to require a greater repayment obligation -- and if the changes to the CBA ultimately aren't determined to be retroactive, the final bill could be much bigger.
Assuming that, at a mimum, the contract signed by Welbourn with the Eagles contains a requirement that any remaining bonus allocation be paid in the event of a retirement, he's looking at a final price tag of more than $5.5 million for his early exit -- more than $400,000 of which he'd have to come up with out of his own pocket.
And although there's a feeling in light of the Ricky Williams situation that clauses like this are essentially meaningless because team's aren't inclined to throw good money after bad, the Fins know that they'll never get a dime out of a guy whose only other life ambitions appear to be practicing yoga and impregnating women. In Welbourn's case, the amount owed would be much lower, he plans to become a lawyer, and (as far as we know) he's not required by law to finance the rearing of multiple children.
Finally, there could be a way for Welbourn to avoid paying back anything to the Chiefs. If the contract generally requires repayment for a "default" and includes within the definition of the term both retirement and league-imposed suspensions, and if the Chiefs didn't file a grievance against Welbourn after he was suspended for four games in 2005, he might be able to argue that the team has waived its ability to pursue him for repayment now. Whether he'd be successful is another story -- but with more than 400 large riding on the outcome it makes sense to throw out any plausible argument he can muster.
WELBOURN WALKED OVER MONEY
Although our first reaction upon learning that Chiefs tackle John Welbourn had retired "on my own terms rather than somebody else's" was that he'd possibly tested positive (again) for banned substances, a league source tells us that Welbourn retired simply because he wanted more money, and that the Chiefs wouldn't give it to him.
Welbourn was traded to Kansas City in April 2004 after asking for more money from the Eagles, not getting it, requesting to be moved out of town, and then blasting the team on the radio -- which included questioning the quality of the team's recent drafts.
Philly selected Welbourn in the fourth round of the 1999 draft. In 2001, he committed to the team through 2008, and received a $2.5 million signing bonus in the process.
The raise he didn't get in Philly he also didn't receive in Kansas City, where the Chiefs paid him at a base rate of $1 million in 2004 and $1.2 million in 2005.
With three years remaining on his contract (at salaries of $1.4 million, $1.7 million, and $2.0 million), the Chiefs had no reason to give in, especially since he'd done little in two years with the team to merit more coin. Injuries limited Welbourn to only 10 games in 2004, and a four-game suspension for violation of the steroids policy kept him to 12 appearances in 2005.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------