The Wolf Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 (edited) As reported this morning on Rotoworld, thru an Atlanta Journal Constitution reporter on ESPN: (Rotoworld) Speaking on ESPN, the Atlanta Journal-Constituion's Steve Wyche said that the Falcons could possibly release Michael Vick this week. Impact: There would be some nasty cap consequences, but its at least an option. Vick could also be suspended by the team or receive a leave of absence. With training camp looming, look for a decision to come down by Tuesday or Wednesday. Vick isn't likely to attend camp. Edited July 23, 2007 by The Wolf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brewer Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 I would like to see this happen. Not so sure that it will, but I'd like to see it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darin3 Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 I would like to see this happen. Not so sure that it will, but I'd like to see it. Eh. It's not gonna happen, IMO. They may force him into a long leave of absence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMD Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 I have gone through all of the Constitution Journal and other sources and not seen anything about the Falcons releasing Vick. Far as I can tell the only two options on the table are a leave of absence or letting him play best he can. I would expect the NFLPA to scream if Vick was released without being convicted. An LOA appears to be the most reasonable solution to me. I just cannot imagine what it would be like with Vick playing this year with this over his head in a new offense he has to learn all the while the stands should be absolutely brutal. They were already unkind towards him already (ie. the finger incident) and now you'll have people show up for the sole reason to disrupt the game and team because of Vick. You just don't want to mess with a bunch of dog lovers and animal rights activists. They'll love to protest this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulOttCarruth Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 From Profootballtalk.com FALCONS TO ACT ON VICK BY TUESDAY Peter King of SI.com reports that Falcons owner Arthur Blank plans to impose some type of discipline on quarterback Mike Vick by Tuesday. King also reports that NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell reserves the right to tack additional penalties to the sanctions imposed by the team. The Falcons' options in this regard are limited. They can cut him, pursuant to paragraph 11 of the Standard Player Contract. Or they can suspend him without pay for up to four games under the CBA. So it's possible that the Falcons will suspend Vick for the first four games of the regular season, and then Goodell will later suspend Vick for the remaining 12 of the 2007 season. Given that the Vick prosecution is in the so-called "Rocket Docket," the case will most likely be resolved by the commencement of offseason workouts in 2008, and the team can make a decision about Vick's future after the trial. The only flaw in this approach? Suspending Vick for the first four games of the 2007 regular season might not permit the team to tell him to stay away from training camp and the preseason. Players suspended by the league for the first four games of the season due to violations of the substance abuse policy or the steroids policy are permitted to participate in preseason preparations. Of course, Vick could voluntarily agree to accept a banishment from camp and the preseason, but the fact that Arthur Blank spent Sunday in Montana pondering his options for disciplining Vick tells us that, as we'd heard, Vick has refused to agree to anything. And this means that Vick is likely to refuse to stay away from camp or from the preseason games. Thus, if/when the Falcons suspend Vick, the stage will be set for a nasty T.O.-style grievance hearing, if Vick decides to fight the decision. (Before making any decisions in this regard, however, Vick should consider the fact that he'd likely have to testify at the ensuing arbitration, and that the feds would likely subpoena the transcript of any such testimony for use in the trial on the pending conspiracy charges.) Regardless of how it turns out, it's increasingly clear to us that Vick can't be a part of the Falcons team while these charges are pending, and it's apparently becoming increasingly clear to Blank that something must be done. The possibility of pickets and increased security at training camp, and of constant boos raining down from the stands at home games, is beyond unacceptable. If Vick isn't willing to realize that it's in everyone's best interests (including his) for Vick to not be around, then someone else will have to make that decision for him. The stakes are nevertheless high. Ridiculously high. As we explained on Saturday, the Falcons would be able to attempt to recover more than $28 million in bonus money from Vick if he misses a single practice or game due to a suspension. That reality could force Vick to fight any effort to discipline that the Falcons try to impose, even if it means that he'll be creating evidence that could be used against him by prosecutors. Bottom line -- this ugly situation is going to get uglier, primarily because Vick can't realize that it's in his best interests to work out a deal with the Falcons, and because no one around Vick has the juice to get him to listen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 I have gone through all of the Constitution Journal and other sources and not seen anything about the Falcons releasing Vick. Far as I can tell the only two options on the table are a leave of absence or letting him play best he can. I would expect the NFLPA to scream if Vick was released without being convicted. An LOA appears to be the most reasonable solution to me. I just cannot imagine what it would be like with Vick playing this year with this over his head in a new offense he has to learn all the while the stands should be absolutely brutal. They were already unkind towards him already (ie. the finger incident) and now you'll have people show up for the sole reason to disrupt the game and team because of Vick. You just don't want to mess with a bunch of dog lovers and animal rights activists. They'll love to protest this. Just all the reporters at trainng camp(not even including protesters) would be brutal. I don't see him playing, but doubt they would cut him either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 (edited) I love it when reporters use phrases like "could possibly", and then don't name any sources for their information. Great way to enhance the credibility of one's report, don't you think? Why don't they tell it like it is - "I don't know sh!t, but my opinion is...." Edited July 23, 2007 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darin3 Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 I love it when reporters use phrases like "could possibly", and then don't name any sources for their information. Great way to enhance the credibility of one's report, don't you think? Why don't they tell it like it is - "I don't know sh!t, but my opinion is...." Yeah, monkeys "could possibly" fly out of my ass, but I seriously doubt it will ever actually happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 Yeah, monkeys "could possibly" fly out of my ass, but I seriously doubt it will ever actually happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 I love it when reporters use phrases like "could possibly", and then don't name any sources for their information. Great way to enhance the credibility of one's report, don't you think? Why don't they tell it like it is - "I don't know sh!t, but my opinion is...." Yeah. "Some have said" is another good one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 Doesn't Vick have to enter a plea on Thursday? If so, I believe that the Falcons will decide whether or not to cut him. If Vick enters a guilty plea, the Falcons might be able to dump him and recoup cap space (and possibly signing bonus money, depending whether or not Vick's current deal falls under the newer CBA provisions). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rattsass Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 This is a very complicated scenario. If they give him a paid leave of absence it could set a bad precedent for any future similar situations that arise in the league. And I think I heard someone on the radio saying that the LOA is looking more and more unlikely. The bottom line is that even if Vick miraculously escapes jail time, his image is tarnished beyond repair, and he can only be a liability. If I had to place a wager, I would say the Falcons cut him before Thursday and be done with it, so they can focus on the season ahead. It is the only logical solution. I don't think the players union couldn't do jack about that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMD Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 This is a very complicated scenario. If they give him a paid leave of absence it could set a bad precedent for any future similar situations that arise in the league. And I think I heard someone on the radio saying that the LOA is looking more and more unlikely. The bottom line is that even if Vick miraculously escapes jail time, his image is tarnished beyond repair, and he can only be a liability. If I had to place a wager, I would say the Falcons cut him before Thursday and be done with it, so they can focus on the season ahead. It is the only logical solution. I don't think the players union couldn't do jack about that. If that happens it would be HUGE. Not only for Vick or the Falcons or even the NFL but fpr professional sports. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulOttCarruth Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 My hunch is they cut him. Yes, the cap ramifications are hugh but that's not the only thing at stake here. Blank has to consider sponsorships, attendance, his new coach who has no interest in dealing with this, Vick's checkered past, the pending media circus that will follow the team all year, etc., etc., etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chargerz Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 I just don't see how they can cut him without due process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wolf Posted July 23, 2007 Author Share Posted July 23, 2007 I agree with most in here...he is getting cut. Just out of curiosity, if the team outs a player on a LOA or suspends the player, can the Commish issue out a more harsh suspension of his own? I ask because questions are arising as to why Goodell has not acted yet, and the fact that the team has not made a decision could be hamstringing him. I mean, this is also a very complex issue, so he cannot act too rashly to begin with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 I just don't see how they can cut him without due process. Are you kidding me? How many NFL players get cut each year WITHOUT being indicted by a federal grand jury? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peepinmofo Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 Im sure SOMEWHERE in his contract, there is some kind of clause that states they can cut him without being convicted, or whatever reason. Just like an employer can fire an employee at any time, I would imagine a team can cut a player at any time. They might have to deal with the NFLPA, but better them than the people that actually pay the bills - The fans, the protestors, etc. I wouldnt be surprised at all if they cut him. I also agree with rattsass in that if they give him a paid LOA, that doesnt set a very frightening example for the future punks of the NFL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMD Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 All I know is that now we'll never get rid of those cost-saving self-serve checkouts at Home Depot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackass Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 just curious, if they do cut him, what would he get in terms of compensation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DemonKnight Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 (edited) ^^^fastposted^^^ So if Vick gets "cut" he still gets a paycheck correct? Edited July 23, 2007 by DemonKnight Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peepinmofo Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 So if Vick gets "cut" he still gets a paycheck correct? They might be obligated to pay him a portion of his annual salary, but I dont think its the whole thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wolf Posted July 23, 2007 Author Share Posted July 23, 2007 All I know is that now we'll never get rid of those cost-saving self-serve checkouts at Home Depot. I find them to be very convenient and oddly humorous at the same time. It's funny watching people who have problems scanning and swiping their own credit card. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 (edited) ATL could cut him today & not owe him one more dime. NFL contracts are structured as being non-gauranteed. That's why signing bonuses are huge - they are the money paid up front before a player ever plays a down for the team and the only portion of a NFL contract that is guaranteed. Now by cutting Vick, ATL could cripple itself financially because the pro-rated portion of his signing bonus would accelerate forward into this year's & next year's cap numbers (since it is after June 1st), but that it where the league could step in & allow ATL some cap relief on this whole thing. DMD is correct - this could be huge for all of sports in that this would be enforcement of a behavior policy that would actually make a star athlete accountable, and it might give fans hope that the days of the inmates running the asylum while getting obscenely rich doing it may be coming to an end. Don't think that MLB fans or NBA fans wouldn't point at this as the standard for their leagues and demand more from their teams' players if they are going to continue to ante up huge (relatively speaking, of course) $$$ for tickets. Edited July 23, 2007 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
broncosn05 Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 The AJC is the biggest bs newspaper ever. Too bad it's the only newspaper in ATL.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.