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.)

L.J.’s Grievance Decision In
 

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

check it out on snopes first, damnit!!!!

awesome

take that quitter's money

Any improvement in trade value?

Burress won his. I still hope we keep LJ, I know this increases the chances of us getting rid of him too...

There is a load of hay leaving town at noon. Be on it.

We should be able to trade him for 6-7 #1 picks I'm sure.

If the Chiefs can land a high 3rd or better, trade him to the highest bidder outside the AFC West. If teams attempt to low ball us, keep him till an equal replacement is found.

If we can get a 3rd or better for him take it. I could give a shit if he stays in the AFCW or not.

Probably not. Signing bonus would have been on the Chiefs, and not the team who he would be traded to.

He has one hour to get the hell out of town.

Me neither. If we have any kind of interior defense at all, we know it would be 2nd and 8 and then 3rd and 6 if they run on the first two downs.

Nobody is going to give us a 3rd or higher for LJ. We would likely get a 4th rounder at best and even the chances of that are slim,we would probably have to settle for a 5th...

Thats what he gets. I dont hate him or anything. I stillt hink he can play at a fairly high level, but he made his own bed.

Or 1 #6-7 pick. I'm not sure which.

For a 3rd or higher I would even trade him to a division rival.

Don't let the door spit in your face on the way out Larry
Posted via Mobile Device

Hopefully he'll stay on with the team or we'll get a 4th Rounder for him.

Larry Johnson is through in KC. If his cap hit just got cut even in half, he's as good as gone. I hate to see it, I know I'm in the minority on that, but it's true. Bye Larry.

If I was a fan of a team in need of a RB. I would have no problem at all giving a conditional 3rd. In fact, I'd be thrilled.

Trade him to the Browns for a 4th.

Yes.

5th-rounder, tops.

There will be more attractive options for teams to draft in rounds 1-4, so why would anyone give that high of a pick for a one-dimensional back who is also a ****ing piece of shit in the locker room and in the community?

Please god no no no no no..........noooooooooooooooo

Eagles have 4 5th round picks. But my guess is most teams know he will probably be released, and will proably try and go that route to sign him to their own deal instead of taking on the remaining Chiefs contract minus the signing bonus.

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out, Larry.

As long as we get a 3rd Rounder or better in return. That or a 12 pack of imported beer.

80% or better chance of his azz being somewhere else now, I'd say.

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.

Works for me. Maybe that will be part of the trade down from #3. :D

Chiefs get:

#21, #28, #53, #145, #149

Eagles get:

#3 and Larry Johnson :rolleyes:

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

Bullshit.

LJ isn't an elite talent anymore, and what he brings could be filled through the draft.

Sweet. If this doesn't happen you get neg rep, just for making us think it could.

Is LJ really worth a 3rd? Seriously? I didn't think he'd be worth that much. Isn't it this year he hits the big 3-0?
Posted via Mobile Device

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 should trade him for 10 maple baseball bats

Put your Chiefs glasses back on again, and LJ will then seem much more valuable.

Look at it clearly, and he's worth a medium-sized bag of dicks.

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 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.

Curly or natural cut?

Agree completely.

:D

Could work.

ROFL

I'll be awaiting the neg rep.

I bet Whiz in Az would like to have him.

That's what I was thinking. I would be unconditionally happy if we fleeced someone for a 3rd for LJ.
Posted via Mobile Device

I don't either, at least not this year. Let him play for a trade, who knows how he'll feel playing under Haley and Pioli.

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. :doh!:

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.

Exactly. He's as good as gone.

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

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.

At this very moment? Probably...

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?

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.

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.

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

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."

http://www.thewilbournegroup.com/Spe...wWithHoles.jpg

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

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..

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

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

<img src="http://www.theboxset.com/images/reviewcaptures/612capture_tombstone03.jpg">

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.

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.

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

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.

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....

We probably just cut him now.

See ya thug boy.

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

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?

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

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

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.

We should try to get our opponents to dress like women. It might improve his blocking.

no,
More than likely = "this" or "I concur with what Micjones just said"

Sorry dude, I'm drowsy.
:D

that's not what I said, sorry.
But to look at it that way, it would be because Mr. Goodell hasn't ruled on LJ's most recent legal woes. LJ could be looking at missing another game or two....

Hence the incentive for other teams to trade for him as opposed to wait for him to get released.