PDA

View Full Version : Beason Holding out because of new clause


BlindSite
07-31-2007, 04:59 PM
Just wondering what you guys thought of this.

The Panthers FO is trying to put a clause in his contract saying basically "if you misbehave, we get our bonus money back"

Additionally, they're trying to **** his 2nd year option bonus, which is in all other rookie contracts, to the third year. Easing the FO cap situation, but also making Beason the lowest paid first rounder over the first two years.

Beason won't sign and I agree seeing as the front office won't pay him that option bonus for his third year if he say has a complete tear of his ACL in the final game of his 2nd year. This is about his financial security and the fact that everyone else in the league has the same deal.

He also probably doesn't like the Pacman clause (as I'm hereby dubbing it) seeing as he's got no real character issues and has been nothing outside of ecstatic about the prospect of playing for Carolina.

Fitzgerald11
07-31-2007, 05:02 PM
I agree with him holding out. He deserves a fair deal and he's not getting one.

Crazy_Chris
07-31-2007, 05:04 PM
Thats an Interesting Clause i wouldn't be too suprised to see teams use that sort of clause in contracts for people with a history of character problems... not sure why they want it in beasons contract though this looks like it could get ugly might be an extended hold-out

ShutDwn
07-31-2007, 05:05 PM
Worst part is, he just wants to play and sign a basic contract for his draft position.He has no desire to be in the middle of this. It really sucks for him.

Bills2083
07-31-2007, 05:50 PM
What off the field problems has he gotten himself into?

Turtlepower
07-31-2007, 05:57 PM
What off the field problems has he gotten himself into?

None and that is the problem. Maybe they are trying to lump him in with all of the other Miami players who were in the FIU brawl, but he really has done nothing to warrant the clause in his contract that the Panthers want him to sign.

PoopSandwich
07-31-2007, 06:07 PM
If he doesn't misbehave he has nothing to worry about!

Anyways, it is a crap clause and I guess I agree with him holding out, but he shouldn't have to worry about that clause :)

Watchman
07-31-2007, 06:11 PM
If he doesn't misbehave he has nothing to worry about!

Anyways, it is a crap clause and I guess I agree with him holding out, but he shouldn't have to worry about that clause :)

It is all about the risk associated with the contract. Seems like the player is taking on an unusual amount of risk when it comes to signing bonus money and the additional bonus money.

Why take on additional risk when it isn't the norm when it comes to rookie contracts?

skinzzfan25
07-31-2007, 08:09 PM
The NFLPA should step in. If he doesn't have a distinct criminal record, there is no reason why they should put that on him.

PalmerToCJ
07-31-2007, 08:30 PM
David Pollack held out till the final preseason game because there was a clause that said if he missed mini camp and other offseason stuff he could be fined, that was the main reason.

Smokey Joe
07-31-2007, 09:48 PM
I think all contracts should have that for all young players.

umphrey
07-31-2007, 10:51 PM
I think all contracts should have that for all young players.

If you ever get arrested your boss should take away 25% of your annual earnings.

Smokey Joe
07-31-2007, 11:38 PM
If you ever get arrested your boss should take away 25% of your annual earnings.
It would have to be more then that. More like if you act like Pacman.

NGSeiler
08-01-2007, 01:13 AM
The NFLPA should step in.

I think that would be a pretty dangerous precedent to set, having the player's association step in any time a player is unhappy about something the team is trying to put in a contract.

yourfavestoner
08-01-2007, 01:20 AM
I think that would be a pretty dangerous precedent to set, having the player's association step in any time a player is unhappy about something the team is trying to put in a contract.

Kinda like the dangerous precedents that Goodell has had no problem setting.

TheChampIsHere
08-01-2007, 02:48 AM
the argument that he should not have a problem with signing it with the clause because he is confident he wont have bad behavior just isnt fair because even if that isnt a major concern to him, why should he agree to it. He should hold out to get a fair deal and that means not letting the Panthers put clauses in there that protect themselves like that when that is not the way the business goes. Im dissapointing in CAR management for trying to pull this on Beason. Anyone think this might have something to do with him coming from Miami?

NGSeiler
08-01-2007, 09:08 AM
Kinda like the dangerous precedents that Goodell has had no problem setting.

Because two wrongs always end up making a right?

Ward
08-01-2007, 12:10 PM
Because two wrongs always end up making a right?

I wouldn't consider it "wrong" for my union to protect my rights to work and make a living free from unjust rules imposed by my place of business.

Watchman
08-01-2007, 12:11 PM
I think that would be a pretty dangerous precedent to set, having the player's association step in any time a player is unhappy about something the team is trying to put in a contract.

I think it depends on the situation. Just going by what has been posted in this thread it seems like the Panthers are attempting to include some clauses in a rookie contract which aren't the norm., and there is no evidence in the player's past behavior to warrant the clauses.

Again, it comes down to risk. Why should the player assume the additional risk when it isn't a standard practice in rookie contracts, and the player's background doesn't indicate a need for the additional behavior clauses.

Were the rest of the Panther's rookie contracts structured similarly? Were their free agent/player extensions structured with similar clauses?

JustJoe2k5
08-01-2007, 12:19 PM
I think it depends on the situation. Just going by what has been posted in this thread it seems like the Panthers are attempting to include some clauses in a rookie contract which aren't the norm., and there is no evidence in the player's past behavior to warrant the clauses.

Again, it comes down to risk. Why should the player assume the additional risk when it isn't a standard practice in rookie contracts, and the player's background doesn't indicate a need for the additional behavior clauses.

Were the rest of the Panther's rookie contracts structured similarly? Were their free agent/player extensions structured with similar clauses?

Can't be completely sure, but I doubt it. They also don't have the type of money they'll invest in Jon Beason invested in their other draft picks. I don't have a problem with the clause. With the money a team invests in a first-round pick, they should have the right to take that money back if the player isn't mature enough to handle the NFL lifestyle. Sure, he hasn't had any past issues. However, he also hasn't had millions of dollars at his fingertips. I'm not a troublemaker, but I can't honestly say that I would stay clean if I suddenly had millions of dollars to burn. As someone else also stated, he shouldn't worry about agreeing to the deal if he plans to keep his nose clean.

ShutDwn
08-01-2007, 01:41 PM
Can't be completely sure, but I doubt it. They also don't have the type of money they'll invest in Jon Beason invested in their other draft picks. I don't have a problem with the clause. With the money a team invests in a first-round pick, they should have the right to take that money back if the player isn't mature enough to handle the NFL lifestyle. Sure, he hasn't had any past issues. However, he also hasn't had millions of dollars at his fingertips. I'm not a troublemaker, but I can't honestly say that I would stay clean if I suddenly had millions of dollars to burn. As someone else also stated, he shouldn't worry about agreeing to the deal if he plans to keep his nose clean.

But he isn't going to have millions of dollars to burn. He isn't going to have 5 houses, and 5 cars and all those extravagant things. Unless you are really making money like Russel, he is going to be living in upper class and thats about it.

It isn't right that they are singling him out, if it were standard for the NFL it wouldn't be a problem I don't believe.

Giantsfan1080
08-01-2007, 02:01 PM
I don't really like the clause either but it should be no big deal. If he can go out, play football, and stay of trouble then he has nothing to worry about. As everyone said he's supposedly a real good kid so I'm sure he would be fine.

Dam8610
08-01-2007, 02:09 PM
Kinda like the dangerous precedents that Goodell has had no problem setting.

You must spread some reputation around before giving it to yourfavestoner again.

Watchman
08-01-2007, 02:12 PM
Can't be completely sure, but I doubt it. They also don't have the type of money they'll invest in Jon Beason invested in their other draft picks. I don't have a problem with the clause. With the money a team invests in a first-round pick, they should have the right to take that money back if the player isn't mature enough to handle the NFL lifestyle. Sure, he hasn't had any past issues. However, he also hasn't had millions of dollars at his fingertips. I'm not a troublemaker, but I can't honestly say that I would stay clean if I suddenly had millions of dollars to burn. As someone else also stated, he shouldn't worry about agreeing to the deal if he plans to keep his nose clean.


In my mind the "if he's going to stay out of trouble he has nothing to worry about" arguement doesn't hold any water. It is all about risk, contractual risk and injury risk. The player is being asked to expose himself to increased risk that isn't the norm for NFL contracts. If there was some evidence that Beason represents a greater risk in terms of getting into trouble with the law then the Panthers might be justified, but there doesn't appear to be (I don't know all that much about his background). Therefore, the Panthers are asking Beason to assume additional contractual risk with no justification. Because Pacman Jones, Chris Henry, or Tank Johnson got into trouble with the law doesn't represent justification for the Panthers to ask Beason to assume additional risk.

Now if the NFL and NFLPA had agreed that going forward this was going to be an established policy and requirement for rookie contracts that would strenghthen the Panther's position, but neither group has. If Beason's background raised enough red flags he wouldn't have been a 1st round pick regardless of talent (Marcus Thomas for example), and teams wouldn't have to make such a large investment. Clearly his background didn't, he was a 1st round pick, and that requires an investment by the team.

JustJoe2k5
08-01-2007, 02:36 PM
In my mind the "if he's going to stay out of trouble he has nothing to worry about" arguement doesn't hold any water. It is all about risk, contractual risk and injury risk. The player is being asked to expose himself to increased risk that isn't the norm for NFL contracts. If there was some evidence that Beason represents a greater risk in terms of getting into trouble with the law then the Panthers might be justified, but there doesn't appear to be (I don't know all that much about his background). Therefore, the Panthers are asking Beason to assume additional contractual risk with no justification. Because Pacman Jones, Chris Henry, or Tank Johnson got into trouble with the law doesn't represent justification for the Panthers to ask Beason to assume additional risk.

Now if the NFL and NFLPA had agreed that going forward this was going to be an established policy and requirement for rookie contracts that would strenghthen the Panther's position, but neither group has. If Beason's background raised enough red flags he wouldn't have been a 1st round pick regardless of talent (Marcus Thomas for example), and teams wouldn't have to make such a large investment. Clearly his background didn't, he was a 1st round pick, and that requires an investment by the team.

I don't think it is a reflection on the character of Jon Beason as much as it is a reflection of the Carolina Panthers. They value character as much as any team in the NFL, even before Goodell took over. I believe this clause would have been included in the contract regardless of who their first-round draft pick was. Some team needed to set a standard and I believe this is it. I wouldn't be surprised to see this picked up for all entry contracts next season. God forbid we put a little power back into the hands of the teams and the front offices when it comes to contracts.

Watchman
08-01-2007, 02:52 PM
I don't think it is a reflection on the character of Jon Beason as much as it is a reflection of the Carolina Panthers. They value character as much as any team in the NFL, even before Goodell took over. I believe this clause would have been included in the contract regardless of who their first-round draft pick was. Some team needed to set a standard and I believe this is it. I wouldn't be surprised to see this picked up for all entry contracts next season. God forbid we put a little power back into the hands of the teams and the front offices when it comes to contracts.

The teams have plenty of power when it comes to contracts. The NFL is the only major sport that doesn't have guaranteed contracts. What the Panthers are trying to do may become the norm for rookie contracts, but this isn't the way to establish what is the norm. And if the Panthers truely value character so much then it would be safe to assume that every rookie contract, contract extension, free agent contract was structured this way. I don't know if that is the case, but maybe it is.

If that is the case, or if that is going to be the Panthers' policy then Panther fans should be prepared for their team to miss out on free agents because the team is expecting players to assume contractual risk that no other team is. I'd applaud the Panthers organization if they went that rounte, I really would. But I also don't blame Beason for holding out because I think this is a rare instance (IMHO) where it is justified.

If this standard is going to be set it needs to be set by the NFL in conjunction with the NFLPA. It won't shock me if Beason signs though accepting the "if you keep your nose clean you have nothing to worry about" arguement.

Watchman
08-01-2007, 02:56 PM
I don't think it is a reflection on the character of Jon Beason as much as it is a reflection of the Carolina Panthers. They value character as much as any team in the NFL, even before Goodell took over.


Another thought:

If the Panthers as an organization are setting such a high standard for character I would assume that they would be especially critical when conducting due diligence on a player, and therefore would draft only high character players that met their standards. If that is the case it seems that the Panthers organization is now penalizing players that meet their high character standards by requiring them to assume increased contractual risk.

That doesn't make sense.

NGSeiler
08-01-2007, 03:44 PM
I wouldn't consider it "wrong" for my union to protect my rights to work and make a living free from unjust rules imposed by my place of business.

Perhaps, though I'm not sure I consider this clause as it's described to be worthy of the label of "unjust." A lot of it would depend on the language and the offenses that would trigger such a clause.

My original point, though, was that the union stepping into contractual negotiations over what a player perceives as an unsatisfactory stipulation in a contract could create a much larger - and potentially much more divisive and difficult - gray area in the future.

I also wouldn't think, given the current Vick situation, the Union has much interest arguing for a player's right to get in trouble and keep their bonus money. From a PR standpoint, that could be troublesome.

JustJoe2k5
08-01-2007, 04:11 PM
Another thought:

If the Panthers as an organization are setting such a high standard for character I would assume that they would be especially critical when conducting due diligence on a player, and therefore would draft only high character players that met their standards. If that is the case it seems that the Panthers organization is now penalizing players that meet their high character standards by requiring them to assume increased contractual risk.

That doesn't make sense.

Like I said, I don't think it is as much of a reflection on the player as it is on the team. I feel this clause would've been put in the contract whether it was Brady Quinn, Jon Beason, or LaRon Landry they drafted. You can never be completely sure a player that has stayed out of trouble in college will continue on that track in the NFL. Like I also said before, you don't know how certain people will handle the sudden fame and fortune that comes with a NFL contract. They do have some base to question his maturity, since he was a member of the "Seventh Floor Crew" and had a part in that rap they released.

I don't see why a team shouldn't be able to protect itself from the potential reckless actions of a player they drafted. If Jon Beason handles himself with class and stays out of trouble, this won't be an issue and he'll make his money. If he allows his fame and fortune to change him as a person, the team should have the right to ditch him without financial obligation. Every team takes a risk when they draft a player. You don't know which classy player will suddenly turn into a cancer and you don't know which troublemaker will suddenly turn into a team-player. The Panthers want to take a step to protect themselves from that type of change, which I can't really argue with.

Komp
08-01-2007, 04:22 PM
How about instead of punishing a player for bad behavoir, you include a clause/bonus for maintaining a good standing off the field? You attract more bees with honey.....

And Beason can't sign a bs clause like having to give back his bonus money. The whole point of bonus money is that no matter what happens [health, performance, behavoir, etc] it is YOUR money. Can the Raiders get money back from Gallery for sucking it up for the past 3 seasons? Can the Texans penalize Mario for not getting 10 sacks last year?

I hope he sticks to his guns and holds out. You never know when something can get out of hand [ex. Darrent Williams, RIP] and who is to decide if it is the players fault or not. If this becomes the norm expect a lot of players to get screwed out of money.

JustJoe2k5
08-01-2007, 04:24 PM
How about instead of punishing a player for bad behavoir, you include a clause/bonus for maintaining a good standing off the field? You attract more bees with honey.....

And Beason can't sign a bs clause like having to give back his bonus money. The whole point of bonus money is that no matter what happens [health, performance, behavoir, etc] it is YOUR money. Can the Raiders get money back from Gallery for sucking it up for the past 3 seasons? Can the Texans penalize Mario for not getting 10 sacks last year?

I hope he sticks to his guns and holds out. You never know when something can get out of hand [ex. Darrent Williams, RIP] and who is to decide if it is the players fault or not. If this becomes the norm expect a lot of players to get screwed out of money.

Pay people to act like they should? Hell, I'll sign up for that.

There is a major difference between on-the-field performance and off-the-field behavior. I expect that it will become standard practice in the NFL, I can't see how Roger Goodell would be against this move.

NGSeiler
08-01-2007, 04:37 PM
And Beason can't sign a bs clause like having to give back his bonus money. The whole point of bonus money is that no matter what happens [health, performance, behavoir, etc] it is YOUR money.

Yet in the fall of 2004, the Miami Dolphins won a grievance against Ricky Williams that required him to return $8.6 million of both bonus money and salary. An appeal to that ruling was upheld, as I recall.

Geo
08-01-2007, 04:47 PM
I don't know who or what came up with the idea of a "clause," but that's ignorant and wrong.

The Ashley Lelie ruling last year established that teams are not able to recoup money paid as option bonuses, in the event of default. And the Carolina Panthers, to their pathetic discredit, are steadfast in their refusal to include an option bonus in Beason's contract because of this.

The allocated rookie pool, which teams use to sign their drafted rookies, hasn't increased to near the same degree as the salary cap and (first round) rookie contracts in recent years, hence the proliferation of second-year option bonuses in place of signing bonuses. Second-year option bonuses have also helped teams in managing their cap.

As for what Carolina is offering, per ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2954857):

[Beason's agent Michael] Huyghue said the Panthers have instead offered a bonus in the third year, but that would be at the club's discretion and not guaranteed unless Beason meets certain performance incentives. Without a second-year option bonus, Huyghue said Beason's second-year salary would be the smallest of any first-round pick in the league.
That's not a third-year option bonus, that's worse in fact. And personally, I think it's a joke and the Panthers front office is coming off as a joke because of it. Beason just wants to sign a fair deal and play for the team.

That said, it's the discretion of the Panthers front office whether or not they want to include a second-year option bonus in their contract proposal, regardless of how many other first round picks have second-year option bonuses in their contracts.

Beason's only options at the moment are to:

(a) Sign the flawed deal the Panthers are sticking with.
(b) Continue to holdout.
(c) Sign a one-year tender at the rookie minimum.
(d) Sit out the entire season and enter the 2008 Draft.

Watchman
08-01-2007, 04:51 PM
Like I said, I don't think it is as much of a reflection on the player as it is on the team. I feel this clause would've been put in the contract whether it was Brady Quinn, Jon Beason, or LaRon Landry they drafted. You can never be completely sure a player that has stayed out of trouble in college will continue on that track in the NFL. Like I also said before, you don't know how certain people will handle the sudden fame and fortune that comes with a NFL contract. They do have some base to question his maturity, since he was a member of the "Seventh Floor Crew" and had a part in that rap they released.

I don't see why a team shouldn't be able to protect itself from the potential reckless actions of a player they drafted. If Jon Beason handles himself with class and stays out of trouble, this won't be an issue and he'll make his money. If he allows his fame and fortune to change him as a person, the team should have the right to ditch him without financial obligation. Every team takes a risk when they draft a player. You don't know which classy player will suddenly turn into a cancer and you don't know which troublemaker will suddenly turn into a team-player. The Panthers want to take a step to protect themselves from that type of change, which I can't really argue with.


First and foremost being a member of the Seventh Floor Crew is hardly cause to require a player to assume additional contractual risk. If that was such a concern, and the Panthers put such a premium on character, then why did they draft Beason?

Second, NFL contracts aren't guarantted so the signing bonus is the key component. Requiring a player to expose themselves to additional risk when it comes to their signing bonus isn't reasonable. The "keep your nose clean and no problem" arguement is really moot. Beason and his agent can just as easily say, "I've never been in trouble before, you did extensive due diligence before you drafted me, you should be satisfied that character isn't a concern." If you were in a situation where you had an non guaranteed employment contract, with front loaded money as security for the extremely dangerous job you were being asked to perform, wouldn't you want to limit the risk of losing that front loaded money?

Komp
08-01-2007, 05:03 PM
Yet in the fall of 2004, the Miami Dolphins won a grievance against Ricky Williams that required him to return $8.6 million of both bonus money and salary. An appeal to that ruling was upheld, as I recall.

So is it only considered bad behavoir if it forces you to sit out a season? What if you get a little rowdy at the strippers one night and grab a boob or something? Would a player have to hand back his rookie bonus than? "Good behavoir" is completely objectionable and you can't take BONUS money back on something that is objectionable, it has to be black and white.

SubNoize
08-01-2007, 05:07 PM
So is it only considered bad behavoir if it forces you to sit out a season? What if you get a little rowdy at the strippers one night and grab a boob or something? Would a player have to hand back his rookie bonus than? "Good behavoir" is completely objectionable and you can't take BONUS money back on something that is objectionable, it has to be black and white.

dude if you don't know by now that you can't touch during a lap dance unless she makes you touch, then yes you should lose your bonus money. that is the law in strip joints, no touching.

JustJoe2k5
08-01-2007, 05:10 PM
First and foremost being a member of the Seventh Floor Crew is hardly cause to require a player to assume additional contractual risk. If that was such a concern, and the Panthers put such a premium on character, then why did they draft Beason?

Second, NFL contracts aren't guarantted so the signing bonus is the key component. Requiring a player to expose themselves to additional risk when it comes to their signing bonus isn't reasonable. The "keep your nose clean and no problem" arguement is really moot. Beason and his agent can just as easily say, "I've never been in trouble before, you did extensive due diligence before you drafted me, you should be satisfied that character isn't a concern." If you were in a situation where you had an non guaranteed employment contract, with front loaded money as security for the extremely dangerous job you were being asked to perform, wouldn't you want to limit the risk of losing that front loaded money?

All he has to do to limit that risk is stay out of trouble. Is it that much of a burden to make the player responsible for his own actions and, in turn, how much money he'll make?

Again, I don't think this move was made in response to any action on Jon Beason's part. Outside of that stint with the "Seventh Floor Crew" his record was clean at Miami. However, you can't assume with ANY rookie that he'll act the same way in the NFL that he acted in college.

Jon Beason shouldn't take this contract personally, I think this is a clause that will become more common in the NFL in the future. Someone had to take that first step to make rookie players responsible for their actions once they enter the NFL, the Panthers were the team that took that first step. It could've just as easily been any other team with any other rookie. Just ask the Titans if they wouldn't support this type of move, or the Bengals, or the Bears.

Komp
08-01-2007, 05:15 PM
dude if you don't know by now that you can't touch during a lap dance unless she makes you touch, then yes you should lose your bonus money. that is the law in strip joints, no touching.

That is my whole point. I don't consider that bad behavoir at all. Rookies are going to make stupid mistakes just like any other young men would. They make more money than we ever will, but they are put in a position [money, fame etc] where it is very easy to make mistakes. The thought of taking $100,000's off a young man's income for being intoxicated, horny and young doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. The sheer embarassment of being kicked out of a strip joint and that making the news would be punishment enough in my books.

SchizophrenicBatman
08-01-2007, 05:38 PM
The reason the Panthers are doing this is, like Geo said, because of the Ashley Lelie ruling. They also were opposed to either the creation of option bonuses or some wording that was changed in them nine years ago, so there is some precedent for this.

That said, it's completely ridiculous that it's holding up the Beason contract. This is a guy we desperately need in camp because he's penciled in as the starting WLB and also needs to learn MLB in the very likely event Danica Morgan reinjures himself. I could somewhat understand it if Beason had any character concerns whatsoever, but he doesn't, in fact he seems an upstanding guy and was very articulate when asked about the hold out

Also, a minor foot note, but the Panthers put an option bonus in Steve Smith's new contract and that was written up after the Lelie ruling, so they really have no leg to stand on.

sodar21
08-01-2007, 10:28 PM
What off the field problems has he gotten himself into?

He went to Miami.

NGSeiler
08-01-2007, 10:31 PM
"Good behavoir" is completely objectionable

But I would imagine any such clause or criteria would have to be very well defined in the contract in terms of what does and doesn't qualify; otherwise as an agent, I wouldn't advise my client to agree to it.

Also, a minor foot note, but the Panthers put an option bonus in Steve Smith's new contract and that was written up after the Lelie ruling, so they really have no leg to stand on.

You don't think they felt as if they were comfortable with Smith's character having had him on the team for six years and might have felt such a clause was not required? Just playing a little devil's advocate here...

CARDIAC CAT 7
08-02-2007, 03:19 AM
Thats stupid on the Panthers Organization why would you waist a First Round Pick on a player your not even commited on. This is just poor management.

SchizophrenicBatman
08-02-2007, 04:32 AM
But I would imagine any such clause or criteria would have to be very well defined in the contract in terms of what does and doesn't qualify; otherwise as an agent, I wouldn't advise my client to agree to it.



You don't think they felt as if they were comfortable with Smith's character having had him on the team for six years and might have felt such a clause was not required? Just playing a little devil's advocate here...

Steve doesn't have a spotless past. He beat the **** out of a teammate in practice once and I think may have been at 2 strikes at one point in his career after he kicked a guy in a pre-season game. Certainly all of this is past him and he has matured the last three years, but it's still there.

A better argument would be that Smith is a superstar and Beason isn't. But Beason is a 1st round pick, he should at least be considered a potential star by the organization, which is why it's a ridiculous to pussyfoot around with him

marks01234
08-03-2007, 12:00 AM
All he has to do to limit that risk is stay out of trouble. Is it that much of a burden to make the player responsible for his own actions and, in turn, how much money he'll make?

Again, I don't think this move was made in response to any action on Jon Beason's part. Outside of that stint with the "Seventh Floor Crew" his record was clean at Miami. However, you can't assume with ANY rookie that he'll act the same way in the NFL that he acted in college.

Jon Beason shouldn't take this contract personally, I think this is a clause that will become more common in the NFL in the future. Someone had to take that first step to make rookie players responsible for their actions once they enter the NFL, the Panthers were the team that took that first step. It could've just as easily been any other team with any other rookie. Just ask the Titans if they wouldn't support this type of move, or the Bengals, or the Bears.

Why shouldn't he take it personally? He is the only NFL 1st round pick being subjected to this.

And the whole "If he has good character, it won't matter" excuse is BS. Consdering how bad behavior can now extend to things beyond legal matters, I don't blame him one bit. A professional athlete being accussed of something they didn't do has happened before and it will happen again.

SchizophrenicBatman
08-03-2007, 10:11 AM
Just wanted to update this and say apparently I was wrong about Smith's contract

http://www.heraldonline.com/news/sports/story/89041.html

If you read the story agent Rick Smith backs the Panthers up on this one, citing that other teams have their little contract nuances too, like the Cowboys not writing in escalator clauses

JustJoe2k5
08-03-2007, 11:07 AM
Every other report I've read, no one mentions the behavior clause in the signing bonus as the hold-up. It seems the lack of a second-year option is what Beason and his agent have a problem with.

Following a court ruling earlier this year that made it risky for teams to offer so-called second-year "option bonuses," the Panthers are refusing to offer one to Beason, said his agent, Michael Huyghue. He called it the main stumbling block between the club and Beason, who entered the third day of his holdout.

Huyghue said the sticking point isn't about money, but the way cash is distributed. The agent said the Panthers have refused to include a second-year option as part of Beason's guaranteed money. Huyghue said almost all other first-round picks who have signed have been given second-year options. Instead, he said, the Panthers are offering a bonus in the third year that would not be guaranteed and would be based on Beason reaching incentives.

Specifics have been few regarding the Beason situation, but this much we know -- the talks have broken down not over the amount of money he wants, but over when and how he gets it.

This year, many first-rounders have signed deals which include second-year option bonuses, and those are what the Panthers object to. They won't give them out -- and they haven't -- because they can no longer recoup any of them if the players holds out at a later date or othewise defaults on the deal.

Smith said other teams have similar policies. Dallas won't write a contract with escalator clauses, which raise future payments if players hit certain performance benchmarks.

Since option bonuses became perilous for teams, the Panthers have done five multi-year extensions or deals for free agents or their own players (Steve Smith, Jason Baker, David Carr, Jeremy Bridges and Nick Goings). None have option bonuses, according to multiple league sources.

Addict
08-03-2007, 11:20 AM
None and that is the problem. Maybe they are trying to lump him in with all of the other Miami players who were in the FIU brawl, but he really has done nothing to warrant the clause in his contract that the Panthers want him to sign.

or maybe they just want to prevent him from getting in trouble. You'll think a lot harder about doing questionable things when your contract depends on it. I think it's a great idea and should be adapted by ALL NFL teams. At least the RIGHT to immediately, without penalty cut a player who doesn't behave.

SchizophrenicBatman
08-03-2007, 11:34 AM
Every other report I've read, no one mentions the behavior clause in the signing bonus as the hold-up. It seems the lack of a second-year option is what Beason and his agent have a problem with.

I'm not even sure if there's a behavior clause in the contract, but the lack of their willingness to give Beason the option bonus is basically saying they want the cash back if he pulls a Pacman. The only other reason it'd be there is if they wanted the cash back if he pulled a Dan Morgan

BlindSite
08-03-2007, 04:31 PM
The behaviour clause is the same thing as the problem, its a clause allowing the Panthers to recoup part of his option bonus which won't be given till the third year.

Soure: WFNZ radio interview 1/8/07

JustJoe2k5
08-04-2007, 02:46 PM
Sounds like the Raiders have put the exact same clause in JaMarcus Russell's contract.

JustJoe2k5
08-04-2007, 04:56 PM
John Clayton just reported on ESPN Radio that Jon Beason has signed and is on a plane to Panthers' camp.

ShutDwn
08-04-2007, 06:19 PM
John Clayton just reported on ESPN Radio that Jon Beason has signed and is on a plane to Panthers' camp.

Signed huh? I had heard that he was on a plan there to talk to them, but I didn't know he was signed.

Good Deal. I hope both got what they wanted. Now, he can go and play. The Panthers need him to be ready.

Splat
08-04-2007, 06:45 PM
John Clayton just reported on ESPN Radio that Jon Beason has signed and is on a plane to Panthers' camp.

You sure?

Beason, agent to meet Panthers, talks heat up (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-panthers-beason&prov=ap&type=lgns)

ShutDwn
08-04-2007, 06:50 PM
You sure?

Beason, agent to meet Panthers, talks heat up (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-panthers-beason&prov=ap&type=lgns)

http://www.charlotte.com/panthers/story/224115.html

It is over. They will get him signed.

JustJoe2k5
08-04-2007, 09:51 PM
When people come to Charlotte, they don't leave without a contract. Just ask Keyshawn Johnson.

ShutDwn
08-04-2007, 11:13 PM
When people come to Charlotte, they don't leave without a contract. Just ask Keyshawn Johnson.

Well, we are notorious for overpaying free agents. ha..ha..

BlindSite
08-05-2007, 02:28 AM
We didn't really over pay anyone last year, except hartwig.

SchizophrenicBatman
08-05-2007, 03:04 PM
We overpayed Key too. And Kemoeatu's contract...I don't even know how that's defensible. That much cash for an average player

This contract is worth 3.5mil more overall than Anthony Spencer, the guy selected one spot after Beason. All because the Panthers don't like some dumb option bonus. Yea, we want to recoup losses! So we'll give the 25th pick a 6 million signing bonus!! The Lelie thing was only over like 200k

Marty Hurney is a terrible GM

BlindSite
08-05-2007, 09:25 PM
Kemoeatu isn't average. You just don't know whit about defensive tackles. He's a very good leverage player and has a great motor, he just tires quickly because he is a very sizeable guy, but Kemo played very well last year.