RE:Mike Vick case (Full Version)

All Forums >> [The Minnesota Vikings] >> General NFL Talk



Message

thebigo -> RE:Mike Vick case (10/13/2007 5:20:29 AM)

[quote="John Childress"]I disagree. This is selective enforcement. Teams have not gone after roster bonuses for guys caught with steroids. Not only that, it is overkill. Football already has the most pro-owner labor agreement in all of professional sports. Look at baseball and basketball. Owners not only can't go after signing bonuses they still have to pay those guaranteed salaries! Football players give up a good percentage of their healthy bodies to play this sport. They are betrayed by a corrupt union chief who is a shill for management. Screw the Falcons and all these owners. They want to make all of the profit in the world with no risk or downside. They paid Vick a bonus to come and play those years and he did. Deal with it[/quote] There's nothing for me to deal with really. Vick will have to deal with coughing up $20M to Atlanta though.



Guest -> RE:Mike Vick case (10/13/2007 6:03:44 AM)

Legally, and I'm certainly no expert, it sounds like thebigo is right. This could prove to be a very important case in terms of how the future of NFL contracts are written.



Easy E -> RE:Mike Vick case (10/13/2007 9:31:17 AM)

[quote="John Childress"]I disagree. This is selective enforcement. Teams have not gone after roster bonuses for guys caught with steroids. Not only that, it is overkill. Football already has the most pro-owner labor agreement in all of professional sports. Look at baseball and basketball. Owners not only can't go after signing bonuses they still have to pay those guaranteed salaries! Football players give up a good percentage of their healthy bodies to play this sport. They are betrayed by a corrupt union chief who is a shill for management. Screw the Falcons and all these owners. They want to make all of the profit in the world with no risk or downside. They paid Vick a bonus to come and play those years and he did. Deal with it[/quote] I agree with a lot of what you say, but the fact remains that Upshaw, who is corrupt and has sold out the very people he's supposed to represent, is still in charge. Because of that, the ones who have to 'deal with it' are the players he's screwed over. The owners get to treat bonuses as bonuses when it suits them, and as part of a long term salary when that helps them. They make players honor the contracts they sign, while holding the ability to tear that same contract up whenever it suits them and get out of paying the money. In a sport where the lifespan is the shortest, the players assume virtually all of the risk. On top of that, once the NFL grindhouse has used them up, they are given little in the way of security or medical support. Korey Stringer ended up losing his life playing in NFL mandated practices in ungodly weather, and the NFL told his family to go pee up a tree. This is almost entirely due to Upshaw completely screwing the players, and yet they put up with it.



Lynn G. -> RE:Mike Vick case (10/13/2007 9:32:10 AM)

I've never heard it broken down, but if the roster bonus was for a four year contract (for example), I would assume he's only entitled to the portion of which he actually played. If he played one year of a four year contract, I would assume he'd be able to keep one fourth of the bonus but have to give back three fourths. Have the articles ever broken it down like that?



Todd M -> RE:Mike Vick case (10/13/2007 1:38:53 PM)

Pit Bulls From Vick Case Saved From Death Richmond, Virginia (October 4th 2007) Nearly all of the remaining pit bulls that were seized from the home of suspended Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick have placement potential according to a motion filed in US District Court. The motion states that just one of the dogs should be euthanized, citing that it has a history of biting people. Extensive behavioral testing has been carried out on all the dogs seized from Vick's property in rural Surry County, Virginia. This testing was carried out around the 5th of September by a team of animal experts assembled by the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. The dogs were placed into five categories ranging from could be rehabilitated and eventually be adopted to euthanasia for dogs exhibiting intense aggression toward people or suffering from a significant medical condition. The categories also include one for dogs that could potentially be placed in specialized training for law enforcement work, and Sanctuary I and Sanctuary II for dogs that either exhibit fear toward people and need to be socialized under supervision, to dogs that react mildly to intensely to stimulus and require more extensive help. Dogs requiring sanctuary would not necessarily be on track for adoption, ASPCA spokesman Shonali Burke said, but placed somewhere to live out their lives humanely. The motion does not say how many dogs were placed in each category other than to suggest that one, identified as No. 2621, is an immediate candidate for euthanasia because its aggression toward humans made a complete examination unsafe. The motion also requests that the court appoint a guardian-special master to oversee the disposition and possible placement of the 48 remaining dogs. This motion will now go before US District Judge Henry Hudson, who is handling the dog-fighting case against Vick. The dogs have been held in local animal shelters since they were seized. Vick and three co-defendants pleaded guilty to federal dog-fighting charges and are to be sentenced before the end of the year. They each face up to five years in prison.[/b Losing only 1 of the 49 is way beyond any best case scenario that I imagined. I bet that number goes up a few but even still I had just assumed they all would have been euthanized.



Guest -> RE:Mike Vick case (10/13/2007 4:31:51 PM)

If any of these dogs are adopted out to people, future tragedy and lawsuits will follow, I guarantee it. In fact, some one somewhere is plotting to get one of these dogs, right now, to create an "incident" that will result in a lawsuit. I hope no death results, but you never know. Paranoia? Try greed and human nature.



thebigo -> RE:Mike Vick case (10/13/2007 5:40:25 PM)

[quote="Lynn G."]I've never heard it broken down, but if the roster bonus was for a four year contract (for example), I would assume he's only entitled to the portion of which he actually played. If he played one year of a four year contract, I would assume he'd be able to keep one fourth of the bonus but have to give back three fourths. Have the articles ever broken it down like that?[/quote] The guy still makes out like a bandit. He still get to keep almost half ($17M+) of the bonus money they paid him, bizarrely enough including over $4M of bonuses paid him for the 2007 season! http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/falcons/2007-10-09-vick-bonus_N.htm



thebigo -> RE:Mike Vick case (10/13/2007 5:55:02 PM)

So is Gene Upshaw serving a lifetime appointment as the Head Of NFL Players Union?



John Childress -> RE:Mike Vick case (10/13/2007 8:18:47 PM)

UPSHAW is a criminal. The players are stupid for keeping him around. Vick got a fair deal and so did the Falcons. Vick keeps money that he earned and he will serve his time. No, he should not have to repay money he earned in the past because his illegal activities had nothing to do with his job. This is not a case like insider trading or faking company financial records to increase your bonus. He didn't even bet on NFL football. decent deal all around



Lynn G. -> RE:Mike Vick case (10/13/2007 8:50:39 PM)

quote:

his illegal activities had nothing to do with his job.
No, but apparently they violated the morals clause in the contract he signed. He knew before the ink dried on his contract that he had already violated that clause.



John Childress -> RE:Mike Vick case (10/14/2007 1:07:25 PM)

[quote="Lynn G."]
quote:

his illegal activities had nothing to do with his job.
No, but apparently they violated the morals clause in the contract he signed. He knew before the ink dried on his contract that he had already violated that clause.True, and for that he should be suspended or expelled from the league. But to take past compensation away usually you have to prove that he earned that compensation BECAUSE of illegal activity. For example, the Enron guys who cooked the books are liable for paying bonus money back because of those cooked books. I think that his MJ test is going to close the door on him ever coming back to the NFL anyway.



thebigo -> RE:Mike Vick case (10/20/2007 5:45:11 PM)

[quote="John Childress"][quote="Lynn G."]
quote:

his illegal activities had nothing to do with his job.
No, but apparently they violated the morals clause in the contract he signed. He knew before the ink dried on his contract that he had already violated that clause.True, and for that he should be suspended or expelled from the league. But to take past compensation away usually you have to prove that he earned that compensation BECAUSE of illegal activity. For example, the Enron guys who cooked the books are liable for paying bonus money back because of those cooked books. I think that his MJ test is going to close the door on him ever coming back to the NFL anyway. But it's not past compensation. He was in violation of the contract the second he signed it. Just because it wasn't known at the time, doesn't change that fact. He does still get paid for the work he performed i.e. his salary.



John Childress -> RE:Mike Vick case (10/20/2007 8:40:32 PM)

[quote="thebigo"][quote="John Childress"][quote="Lynn G."]
quote:

his illegal activities had nothing to do with his job.
No, but apparently they violated the morals clause in the contract he signed. He knew before the ink dried on his contract that he had already violated that clause.True, and for that he should be suspended or expelled from the league. But to take past compensation away usually you have to prove that he earned that compensation BECAUSE of illegal activity. For example, the Enron guys who cooked the books are liable for paying bonus money back because of those cooked books. I think that his MJ test is going to close the door on him ever coming back to the NFL anyway. But it's not past compensation. He was in violation of the contract the second he signed it. Just because it wasn't known at the time, doesn't change that fact. He does still get paid for the work he performed i.e. his salary.SO were all the guys over the years who took steroids and no team ever went after their bonus. Unequal enforcement People need to get over Vick



thebigo -> RE:Mike Vick case (10/20/2007 9:16:59 PM)

[quote="John Childress"][quote="thebigo"][quote="John Childress"][quote="Lynn G."]
quote:

his illegal activities had nothing to do with his job.
No, but apparently they violated the morals clause in the contract he signed. He knew before the ink dried on his contract that he had already violated that clause.True, and for that he should be suspended or expelled from the league. But to take past compensation away usually you have to prove that he earned that compensation BECAUSE of illegal activity. For example, the Enron guys who cooked the books are liable for paying bonus money back because of those cooked books. I think that his MJ test is going to close the door on him ever coming back to the NFL anyway. But it's not past compensation. He was in violation of the contract the second he signed it. Just because it wasn't known at the time, doesn't change that fact. He does still get paid for the work he performed i.e. his salary.SO were all the guys over the years who took steroids and no team ever went after their bonus. Unequal enforcement People need to get over Vick I don't know that their has ever been rock solid evidence that a player has intentionally taken steroids. Vick pled guilty and laid out all the details of his long standing and ongoing criminal activities. These are all facts.



Lynn G. -> RE:Mike Vick case (10/20/2007 9:26:18 PM)

I'm not sure why people "need" to get over him. First of all, his name hardly ever comes up anymore, so it's not like he's still the source of daily conversation. But in addition, he committed a long series of vicious and vile crimes. What exactly is the time limit in which you're allowed to talk about that? It hasn't even been two months since his plea.



John Childress -> RE:Mike Vick case (10/21/2007 2:58:30 PM)

[quote="thebigo"][quote="John Childress"][quote="thebigo"][quote="John Childress"][quote="Lynn G."]
quote:

his illegal activities had nothing to do with his job.
No, but apparently they violated the morals clause in the contract he signed. He knew before the ink dried on his contract that he had already violated that clause.True, and for that he should be suspended or expelled from the league. But to take past compensation away usually you have to prove that he earned that compensation BECAUSE of illegal activity. For example, the Enron guys who cooked the books are liable for paying bonus money back because of those cooked books. I think that his MJ test is going to close the door on him ever coming back to the NFL anyway. But it's not past compensation. He was in violation of the contract the second he signed it. Just because it wasn't known at the time, doesn't change that fact. He does still get paid for the work he performed i.e. his salary.SO were all the guys over the years who took steroids and no team ever went after their bonus. Unequal enforcement People need to get over Vick I don't know that their has ever been rock solid evidence that a player has intentionally taken steroids. Vick pled guilty and laid out all the details of his long standing and ongoing criminal activities. These are all facts. I think being suspended for steroid use is rock solid! Are you serious?



thebigo -> RE:Mike Vick case (10/21/2007 5:37:42 PM)

[quote="John Childress"][quote="thebigo"][quote="John Childress"][quote="thebigo"][quote="John Childress"][quote="Lynn G."]
quote:

his illegal activities had nothing to do with his job.
No, but apparently they violated the morals clause in the contract he signed. He knew before the ink dried on his contract that he had already violated that clause.True, and for that he should be suspended or expelled from the league. But to take past compensation away usually you have to prove that he earned that compensation BECAUSE of illegal activity. For example, the Enron guys who cooked the books are liable for paying bonus money back because of those cooked books. I think that his MJ test is going to close the door on him ever coming back to the NFL anyway. But it's not past compensation. He was in violation of the contract the second he signed it. Just because it wasn't known at the time, doesn't change that fact. He does still get paid for the work he performed i.e. his salary.SO were all the guys over the years who took steroids and no team ever went after their bonus. Unequal enforcement People need to get over Vick I don't know that their has ever been rock solid evidence that a player has intentionally taken steroids. Vick pled guilty and laid out all the details of his long standing and ongoing criminal activities. These are all facts. I think being suspended for steroid use is rock solid! Are you serious? The NFL suspends players for steroid use if they fail a test, I've never seen proof of intent. Intent is probably there in almost all cases, but legal proof is almost always lacking. I'm pretty sure everyone suspended for steroid use actually accidently got it from taking cold medicine. Besides policy with regards to the usage of steroids and uncontrolled substances is all governed with strict guidelines by the CBA, allowing little or no wiggle room by management/ownership.



John Childress -> RE:Mike Vick case (10/22/2007 3:25:58 PM)

You are really reaching on that one. Those players knowingly took steroids in direct violation of their contracts. What they did is WORSE than Vick because it directly affects the integrity of the game. Again, no consistency



Duane Sampson -> RE:Mike Vick case (10/24/2007 11:55:17 PM)

Vick Associate Pleads Guilty to Federal Dogfighting Charge Wed Oct 24, 2007 AP reports a man who sold a champion pit bull to suspended Atlanta Falcons QB Michael Vick's dogfighting operation pleaded guilty Wednesday to a federal dogfighting charge. Oscar Allen entered the plea to conspiracy to travel in interstate commerce to aid in illegal gambling and to sponsor a dog in animal fighting - the same charge to which Vick and his three co-defendants in the Bad Newz Kennels operation pleaded guilty. Vick is expected to be sentenced in December. The 67-year-old Allen, who lives in the Williamsburg area, is to be sentenced Jan. 25, 2008. He faces a maximum punishment of five years in prison, a $250,000 fine and three years' supervised release. He was released with conditions, including a prohibition on buying or selling any dogs. U.S. Attorney Michael Gill recommended that Allen spend no time in prison if he complies with conditions of the plea agreement because Allen cooperated with the investigation, had no prior criminal record and had limited involvement with Bad Newz Kennels. But U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson said he isn't bound by that recommendation, and must take into account federal sentencing guidelines in the case. As part of his plea, Allen admitted in a statement that he sold a female pit bull named Jane in 2001 to Bad Newz Kennels in rural Surry County, and traveled with Vick's dogfighting associates to Jane's fights.



thebigo -> RE:Mike Vick case (11/1/2007 6:05:11 AM)

[quote="John Childress"]You are really reaching on that one. Those players knowingly took steroids in direct violation of their contracts. What they did is WORSE than Vick because it directly affects the integrity of the game. Again, no consistency[/quote] This you know, how? Because you say so?



John Childress -> RE:Mike Vick case (11/1/2007 1:04:55 PM)

[quote="thebigo"][quote="John Childress"]You are really reaching on that one. Those players knowingly took steroids in direct violation of their contracts. What they did is WORSE than Vick because it directly affects the integrity of the game. Again, no consistency[/quote] This you know, how? Because you say so?[/quote]ummm, because they FAIL their steroid tests! duh



Trekgeekscott -> RE:Mike Vick case (11/1/2007 3:24:13 PM)

[quote="John Childress"][quote="thebigo"][quote="John Childress"]You are really reaching on that one. Those players knowingly took steroids in direct violation of their contracts. What they did is WORSE than Vick because it directly affects the integrity of the game. Again, no consistency[/quote] This you know, how? Because you say so?[/quote]ummm, because they FAIL their steroid tests! duh[/quote] And knowingly violating federal and state laws doesn't affect the integrity of the game? It may not be direct, but it does affect the game's integrity to have this guy (and any like him) not suspended or punished in some way by the league. This whole Michael Vick case was embarrassing to the league and to the Atlanta Falcons. That affects the game's integrity. and most contracts have behavioral clauses in them as well.



John Childress -> RE:Mike Vick case (11/1/2007 3:25:37 PM)

[quote="Trekgeekscott"][quote="John Childress"][quote="thebigo"][quote="John Childress"]You are really reaching on that one. Those players knowingly took steroids in direct violation of their contracts. What they did is WORSE than Vick because it directly affects the integrity of the game. Again, no consistency[/quote] This you know, how? Because you say so?[/quote]ummm, because they FAIL their steroid tests! duh[/quote] And knowingly violating federal and state laws doesn't affect the integrity of the game? It may not be direct, but it does affect the game's integrity to have this guy (and any like him) not suspended or punished in some way by the league. This whole Michael Vick case was embarrassing to the league and to the Atlanta Falcons. That affects the game's integrity. and most contracts have behavioral clauses in them as well.[/quote]You are making my point If you go after Vick's bonus money then all the steroid users should have to pay their bonus money back also. Steroids affects the game's integrity a lot more than Vick unless he taking dogs with him on the field!



Guest -> RE:Mike Vick case (11/1/2007 5:05:41 PM)

integrity 1. adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character; honesty. 2. the state of being whole, entire, or undiminished: to preserve the integrity of the empire. The following is my opinion: definition1: This definition is subject to personal interpretation or subjugated to social norms. Every one of the key terms is subjective. Every individual has a set of biased, interpretive, views. No one can be always right, only subjectivly judgemental. Subjective judgement does not enhance, nor deminish an individuals POV. To dispute another person's "integrity" based on subjective interpretation is flawed and simply a manipulative excuse to create strife. no, I'm not asking for discussion, simply stating an opinionated observation. This has nothing to do with anyone who ever used the word integrity.



John Childress -> RE:Mike Vick case (11/1/2007 5:55:24 PM)

What is the standard for taking someone's back pay? That they knowingly violated the rules of the NFL when signing the contract and/or when peforming in those back years? If that is the standard then a lot of guys need to pay money back, not just Vick. This society gets sick in its prosecution of some individuals, usually Black men, while others get off relatively free. Look at the 10 year hatred of OJ. Do you see anywhere near that level of hatred for Robert Blake who also may have killed his wife and got off? Where is the prosecution and hatred for Blackwater - killers of scores of innocent women and children? You can have 6 months of coverage over dog killings and just a brief mention of men who gun down unarmed civilians? the hypocrisy laced with double standards is mind blowing.



Page: <<   < prev  18 19 [20] 21 22   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5.5 Unicode