1. Welcome to San Diego Chargers NFL Football Podcast and Forum!

    Bolt Talk is one of the largest online communities for the San Diego Chargers. We host a regular Chargers podcast during the season. You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Create an Account or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!
    Dismiss Notice

Ruling on Vincent Jackson could be coming within a week

Discussion in 'Chargers Fan Forum' started by CoronaDoug, Sep 8, 2010.

  1. CoronaDoug

    CoronaDoug Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2007
    Messages:
    7,539
    Ratings:
    +814
    Ruling on Vincent Jackson could be coming within a week

    Posted by Mike Florio on September 8, 2010 4:37 PM ET
    The NFLPA has asked Special Master Stephen Burbank to resolve whether the Chargers' placement of receiver Vincent Jackson on the roster exempt list transfers to his new team, if/when he's trade, which would knock Jackson out for the first six weeks of the season. Kevin Acee of the San Diego Union-Tribune reports that that matter could be resolved by Burbank within the next week.

    The NFL believes that the three-week roster exemption attaches to the three-week substance-abuse suspension, since Jackson cannot "report" to the Chargers or any other team while serving his three-game suspension. The union believes that the placement on the roster exempt list does not follow Jackson to his next team, if/when he's traded.

    Working in the player's favor is the fact that Burbank and his boss, U.S. District Judge David Doty, have a history of siding with the union. At one point, the situation became so bad that the NFL tried to have Doty disqualified as the judicial officer overseeing the Collective Bargaining Agreement, which in actuality is the settlement agreement reached in the class-action antitrust lawsuit filed against the league after the failed 1987 strike.

    If Jackson and the union prevail, the Chargers could then continue to talk with the team that reportedly struck a one-year deal with Jackson on Saturday, but that was unable to work out terms of compensation with the Chargers. Acee reports that neither the Rams nor the Seahawks were the unknown team that had a deal in place with Jackson's agents, but Acee believes it was an NFC team. (The Redskins and Vikings would be the prime candidates, in our view.)

    So stay tuned. Jackson could be playing for someone else as soon as Week Four, or possibly by Week Seven. Either way, it's looking more and more likely that he'll never play for the Chargers again.

    Ruling on Vincent Jackson could be coming within a week | ProFootballTalk.com
     
  2. scratchnz

    scratchnz BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2009
    Messages:
    1,077
    Ratings:
    +91
    Good! Get rid of him already!!
     
  3. markrc99

    markrc99 BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2010
    Messages:
    141
    Ratings:
    +2
    "Acee reports that neither the Rams nor the Seahawks were the unknown team that had a deal in place with Jackson's agents, but Acee believes it was an NFC team. (The Redskins and Vikings would be the prime candidates, in our view.)"

    Course, if memory serves, Acee didn't exactly report Jackson's roster exempt status as a "to be determined" circumstance.
     
  4. chargerlipz

    chargerlipz Leading the league in nose hairs.

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    749
    Ratings:
    +151
    Screw Jackson, he's a putz. I want to know what's going on with Marcus McNeil.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Enormo

    Enormo BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2007
    Messages:
    1,216
    Ratings:
    +210
    Seriously. For every 10 VJ articles there is one McNeil mention. McNeil is every bit as important to this team as VJ. Probably even more important.
     
  6. wrbanwal

    wrbanwal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    9,707
    Ratings:
    +1,036
    I think no news is good news on MM. We take care of VJackoff thn MM gets sign long term

    mark it down
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. CoronaDoug

    CoronaDoug Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2007
    Messages:
    7,539
    Ratings:
    +814
  8. ThunderHorse17

    ThunderHorse17 Lone Wolf

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,327
    Ratings:
    +341
    VJ to TB!! Why cant they buy a big name receiver... I kno my boy Freeman could use a good target.
     
  9. foober

    foober BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    2,980
    Ratings:
    +200
    to be honest. All I care about with jackson is if we can get a 2nd rounder for him in a trade to get a good o-tackle or d-lineman in next years draft.
     
  10. Lancer 1

    Lancer 1 Eternal Optimist

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2006
    Messages:
    1,088
    Ratings:
    +341
    No matter which way the ruling goes, the Chargers are still holding all the “face cards” with regards to VJ….even if it is decided that the roster exempt status would not follow him to another team, it isn’t written anywhere that we absolutely have to trade him before that 6th game anyway, because the longer he sits, the less value he has to his prospective “next team”, at least for this season.

    He would not garner us as much in exchange, but we could still control exactly where he goes and he would also have less time to prove himself worthy of a big money, long term contract extension. His new GM would basically be going on what he did in San Diego, DUIs and all.
     
  11. Trumpet_Man

    Trumpet_Man Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2006
    Messages:
    18,996
    Ratings:
    +654
    My guess is that the roster exemption does not apply to the acquiring team.

    The team who acquires VJ will have to ask and be granted a roster exemption (which is not a 3 game suspension) for VJ from the NFL anyway since the 53 man roster is set. When the roster exemption is granted, the acquiring team will ask how many weeks they need (typically 1-2 weeks) so that the player has a chance to get up to speed and the roster does not have to be immediately shaken up.

    I do not see how the Chargers roster exemption suspension would convey to another team since it would be Chargers specific.

    VJ wins this one.
     
  12. Lancer 1

    Lancer 1 Eternal Optimist

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2006
    Messages:
    1,088
    Ratings:
    +341
    Not if we decide not to move him until the trading deadline, or just hold on to him and make him play for us this season, or not at all!
     
  13. DenverBolt67

    DenverBolt67 BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2010
    Messages:
    5,482
    Ratings:
    +629
    So it is better for the Chargers to not get squat just so VJ doesn't 'win'?
     
  14. PhillyChargerFan

    PhillyChargerFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    1,961
    Ratings:
    +288
    Just get rid of him already, this has gone on WAY TOO long.....
     
  15. Retired Catholic

    Retired Catholic BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2006
    Messages:
    7,894
    Ratings:
    +347
    They could have done MM already, VJ is immaterial to that situation-except for PR purposes. Can't figure out his stance on McNeil. Might have made sense if several other teams hadn't inked long term deals to players in the meantime. Just pay the guy what he's worth and have done with it.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Trumpet_Man

    Trumpet_Man Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2006
    Messages:
    18,996
    Ratings:
    +654
    VJ still wins because the Chargers will "most likely" franchise tag him next year.

    That is $11 million for one year.

    VJ was offered a $3.2 million tender which was reduced to $300k or something like that.

    "If" VJ signs a franchise tender next year, he will make and average of $5.5 million this year and next.

    VJ wins and no risk of injury this year.

    VJ's next long term contract which will eventually happen somewhere & as I said, VJ wins again.
     
  17. markrc99

    markrc99 BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2010
    Messages:
    141
    Ratings:
    +2
    Trumpet Man says the Chargers do want these players and there's ample evidence to support that premise. But equally overwhelming is the fact that they want them at a very cheap price. Look at the reference cited on the main board pertaining to the deal Miles Austin just got. I don't care how many times Smith or Spanos lies about their offer, it doesn't make it true. They did NOT offer some maximum allowed under the CBA, and if you look at Spanos recent statement, he actually isn't saying that, but that's the perception a number of fans have. They offered Jackson the bare minimum! When he didn't sign, the hot second they were able, they greatly reduced their tender offer. And as DenverBolt recently noted, players don't gain leverage by signing then start negotiating. Here's a Q&A between Smith's publicist, Kevin Acee and the sheepdom:

    Q: "Hey Kevin, there is a screen name craxie, who is claiming that you specifically said that "VJ was never in the chargers long term future" he has said this in 100+ posts claiming these are your words which you got directly from AJ Smith. I think he may have been confused to what you actually said."

    A: "Well I did not say that AJ Smith told me anything, and I did not say VJ was never in the Chargers' plans ... He was being monitored until the incident the day of the playoff game. At that point, and in the subsequent findings by the Chargers about Jackson driving on a suspended license, he was ruled out as someone they would give a long-term deal to."

    Q: "Do you know what the Chargers were offered for VJ that we turned down and who the mystery team was that made the offer?"

    A: "I do not. I do not know if the Chargers countered. I am told it was an NFC team and a one-year deal. Now, while I certainly think the Chargers should trade Jackson, you must consider that whatever that team was offering couldn't have been much considering they would essentially be renting Jackson." Chargers Mailbag


    Now, I extracted just a few of the questions from that dialog that pertained to our discussion. If Acee can be trusted at some degree, and I consider that a stretch, then Jackson isn't a player the Chargers ever had any intention of bringing in this year. Of course, this doesn't explain why McNeill is being treated exactly the same. Again, not with an absolute degree of certainty, but these teams interested in Jackson know that the Chargers have no intention of signing him. In my view, this was their big mistake. They needed to offer something competitive, something that could lure Jackson as a last resort. And I don't believe that figure needed to be anywhere near $10M!
     
  18. CoronaDoug

    CoronaDoug Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2007
    Messages:
    7,539
    Ratings:
    +814
    Vincent Jackson hearing coming on September 16

    Posted by Mike Florio on September 9, 2010 11:13 PM ET
    The NFL believes that the placement of Chargers receiver Vincent Jackson on the roster exempt list knocks him out of the first six games of the regular season, even if he is traded. The NFL Players Association believes that a trade removes Jackson from the roster exempt list, cutting his unavailability in half.

    A league source tells us that the matter will be resolved via a hearing held on September 16.

    The issue will be resolved by Special Master Stephen Burbank, who has the initial authority to resolve certain disputes under the labor agreement. An expedited ruling is expected to be made after the hearing.

    Jackson's agents have said that an unnamed and, for now, unknown team had worked out a one-year contract with Jackson on Saturday, but that the Chargers and the unnamed team could not work out the terms of a trade. Presumably, that team would remain interested in trading for Jackson, if it's determined that he'd miss only three games of the season, the duration of his suspension for multiple DUI guilty pleas.
    Vincent Jackson hearing coming on September 16 | ProFootballTalk.com
     
  19. CoronaDoug

    CoronaDoug Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2007
    Messages:
    7,539
    Ratings:
    +814
    Looks like the Vikings could really use him.
     
  20. CoronaDoug

    CoronaDoug Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2007
    Messages:
    7,539
    Ratings:
    +814
    “They have put themselves in this position,” Spanos said of Jackson and McNeill. “We did not put them in this position … We tendered them the highest possible offer we could, which was $3.2 or $3.3 million, which far exceeded their previous four years salaries collectively. They had 2½ months to go out and find a team to play for. They didn’t, or couldn’t. They elected at the end of 2½ months to not sign the tender. That’s the end of the story.

    “It was a business decision they made. I wish they were here, I wish they were playing for us. I believe they need to sign the tenders and come in and see what happens after that.”

    Dean
     
  21. Trumpet_Man

    Trumpet_Man Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2006
    Messages:
    18,996
    Ratings:
    +654
    If you would have taken the time to read the CBA and which has been quoted a bazillion times, you would know with the rest of the civilized world of football that a 1st and 3rd tender maxes out what a player can get in salary as prescribed in the CBA. A 1st round tender pays the player less money etc etc.

    The ONLY way to pay a tender higher than what was offered and collectively agreed upon (which means you need to read the CBA and stop being lazy) is to apply the transition tag or the franchise tag. One tag pays the average of the top 10 players in the NFL at that spot and the other tag pays the player the average of what the top 5 players get at that spot. That is also spelled out in the CBA but you need to read it for yourself.

    There was another website which had the CBA and a glossary to make it easier to find stuff but I can not find that website. Oh well.
     
  22. markrc99

    markrc99 BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2010
    Messages:
    141
    Ratings:
    +2
    Trumpet Man:

    I made two points: one was to refute ... well, considering the source, to dispute your contention that Jackson was a player the Chargers intended on bringing back. Accordingly, as far back as January they knew where they were with Jackson. Secondly, my understanding is that under the CBA, a RFA has to be tendered at the very least, a structured increase. The Chargers tendered the minimum that would afford them the highest level of compensation. However, their tender has absolutely nothing to do with what they could've and should've offered him. But of course, we now know how long they've known they never had any intention to do so!
     
  23. Trumpet_Man

    Trumpet_Man Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2006
    Messages:
    18,996
    Ratings:
    +654
    The 1st and 3rd draft pick compensation which comes with a $3.2 million tender is the HIGHEST you can offer a RFA.

    The tender has everything to do with "what the team should have done"

    Anything MORE in money requires a LONG TERM CONTRACT (or one year) and not a tender as outlined in the CBA.

    The Chargers are NOT OBLIGATED TO OFFER LONG TERM CONTRACTS TO RFA'S and that is what you are suggesting.
     
  24. markrc99

    markrc99 BoltTalker

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2010
    Messages:
    141
    Ratings:
    +2
    Trumpet Man:

    I did not suggest in any way the Chargers are obligated to offer Jackson anything. It's my opinion that they should've, but you've misrepresented that as implying the same thing. Dude, your 3rd sentence contradicts your first sentence. The Chargers aren't restricted in any way from compensating Vincent Jackson at a level commensurate with a player of his ability. Guess why you're not providing the evidence for all to see? Guh-goying...
     
  25. Trumpet_Man

    Trumpet_Man Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2006
    Messages:
    18,996
    Ratings:
    +654
    Mark -

    The first sentence and third sentence make perfect sense if you know how this works. Seriously. What I posted is dead nuts with respect to the tenders. There is a pre-set or pre-agreed upon scale for RFA tenders outlined in the CBA.

    Ok .... because you are too lazy to look up the tenders by doing a simple google search, I will spend the next few minutes getting links to what you seek as "proof" ..... ding ding ding ... school is in.....stand by
     
  26. Trumpet_Man

    Trumpet_Man Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2006
    Messages:
    18,996
    Ratings:
    +654
    NFL Collective Bargaining Agreement 2006-2012

    In all fairness, that link I gave you before for the CBA sucked and was the first one I thought would be handy. I myself saw it had no index and I thought **** and then I found this link above indexed.

    Tab to page 74 in the index. You will see a small box with 371 pages at the top of the document browser which will allow you to rapidy change the pages (get to page 74). Read. Your answer lies on page 74 and into page 75 and PAGE 76 is GOLD. 1st and 3rd tender scale. Read em and weep.

    Who is your daddy now?
     
  27. HEXEDBOLT

    HEXEDBOLT Don't like it, lump it!!!

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Messages:
    14,280
    Ratings:
    +1,886
    It's funny that no NFL teams have tried to work a serious deal out for VJ. I don't believe V Jackoffson's agent's about the "Mystery" team deal, sounds to much like a boo-hoo story to me.
     
  28. Trumpet_Man

    Trumpet_Man Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2006
    Messages:
    18,996
    Ratings:
    +654
    This is correct. The player has the option of accepting 110% of his prior years salary or his tender (whichever is greater). The $3.168 million dollar tender offered the players was indeed a structured increase in base salaries from the prior year. Read into page 77 and you will see the proof in the pudding as they say with respect to increases.

    If you do not know how the tender system works and what that means (reads they all agreed upon it COLLECTIVELY) as fair compensation for RFA's, then you would be lost to follow the logic and hence why you think I am contradicting myself.

    The Chargers offered the maximum allowable under the CBA unless you talk tag or long term contract.

    To suggest we could have offered more than what we did under the rules of the game without it being a new contract is basically ignorant.
     
  29. Trumpet_Man

    Trumpet_Man Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2006
    Messages:
    18,996
    Ratings:
    +654
    NFL Collective Bargaining Agreement 2006-2012

    This is the link for the NFL's Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) for fans who are a glutton for pain.

    Unfortunately, I have read this CBA thing from end to end a few times which makes me a freaking GOD and GURU of the CBA so Mark needs to beg forgivness or I will jack his **** up. :icon_twisted:
     
  30. Trumpet_Man

    Trumpet_Man Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2006
    Messages:
    18,996
    Ratings:
    +654
    Page 166 & 167 of the CBA has the language which shows VJ's roster exemption is applicable to HIS CLUB.

    Attorneys wrote this thing and our own Ed McGuire was the guru.

    When referencing these pages for the roster exemption, look at the bottom of the document. The page tab at the top does not correspond to the actual page number at the bottom of each page so heads up.

    VJ is going to win this one on the exemption not being transferrable.

    Now I have the proof. Unfortunately, the link will not let me cut and paste so you have to read it for yourself and think like an attorney when reading it.
     

Share This Page