Pollack or Bengals/ESPN News

[Spain]

You guys werent listening to pregame? Marvin just blasted Pollak in a classy way but he sent a messabe!

[HairOnFire]

I used to think the same thing about the loyalty clause. However, it would have come in handy for the Eagles if they had one right now.

DING!!!!!!

The dumbest thing about the loyalty clause is how hard agents fight it when representing clients who aren't malcontents. In my opinion David Pollack seems like a real nice stupid kid who has nothing to fear from signing the loyalty clause.

[bengalboomer7]

That loyalty clause burns us a lot, but I think it's a great idea, especially with the media circus holdouts that have gome on all summer.

[HoosierCat]

I used to think the same thing about the loyalty clause. However, it would have come in handy for the Eagles if they had one right now.

Actually, they have TO by the nutsack. Check profootballtalk.com, they have the whole skinny.

As for the loyalty clause...if the Eagles want to recover a portion of the signing bonus, all they have to do is go to arbitration. Worked for the Lions & Sanders, the Fins and Ricky, etc.

Now...ahhh...KICKOFF!

(PS Hair is a joke. )

(PPS GREAT FIRST THROW CARSON! )

[HairOnFire]

Negotiating based on the Godfather II method, huh Hair? "My offer is this.....nothing."

Exactly. The truth of the matter is this. Right now Mike Brown has very little leverage to use against an agent who willingly engages in a pissing contest instead of trying to get a deal done. But that all changes the moment the regular season starts and Pollack starts missing game checks. So if the agent is willing to hold his client out until then I see no reason to let him off the hook by agreeing to the offer already on the table. Instead, reduce that offer again and again and don't improve it one bit when the regular season is about to start and the agent begins to change the tune he's singing.

Let's play hardball.

[Semper_Fi_Dawg]

What I hate the most about this is how ugly it has gotten. DP has more integrity than any guy I am aware of to come to the Pros since Reggie White. I've never followed a college guy into the Pro's before and swung onto his Pro team. But from past postings, I'm not the only one that has adopted the Bengals just because of the promise of seeing DP play again. There appears to be quiet a few UGA fans here. To see it come to this is a shame. In the end both Pollack and the Bengals loose out and the only winner is the agent. The longer it drags on, the more pronounced the long term effects are going to be on all concerned. It truely couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.

[HairOnFire]

(PS Hair is a joke. )

Watch it, Fredo. I'll send you on a boat ride.

[HairOnFire]

What I hate the most about this is how ugly it has gotten. DP has more integrity than any guy I am aware of to come to the Pros since Reggie White.

If he's got integrity why not sign the loyalty clause? Absolutely no reason not to, right? But agents don't like it and Kremer is using Pollack to fight an agent's battle.

Reduce the offer. Send your own message.

Then do it again next week.

It's pretty basic stuff, right? The longer this thing drags out the less Pollack is worth to the Bengals. So shouldn't the offer they have on the table reflect that?

Reduce the offer.

[HoosierCat]

I used to think the same thing about the loyalty clause.  However, it would have come in handy for the Eagles if they had one right now.

DING!!!!!!

The dumbest thing about the loyalty clause is how hard agents fight it when representing clients who aren't malcontents. In my opinion David Pollack seems like a real nice stupid kid who has nothing to fear from signing the loyalty clause.

Nor does Mike Brown have anything to fear from giving it up. It's a valueless poker chip. Thanks in no small part to the whole stupid Pickens affair, it's been firmly established that "signing bonuses" are really "signing advances," i.e. advances on salary subject to the player actually playing out his contract. If the player fails to live up to the terms of his contract -- by mouthing off, beating his girlfriend, quiting football to go smoke grass in Tibet, or even just deciding to retire -- teams can pursue actions to recover the money. And I'm at pains to recall an instance where, once teams have initiated such an action, they've failed to emerge victorious. This is why the "loyalty clause" has not, despite your predictions lo those many moons ago, become standard in every player contract. It's simply redundant. Pollack doesn't want to sign the clause? Fine: the Bengals should just take it out in return for jacking up his escalator targets another 10 percentage points of snaps. Case closed.

[jbengals1]

Im sorry to say but none of the above its the NFL's fault - they need to make a set limit to what a rookie can make( EX - all rookies get $500,000 for the first year) then depending on how they do or don't do a better contract the following years.

[HairOnFire]

I used to think the same thing about the loyalty clause.  However, it would have come in handy for the Eagles if they had one right now.

DING!!!!!!

The dumbest thing about the loyalty clause is how hard agents fight it when representing clients who aren't malcontents. In my opinion David Pollack seems like a real nice stupid kid who has nothing to fear from signing the loyalty clause.

Nor does Mike Brown have anything to fear from giving it up. It's a valueless poker chip. Thanks in no small part to the whole stupid Pickens affair, it's been firmly established that "signing bonuses" are really "signing advances," i.e. advances on salary subject to the player actually playing out his contract. If the player fails to live up to the terms of his contract -- by mouthing off, beating his girlfriend, quiting football to go smoke grass in Tibet, or even just deciding to retire -- teams can pursue actions to recover the money. And I'm at pains to recall an instance where, once teams have initiated such an action, they've failed to emerge victorious. This is why the "loyalty clause" has not, despite your predictions lo those many moons ago, become standard in every player contract. It's simply redundant. Pollack doesn't want to sign the clause? Fine: the Bengals should just take it out in return for jacking up his escalator targets another 10 percentage points of snaps. Case closed.

You're a joke. You whine endlessly about Mike Brown, call the loyalty clause a worthless bargaining chip, and then happily ignore reports that the agent is holding a player out because he won't sign the clause.

I have to admit that I'm amazed that it actually pleases you that an important player would be held out indefinately over something you consider completely worthless. Go figure, huh?

Admit it, if you were a fan of another team and you found out a player was being held out because of contract language concerning a minor clause that you felt was so redundant that it had absolutely no impact or value you'd call for that agents head on a platter. Instead, you react to the news by saying..."good for them. The clause is a joke."

Do you think Pollack's holdout is a joke? No, you just hate Mike Brown so much you don't care about anything else. The loyalty clause has now been linked to about a half dozen teams. Maybe more. It's not just the Bengals who do business this way, right? And if it's redundant, so what?

Sheesh, you spend your time endlessly updating the snippet of contract information that leaks out...then correct those numbers the next day when other numbers appear in other sources...then correct that information the day after that when still other numbers are published. Yeah, you've got a firm grip on things, don't you? NFL contracts may be 20 or 30 pages long, but you know the real story because you found a line or two of information on a website.

Why is there still a holdout? Your sources claimed the Bengals and Pollack's agent had ALMOST agreed on money weeks ago. In fact, your sources said they had agreed on money over a week ago. So why isn't there a signed contract?

Oh yeah, I almost forgot. Mike Brown is cheap and mean. He even kicked your dog once and then ate your homework. And he may actually want to tie a portion of the contract to reasonable performance standards. Well, what a bastard! Doesn't he know that the millions of dollars he'll eventually pay Pollack is actually your money? And it's your money because you bought a hat once that had a tiger-striped B on it.

Sheesh, do you realize that in other threads you've even managed to whine about how Mike Brown didn't cut Peter Warrick months ago while at the same moment whining that he might cut him tomorrow. And the latest, the Bengals might have won a meaningless football game if Peter Warrick was activated. Whine, whine, whine.

Mike Brown is a mean man. (Sniff.)

Mike Brown didn't go after Corey Simon hard enough. (Sniff.)

Mike Brown is being unfair to Peter Warrick. (Sniff.)

Mike Brown is the man who made my blanket wet. (Sniff.)

Hey, just kidding. Honest. Keep up the good work.

[DesperateDerelict]

I doubt if Mikey-boy was this far-sighted but: I thought Landon Johnson did a good (not great) job at SAM last night . . . which means DP has lost some leverage. It was different during the bad old days when we would draft someone because we had no NFL-caliber player at that position.

[HoosierCat]

Admit it, if you were a fan of another team and you found out a player was being held out because of contract language concerning a minor clause that you felt was so redundant that it had absolutely no impact or value you'd call for that agents head on a platter.

No, I'd just laugh at the team for stalling the deal over a clause with no value -- just like I'm doing here. Heck, if you're the bengals, this is great news: here you have the opportunity to give away absolutely nothing in return for something -- a higher escalator target, a lower bonus number, you name it -- on the part of the player. The only thing I'd knock Pollack's agent for is being dumb enough to fall into the trap.

[derekshank]

Mike Brown proves over and over again to make bad decisions when he does have the leverage. I agree with Hair that he has all the power right now, because there is no way in hell that Pollack is going to start in the opener, so there is no reason to make him a better offer any time soon.

The agent has everything to lose, because if the Bengals play hardball, everyone in the world will see that, and they will be hard-pressed getting any big name draft picks next year, so they are in trouble either way. (see Drew Rosenhaus on the T.O. thing. Promised him more money, but all his tactics have done is make the whole world hate T.O., and not a penny to show for it... maybe not even a football season. For all the big talk Rosenhaus does, he rarely gets his clients more money... Chad... take note).

So if Mike Brown wants to stick it to IMG, he can. Problem is, he won't.

Brown is not like someone driving around on fumes hoping the gas prices will go down. They always eventually end up paying the same amount or more when they become desperate enough. We can't force the gas prices down by going on a gasoline strike, because they know we have to buy it eventually.

So that is my problem with Mike Brown. Not that he low-balls players, forcing hold-outs. That is him attempting to be a business man. Mike Brown is an idiot because he lacks the killer instinct of a business man to make it work. He always blinks first, even when he has the leverage. At this late date, Brown is the BP station, and pollack is the motorist. Let Pollack know that he isn’t the one who determines the gas prices... and they're only going up from here on out.

Pollack will have to buy that gas eventually, or he won't play football this year.

Once again, I'm not faulting anyone here for this hold-out. Everyone is looking out for their own butts... I just think it would be assinine for the Brown family to force a hold-out to go this long, effectively ruining the first part of Pollack's season, only to give in to his demands. They've done it before, so I shouldn't be surprized... I'd just like to see them use their leverage once... make this stupid hold-out count for something.

[HairOnFire]

Admit it, if you were a fan of another team and you found out a player was being held out because of contract language concerning a minor clause that you felt was so redundant that it had absolutely no impact or value you'd call for that agents head on a platter.

No, I'd just laugh at the team for stalling the deal over a clause with no value -- just like I'm doing here.

I guess you can't read. It is't the Bengals who are stalling. It's Pollack's agent. The one you seem to think is so smart that he won't fall for traps. The one that said no progress was made during talks yesterday.

[HairOnFire]

Mike Brown proves over and over again to make bad decisions when he does have the leverage. I agree with Hair that he has all the power right now, because there is no way in hell that Pollack is going to start in the opener, so there is no reason to make him a better offer any time soon.

Close, but no cigar. Brown has almost no leverage now. All the agent has to do is continue saying no to anything and everything and Brown doesn't get what he wants, that being a contract agreement. Brown simply has no leverage now because the agent isn't currently risking a thing. Even Joisey admitted that after some gentle prodding. And it's a critical point that can't be forgotten.

The leverage doesn't return to Brown until this thing goes as long as the Justin Smith holdout did. Do that and suddenly the silly game of holding out over minor issues becomes risky for camp Pollack because game checks missed are bigger than the issues being fought over. The money has been agreed upon, right? But even at this late date it only becomes a risk for Camp Pollack if they believe the Bengals resolve is so great that Camp Pollack will actually be forced to settle for less money and higher incentive triggers.

So if things are truly stalemated and the Bengals aren't willing to compromise any further they have to do two things. First, start reducing their offer now and keep doing it the longer the holdout continues. Second, when the agent realizes that game checks are at risk make it clear that the reduced offers weren't a negotiating ploy that will be dismissed with the wave of a pen. Tell 'em take it or leave it and mean it.

Of course it will take several more weeks for the above scenario to play out and that would be a freaking disaster. But that only serves to underscore how little leverage Mike Brown has right now and which side is actually behind the current holdout.

[bengalboomer7]

Who has the money, Mike Brown does

Who wants the money, David Pollack does.

Mike Brown owns a football team

David Pollack wants to play football, right

So really, how does David Pollack have any leverage.

If I was Mike Brown I'd be throwing me a take it or leave it offer. We already have who I and I think most people want starting anyways, and I'd hate to bump the first part of the season training two LB rookies starting.

As long as it's a fair market deal with the correct increase what real leverage does IMG have, then can say no, that's all and ultimatley, Pollack doesn't get to do what he wants, play football

I don't remember who said it, but they were right. The only person that ever really wins in this is the agent.

[TecmoFever]

Didn't these agents watch Jerry Maguire?

I'm going to go watch the movie, hope that Pollack's agent sends out a mission statement and gets Pollack in camp today.

And even if that doesn't happen, I've gotten to watch Cuba Gooding Jr.'s only decent acting work.

[HairOnFire]

Who has the money, Mike Brown does

Who wants the money, David Pollack does.

Mike Brown owns a football team

David Pollack wants to play football, right

So really, how does David Pollack have any leverage.

If I was Mike Brown I'd be throwing me a take it or leave it offer.

Fair enough. Let's say you made camp Pollack a take it or leave it offer today. Then they respond later in the day by saying no. What happens now?

Nothing, right?

And let's say you pull this trick every morning for the next couple of weeks...always getting the same reply in return. What happens then?

Nothing, right?

So what are you tempted to do in response to the stalemate?

Improve your offer, right? It's all you can do because right now you've got no leverage. Right now you can't force a change in the other guys position.

But why improve your offer if you sincerely think it's fair and reasonable? What if you think you have every right to demand an incentive trigger that asks a player to do more than simply showing up?

Why wouldn't you stick to your guns? In fact, since Pollack becomes less valuable to you with each passing day why wouldn't you start reducing your current offer?

Why wouldn't you dig in and wait for late August...when a tipping point is reached and leverage returns to your side of the table? Because that's when your take it or leave it offer is going to mean something.

I hope things don't come to that point, but that's how hardball is played and the Bengals are dealing with an agent who seems reluctant to compromise on anything.

Insert Joisey's laughter here.

[derekshank]

Why wouldn't you stick to your guns? In fact, since Pollack becomes less valuable to you with each passing day why wouldn't you start reducing your current offer?

That was kind of my point Hair.

If Pollack’s value is truly decreasing with each passing day, then in what way does he have the leverage to demand more money?

When a can of soup passes it’s expiration date, and goes to one of those hand-me-down stores, they don’t attempt to raise the price each day after the date of the can has passed. At that point they start becoming desperate, and are willing to take just about anything to cut their losses.

Apparently our only disagreement is on “when” the leverage becomes Mike Brown’s. You say later, when Pollack begins risking game checks. I say now, because it would be easy enough for Mike to say: “This is the best offer you’re getting from me. You have until so and so a time to sign the deal, or I decrease the offer.”

Either way, I think we are pretty much in agreement. If Mike decides to use his leverage and play hardball, Pollack’s agents have really screwed him over, both financially and in terms of football.

[HairOnFire]

Apparently our only disagreement is on “when” the leverage becomes Mike Brown’s. You say later, when Pollack begins risking game checks. I say now, because it would be easy enough for Mike to say: “This is the best offer you’re getting from me. You have until so and so a time to sign the deal, or I decrease the offer.”

Yup. But the reason I say Mike has no leverage now is because we heard the Ravens tell their 1st round pick that their offer wouldn't be improved...take it or leave it...and then they rolled over on multiple contract points because it was the only way to get a deal right away. And that's the choice Mike Brown faces. Roll over or wait weeks for leverage to return to his side of the table.