semiotter Posted March 1, 2008 Report Share Posted March 1, 2008 If he ends up in Clowntown I think I'll shoot somebody! Get your guns out dude!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengals1 Posted March 1, 2008 Report Share Posted March 1, 2008 If he ends up in Clowntown I think I'll shoot somebody! Get your guns out dude!!!I'm locked and loaded, I just need to know who to aim at! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted March 1, 2008 Report Share Posted March 1, 2008 I dunno' Hoosie, you and I usally see eye-to-eye around here but something tells me this has SoP's inept finger prints all over it.And if so, I'll be right there storming PBS with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengals1 Posted March 1, 2008 Report Share Posted March 1, 2008 I dunno' Hoosie, you and I usally see eye-to-eye around here but something tells me this has SoP's inept finger prints all over it.And if so, I'll be right there storming PBS with you.You wanna' get the pitchforks or light the torches this time? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
COB Posted March 1, 2008 Report Share Posted March 1, 2008 "Clubs discuss trades all the times that are not completed," Greg Aiello, NFL Senior Vice President of Public Relations, said. "This is a club matter and we are not in a position to comment."Greg Aiello is a liar.He is the NFL flack who came out and said there was no evidence on the Pats tapes that showed them cheating in previous years. Then he said the NFL would have no further comment on the matter. Sound familiar? Like exactly what he's saying here?Then Goodell has to answer questions from a United States Senator and admitted the tapes showed cheating by the Pats during their Super Bowl winning years.Blame it on Bengals FO if you want, but don't use anything Gred Aiello says as evidence. He's just a lying flak."Clubs discuss trades all the time." implicit in that statement is that the NFL didn't have anything to do with killing this deal. That is a lie, and that is why he didn't just come out and say it. But he sure wants to leave that impression. Weasely lawyer bulls**t. I wonder how the Patriots would have been treated had it been them in this trade and not us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
membengal Posted March 1, 2008 Report Share Posted March 1, 2008 Deal would have gone through. Without question, were it the Pats.And, yes, Aiello is an inveterate liar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
COB Posted March 1, 2008 Report Share Posted March 1, 2008 The front office needs to develop a serious short-term memory and keep thier eye on the ball.Agreed, and an excellent point. We've still got Odom coming in and other things that probably aren't publicized. Stay in the game Bengals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengals1 Posted March 1, 2008 Report Share Posted March 1, 2008 Blame it on Bengals FO if you want, but don't use anything Gred Aiello says as evidence. He's just a lying flak."Clubs discuss trades all the time." implicit in that statement is that the NFL didn't have anything to do with killing this deal. That is a lie, and that is why he didn't just come out and say it. But he sure wants to leave that impression. Weasely lawyer bulls**t.I understand how you feel. I'm just passing on what other's are publishing. We're all grasping at straws trying to figure this latest f*ck up out.I just hope that we eventually get a full and complete explanation regarding this incident. One way or the other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HairOnFire Posted March 1, 2008 Report Share Posted March 1, 2008 Call it reading between the lines, pure speculation, or wild ass guessing. Here's mine. The trade fell through from the Lions end. Consider.... Trade language, by rule, is written by the team whose property is being sold. All the bidder is responsible for is stating in writing how they'll compensate the selling team. Furthermore, any salary cap issues are far more likely to involve the Lions. And there's the proverbial rub because there's the matter of the 1 million dollar roster bonus that Rogers was to be paid at midnight. I'll suggest it's possible the Lions demanded the Bengals pay the bonus, and the Bengals may have agreed to, but were specifically prevented by contract language from doing so because the bonus wasn't technically owed yet. Thus, the trade is rejected based upon contract language. Ehhhh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingwilly Posted March 1, 2008 Report Share Posted March 1, 2008 Call it reading between the lines, pure speculation, or wild ass guessing. Here's mine. The trade fell through from the Lions end. Consider.... Trade language, by rule, is written by the team whose property is being sold. All the bidder is responsible for is stating in writing how they'll compensate the selling team. Furthermore, any salary cap issues are far more likely to involve the Lions. And there's the proverbial rub because there's the matter of the 1 million dollar roster bonus that Rogers was to be paid at midnight. I'll suggest it's possible the Lions demanded the Bengals pay the bonus, and the Bengals may have agreed to, but were specifically prevented by contract language from doing so because the bonus wasn't technically owed yet. Thus, the trade is rejected based upon contract language. Ehhhh? Could see that. Maybe they took Millen as a dunce and tried to slide some silly stuff into the T's and C's....certainly plausible. Then, the NFL steps in and says to the Linons, "Did you guys ACTUALLY read this thing?????" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengals1 Posted March 1, 2008 Report Share Posted March 1, 2008 I'll suggest it's possible the Lions demanded the Bengals pay the bonus, and the Bengals may have agreed to, but were specifically prevented by contract language from doing so because the bonus wasn't technically owed yet. Thus, the trade is rejected based upon contract language.Okay, (head still spinning) then how did the Clowns get around this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengals1 Posted March 1, 2008 Report Share Posted March 1, 2008 Mark Curnutte seems to agree with you HOF.... Saturday, March 01, 2008Roster bonus Rogers' sticking point The Bengals attempted to trade for a true nose tackle, 360-plus pound Shaun Rogers, with the Lions on Friday. But word is the sticking point was an NFL interpretation of a $1 million roster bonus allocation due Rogers at 12:01 a.m. today."Clubs discuss trades all the times that are not completed," Greg Aiello, NFL Senior Vice President of Public Relations, said today. "This is a club matter and we are not in a position to comment."Jack Brennan, the Bengals' PR director, said this morning that the Bengals never confirmed the trade, though it was widely wide reported in the media with other sources, namely the Lions and Rogers' agent, Kennard McGuire. The Bengals were going to give Detroit third- and fifth-round picks in April’s draft.In the meantime, with Rogers now a member of the Cleveland Browns, who gave the Lions their third-round 2008 pick and cornerback Leigh Bodden, the Bengals are still in search for help in their front seven. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingwilly Posted March 1, 2008 Report Share Posted March 1, 2008 I'll suggest it's possible the Lions demanded the Bengals pay the bonus, and the Bengals may have agreed to, but were specifically prevented by contract language from doing so because the bonus wasn't technically owed yet. Thus, the trade is rejected based upon contract language.Okay, (head still spinning) then how did the Clowns get around this? It was probably loaded into Bodden's deal or they simply added it to what they offered Rogers.Sometimes it is nice to be the ones swooping a deal.It really raises my dislike level for the Browns from "seriously annoying" to "freaking annoying".One thing lost in this is Bodden was their best CB and now he is gone. I think Bodden is a very underrated player. The Lions got a deal and it has yet to be seen if Rogers can retrun to his previous level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted March 1, 2008 Report Share Posted March 1, 2008 The best piece of speculation I've seen on the whole "salary cap" thing is that the $1 million roster bonus had to be counted against the 2007 cap; as a "likely to be earned" incentive the Lions had already been charged $1 million in cap space for it. So they get a $1 million credit back on this season's cap, and the Bengals had to retroactively apply the $1 million to their 2007 cap. But the Bengals went over the 2007 cap because of injuries and Hall's performance bonus, and the NFL wouldn't grant the Bengals any kind of exemption.That sounds logical but I can't vouch for accuracy. It also doesn't explain why the story suddenly changed to, trade? What trade? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HairOnFire Posted March 1, 2008 Report Share Posted March 1, 2008 I'll suggest it's possible the Lions demanded the Bengals pay the bonus, and the Bengals may have agreed to, but were specifically prevented by contract language from doing so because the bonus wasn't technically owed yet. Thus, the trade is rejected based upon contract language.Okay, (head still spinning) then how did the Clowns get around this? There'd be nothing to get around. Once the NFL rejects the Bengals/Lions trade, and spells out the reasons for doing so, the Lions are free to either negotiate a new deal with the Bengals or open up the bidding to any other team that has stepped forward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengals1 Posted March 1, 2008 Report Share Posted March 1, 2008 The best piece of speculation I've seen on the whole "salary cap" thing is that the $1 million roster bonus had to be counted against the 2007 cap; as a "likely to be earned" incentive the Lions had already been charged $1 million in cap space for it. So they get a $1 million credit back on this season's cap, and the Bengals had to retroactively apply the $1 million to their 2007 cap. But the Bengals went over the 2007 cap because of injuries and Hall's performance bonus, and the NFL wouldn't grant the Bengals any kind of exemption.My God! I actually understood all that! Hey, that puts me ahead of almost everybody in the bungles front office! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengals1 Posted March 1, 2008 Report Share Posted March 1, 2008 There'd be nothing to get around. Once the NFL rejects the Bengals/Lions trade, and spells out the reasons for doing so, the Lions are free to either negotiate a new deal with the Bengals or open up the bidding to any other team that has stepped forward.Well if Hoosiers explantion is accurate then the answer is the Clowns had the 2007 cap space to absorb the 1mil extra hit of his roster bonus and we didn't. That's it in a nutshell bungles fans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted March 1, 2008 Report Share Posted March 1, 2008 There'd be nothing to get around. Once the NFL rejects the Bengals/Lions trade, and spells out the reasons for doing so, the Lions are free to either negotiate a new deal with the Bengals or open up the bidding to any other team that has stepped forward.Well if Hoosiers explantion is accurate then the answer is the Clowns had the 2007 cap space to absorb the 1mil extra hit of his roster bonus and we didn't. That's it in a nutshell bungles fans. Just to give credit, that explanation was offered up by a poster over on the Bengals.com boards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HairOnFire Posted March 1, 2008 Report Share Posted March 1, 2008 Mark Curnutte seems to agree with you HOF.... Maybe, maybe not. I'm just throwing a dart at the wall, and I could be half right and half wrong at the same time, right? But it just seems to me like the problem has to rest with Roger's roster bonus. To me the idea that the Bengals weren't aware they couldn't trade comp picks is as ridiculous as the one about the NFL being out to get 'em. Somewhere, the problem lies in the details. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierCat Posted March 1, 2008 Report Share Posted March 1, 2008 Hobson backs the roster bonus explanation...The Bengals had no comment Saturday on the NFL's nixing of the Shaun Rogers trade after it was turned in Friday afternoon. Neither did the league, saying it was a club matter.Most media outlets, including Bengals.com, reported the trade from sources shortly after the teams completed it. Apparently during the delay after the trade was turned into the league office, the Lions went to the Browns to get a deal and got the player they wanted, cornerback Leigh Bodden, instead of the two picks."The club never announced anything on this," said Bengals public relations director Jack Brennan. "It was reported incorrectly from other sources. There are numerous trade discussions for every trade that actually takes place."It's believed the league's interpretation of how Rogers' $1 million roster bonus due Saturday would be allocated voided the deal.So if Hobs is accurate, the timeline of events is:1. Bengals & Lions make a deal for Rogers.2. Deal is turned in to the league office.3. While the deal is being reviewed, Browns offer a better deal.4. League office conveniently voids Bengals/Lions deal on a technicality.5. Cleveland gets Rogers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengals1 Posted March 1, 2008 Report Share Posted March 1, 2008 Maybe, maybe not. I'm just throwing a dart at the wall, and I could be half right and half wrong at the same time, right? But it just seems to me like the problem has to rest with Roger's roster bonus. To me the idea that the Bengals weren't aware they couldn't trade comp picks is as ridiculous as the one about the NFL being out to get 'em. Somewhere, the problem lies in the details.Okay, everybody seems to be bashing me, however slight, for my compensatory picks theory. All I was trying to do was read between the lines already published on the dotcom. And I agree even the bungles front office isn't stupid enough to try and trade compensatory picks outright.I eventually explained that perhaps the language they used in the original deal didn't spell this out clearly enough and maybe that's why the league office rejected it.I like your's and Hoosier's theory better now, regardless of where it appeared first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HairOnFire Posted March 1, 2008 Report Share Posted March 1, 2008 The best piece of speculation I've seen on the whole "salary cap" thing is that the $1 million roster bonus had to be counted against the 2007 cap; as a "likely to be earned" incentive the Lions had already been charged $1 million in cap space for it. So they get a $1 million credit back on this season's cap, and the Bengals had to retroactively apply the $1 million to their 2007 cap. But the Bengals went over the 2007 cap because of injuries and Hall's performance bonus, and the NFL wouldn't grant the Bengals any kind of exemption.My God! I actually understood all that! Hey, that puts me ahead of almost everybody in the bungles front office! Three points. First, that's plausible stuff. Second, it actually absolves the Bengals front office from blame. In fact, it hammers home yet again just how badly last seasons rash of injuries handicapped the Bengals last season, and if the above is to be believed, continues to ripple through the pond. Third, if the Lions weren't able to pass the roster bonus on to another team it not only explains why the Bengals didn't improve their offer...(The NFL ruling left them dead in the water.)...as well as why the Browns had to improve on the rejected deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
membengal Posted March 1, 2008 Report Share Posted March 1, 2008 Bengals1, here's the deal, stop being a consummate dickhead and typing "bungles" in every f**king one of your posts like you are a reject from a SteelerNation board, and perhaps people would be more inclined to not discount everything you say as ShulaSteakhouse-esque whining.Just a thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengals1 Posted March 1, 2008 Report Share Posted March 1, 2008 4. League office conveniently voids Bengals/Lions deal on a technicality.5. Cleveland gets Rogers.If Godell and by extension the league office, hates the bungles so much because Godell is a big Steelers fan, why would they then allow another division rival in Cleveland to land him? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bengals1 Posted March 1, 2008 Report Share Posted March 1, 2008 Bengals1, here's the deal, stop being a consummate dickhead and typing "bungles" in every f**king one of your posts like you are a reject from a SteelerNation board, and perhaps people would be more inclined to not discount everything you say as ShulaSteakhouse-esque whining.Just a thought.I've tried but I keep bungling it. 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.