Ayestunod Posted June 16, 2010 Share Posted June 16, 2010 Man.. Fudge some Fat Albert Worthless piece of sht. I wish Redskins would make him play out his contract and just bench him the whole remaining 6 years. I hope alot of players and coaches have lost respect for him and don't offer him nothing but chump change to play. Hopefully someone in the division gets him... Be nice to run over him twice a year if he can stay on the field long enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted June 16, 2010 Share Posted June 16, 2010 In IDP forum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted June 16, 2010 Share Posted June 16, 2010 correct me if I am wrong but didn't haynesworth get bonus money? If so do you know what that bonus was for? It was a ROSTER bonus...he was on the roster so he gets his cash. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 correct me if I am wrong but didn't haynesworth get bonus money? If so do you know what that bonus was for? It was a ROSTER bonus...he was on the roster so he gets his cash. Shanahan said that he offered to trade him before the roster bonus & Haynesworth took the money instead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 (edited) Shanahan said that he offered to trade him before the roster bonus & Haynesworth took the money instead. so are you saying the Skins let their players make roster decisions? If so then they got what they deserved, imo edit: and I am not sure but I don't think haynesworth has a no trade clause, fwiw edit2: offered, smoffered...if shanny didn't deal AB it was because he couldn't get the deal he wanted and that was probably because AB's contract that the SKINS signed him to last year makes trading him above difficult...now that they have paid him the rest of his contract isn't that bad and will make trading him much easier. I heard that too. Either way, return the money or play. It really pisses me off when these guys want so much money. Like Vincent Jackson... take the huge sum of money ($3.5mil) and then test the FA market next year. And I'm beyond fooking tired of these knobgobblers saying, "my career is shorts, I could get permanently injured!" Fook you. How many soldiers, cops, fire fighters and any emergency personnel get injured or killed each year and they make NOTHING in comparison. FOOK YOU pro athletes. I am not shedding any tears for the many greedy owners either Edited June 17, 2010 by keggerz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 (edited) completely separate issue. not really....it is a roster bonus...he was on the roster by choice of the team...greedy ownership has regretted the contract they gave him almost from the getgo so they (or is it the media that) wants to recoup a ROSTER BONUS...players negotiated guaranteed money for a reason and owners give it for a reason...this time the owner gets jobbed but how often do you see them sign players to big time long deals only to cut bait when the contract escalates...like I said I am not shedding any tears for the greedy owners Edited June 17, 2010 by keggerz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeeR Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 I heard that too. Either way, return the money or play. It really pisses me off when these guys want so much money. Like Vincent Jackson... take the huge sum of money ($3.5mil) and then test the FA market next year. And I'm beyond fooking tired of these knobgobblers saying, "my career is shorts, I could get permanently injured!" Fook you. How many soldiers, cops, fire fighters and any emergency personnel get injured or killed each year and they make NOTHING in comparison. FOOK YOU pro athletes. Maybe if he steps on someone's head he will get somewhere. Preferably Snyder's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Square Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 not really....it is a roster bonus...he was on the roster by choice of the team...greedy ownership has regretted the contract they gave him almost from the getgo so they (or is it the media that) wants to recoup a ROSTER BONUS...players negotiated guaranteed money for a reason and owners give it for a reason...this time the owner gets jobbed but how often do you see them sign players to big time long deals only to cut bait when the contract escalates...like I said I am not shedding any tears for the greedy owners Regardless, he signed the largest defensive player contract in history. I don't feel sorry for him now that it's a 3-4 vs a 4-3. It's a team sport and you have to go along with what your coach wants you to do for the team. I could understand if he wanted a certain alignment to benefit his statistics so that he could make more money on a future contract. The problem is he already has the largest contract out there. There is no way to trade him. He needs to get over himself and just play. The owner is getting "jobbed" because Albert is being a puss. Even if he plays and doesn't do well, the owner is not getting his moneys worth. I wouldn't care about that so much. But taking the largest slice of pie for the team and then sitting because you need more attention is ghey no matter how you spin it IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Irish Doggy Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 Snyder is getting exactly what he deserves. Haynesworth's list of trouble is a known variable. The Redskins overpaid (again) for the amount of risk they took on and now have buyers remorse. I won't feel bad for the Redskins. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt770 Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 Haynesworth's list of trouble is a known variable. Oh come on. Who among us hasn't stomped on someone's head? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 Snyder is getting exactly what he deserves. Haynesworth's list of trouble is a known variable. The Redskins overpaid (again) for the amount of risk they took on and now have buyers remorse. I won't feel bad for the Redskins. this! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sturphy Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 Snyder is getting exactly what he deserves. Haynesworth's list of trouble is a known variable. The Redskins overpaid (again) for the amount of risk they took on and now have buyers remorse. I won't feel bad for the Redskins. +1 Absolutely. My sentiments exactly. They made their own bed here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 (edited) Can't agree with you on this one, keg my friend. The Skins offered Haynesworth his choice: 1) We want to keep you and pay you $21M in guaranteed money immediately as well as salary for services beyond that point, but we are going to a 3-4 D and you're going to have to play nose tackle; or 2) If you absolutely do not want to play NT, we will give you your outright release to seek employment with a team of your choice - which everyone knows he would have no problem finding. That's showing the player a tremendous amount of respect as well as being upfront with his choices. Given these two choices, Haynesworth took the money. I can't blame him - that's a butload of money and provided he doesn't spend it all on steaks and strippers he'll never have to work another minute after he retires from football and will remain filthy rich the rest of his days, as should his kids and grandkids. But he knowingly took the money, and then chose not to show up and instead started whining about playing NT and wanting to be traded. How does that figure that he is getting screwed over in any way? He took the Skins to the cleaners on this one if he can force a trade. Now, this was bad business on the Skins part for trusting Haynesworth to be honorable - but let's not think that Haynesworth is being anything other than a complete ####### in this whole matter. Then reports start surfacing from multiple Skins' players that Haynesworth was a crappy team mate and refused to do anything in a team D scheme unless it benefitted him. I'm not sure how anyone takes Haynesworth's side on this, even if you are anti-owner/anti-Skins. Edited June 17, 2010 by Bronco Billy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 You know what the best thing about being a Giants fan living in the DC area is? Hearing every day on the radio, on the TV and in the local paper just how completely FUBAR the Redskins franchise is. In a way it's a shame because they do have some great fans, but is does bring a certain amount of perverse pleasure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeeR Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 +1 Absolutely. My sentiments exactly. They made their own bed here. Yep. That's what's hilarious ie dumbass Snyder doesn't learn his lesson. I wouldn't say he's the worst owner in the league - unlike some, he's willing to shell out the dough - but he's incompetent, repeatedly going after flashy names in this quick-fix mentality. Even the great Joe Gibbs couldn't fix his mess. Too bad. Skins were my 2d fav team before that idiot came along. Anyone else think Jeff Fischer is off somewhere chuckling Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budlitebrad Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 But he knowingly took the money, and then chose not to show up and instead started whining about playing NT and wanting to be traded. Completely agree. He says the Skins aren't living up to their side of the bargain, but then he has no problem cashing their check. You can't have it both ways (or maybe he will, who knows...). I can understand the arguments of keg and guys like Mike Wilbon (who has zero love for NFL owners), but he signed a contract and there is no language in it that says the team must run a 3-4. The scathing comments from his teammates are the clearest evidence of the type of guy Haynesworth is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flemingd Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 or 2) If you absolutely do not want to play NT, we will give you your outright release to seek employment with a team of your choice - which everyone knows he would have no problem finding. That wasn't actually an option. Shanahan alluded to it, but then just mumbled his way into nothingness in the press conference. AH was due a guaranteed roster bonus so they wouldn't have released him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted June 17, 2010 Share Posted June 17, 2010 The scathing comments from his teammates are the clearest evidence of the type of guy Haynesworth is. I won't disagree on this part at all...good player or not, for a long long time I have thought he was nothing more than a POS...but hey if a POS plays well they get paid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeeR Posted June 18, 2010 Share Posted June 18, 2010 Here's a shocker: some ESPN numbnut playing apologist: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commentary/...ge=hruby/100617 I bet that has nothing to do with being "controversial" just to get attention either Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted June 18, 2010 Share Posted June 18, 2010 Here's a shocker: some ESPN numbnut playing apologist: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commentary/...ge=hruby/100617 I bet that has nothing to do with being "controversial" just to get attention either I thought it was pretty good Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted June 18, 2010 Share Posted June 18, 2010 That wasn't actually an option. Shanahan alluded to it, but then just mumbled his way into nothingness in the press conference. AH was due a guaranteed roster bonus so they wouldn't have released him. This would be completely consistent with what Shanahan has done in the past numerous times. I'm no Shanahan fan - I think his drafting/FA decisions drove DEN into mediocrity that eventually cost him his job and lead to the McDilrod hire and a potential trip to the abyss for DEN. But I'll give the guy his due - he understands a run O and what RBs can fill it like no one else in the pros, he is an X-O genius, and he he is very solid at player relations, including doing things that are mutually beneficial to both parties when they are at an impass like this situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flemingd Posted June 18, 2010 Share Posted June 18, 2010 This would be completely consistent with what Shanahan has done in the past numerous times. I'm no Shanahan fan - I think his drafting/FA decisions drove DEN into mediocrity that eventually cost him his job and lead to the McDilrod hire and a potential trip to the abyss for DEN. But I'll give the guy his due - he understands a run O and what RBs can fill it like no one else in the pros, he is an X-O genius, and he he is very solid at player relations, including doing things that are mutually beneficial to both parties when they are at an impass like this situation. No question, but Shanahan is playing all butthurt like this was an option they had offered to AH when clearly they hadn't - it wouldn't have saved them the money releasing him, but shanny put the violin to his shoulder and played the tune like the Redskins acted in good faith by not releasing him when they didn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted June 18, 2010 Share Posted June 18, 2010 (edited) link Redskins will have a very hard time getting Haynesworth's bonus money Posted by Mike Florio on June 18, 2010 3:34 PM ET We've finally gotten our hands on the full contract between the Redskins and defensive tackle Albert Haynesworth. And it appears based on the language of the contract and the relevant terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement that the Redskins have little or no chance of recovering any of Haynesworth's bonus money in the wake of his decision to skip this week's mandatory minicamp. Based on the terms of the contract itself, the Redskins have the right to recover not only the $21 million in signing bonus money paid on April 1 but also $4,285,716 of the $5 million paid to him in 2009. But the contract ignores specific language in the 2006 CBA, which dramatically limits the forfeiture of cash money from signing bonuses to two specific circumstances. Here's the relevant language, from Article XIV, Section 9(a) of the CBA: "No forfeitures of signing bonuses shall be permitted, except that players and Clubs may agree: (i) to proportionate forfeitures of a signing bonus if a player voluntarily retires or willfully withholds his services from one or more regular season games; and/or (ii) that if a player willfully takes action that has the effect of substantially undermining his ability to fully participate and contribute in either preseason training camp or the regular season (including by willfully withholding his services in either preseason training camp or during the regular season or willfully missing one or more games), the player may forfeit the greater of: (a) 25% of the prorated portion of his signing bonus for the applicable League Year for the first time such conduct occurs after the beginning of training camp until the end of the season for his Club, and the remaining 75% prorated portion of his signing bonus for the applicable year for the second time such conduct occurs during that period that year; or ( the proportionate amount of his signing bonus allocation for each week missed (1/17th for each regular season week or game missed)." In English, this means that skipping a mandatory minicamp places none of the signing bonus in jeopardy. Ever. If Haynesworth fails to show up for even one day of training camp, the Redskins then can pursue 25 percent of the 2010 allocation of the initial $5 million signing bonus, and 25 percent of the 2010 allocation of the $21 million signing bonus paid this year. But if he shows up for training camp (and he reportedly plans to do) and for every game, he gets to keep his money. And the Plaxico Burress grievance from 2009 means that Haynesworth keeps the money even if the team eventually suspends Haynesworth for conduct detrimental to the team. Basically, unless he holds out or retires, he keeps the money. The only tangible consequence at this point arises with respect to the guaranteed nature of Haynesworth's $3.6 million base salary in 2010 and his $5.4 million base salary in 2011. By ditching the mandatory minicamps, the guarantees have been voided. This means that, if they cut him, the Redskins most likely won't have to pay him $9 million in future guaranteed money. Still, as far as we can tell, Haynesworth and the NFLPA are right on this one. He gets to keep his money, even if he doesn't really deserve to do so. Edited June 18, 2010 by keggerz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayestunod Posted June 18, 2010 Author Share Posted June 18, 2010 he will end up causing a nightmare for the talks of the bargaining agreement Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaman Posted June 19, 2010 Share Posted June 19, 2010 This picture is genius 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.