Jump to content


Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?

Photo

Sean Payton's cotract with NO voided by NFL


  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

#1 drtooth


  • 2:30


  • 9026 posts

Posted 04 November 2012 - 09:32 AM

http://espn.go.com/d...nfl-sources-say

Within the past year, the multiyear contract extension the Saints announced for Sean Payton in September 2011 was voided by the NFL, making the suspended head coach a free agent after this season and casting questions on how long he will remain in New Orleans, according to league sources.
Payton is expected to become the NFL's most sought-after head coach after this season and there already is speculation in league circles that he could wind up returning to Dallas, where he worked as the assistant head coach from 2003 to 2005, during which time the Cowboys brought in quarterback Tony Romo, who attended the same college, Eastern Illinois, as Payton.
......
At issue in the contract was one specific clause that would have enabled Payton to walk away from the deal if general manager Mickey Loomis was suspended, fired or left the New Orleans organization, sources said.
The league believed that any such language in Payton's contract would set a bad precedent for other coaching contracts and rejected the deal well before Loomis was suspended for the first eight games this season for his part in the bounty scandal.

Dating back to roughly the start of this year, the two sides engaged in numerous subsequent conversations to try to resolve the issue but never did.



#2 Ed Hillel


  • Wants to be startin somethin


  • 41526 posts

Posted 04 November 2012 - 10:21 AM

Oops, can't read.

Edited by Ed Hillel, 04 November 2012 - 12:33 PM.


#3 gammoseditor


  • also had a stroke


  • 2690 posts

Posted 04 November 2012 - 10:23 AM

They didn't like the clause that lets him void his contract so they voided his contract? Brilliant.

#4 fineyoungarm


  • ask me how to be redundant!


  • 3661 posts

Posted 04 November 2012 - 10:24 AM

The MOST under reported story by the crummy NOLA sports media. (I know. I'm here and subjected to them every day.) Unless Payton is motivated to return and "coach" Brees and the rest (including the wretched defense) in a display of "I'll show them!" he is off to Dallas. Book it. Other teams need not apply.

He's recently divorced (shocker) and his kids live with their mother - in Dallas.

Jones and Payton reportedly have a bromance, Jones would pay him whatever, and hate them as much as you might (like I do), the Cowboys are one of the jewels in the crown of the NFL - something the Saints never have been and never will be - small market and checkered history, to put it mildly.

#5 fineyoungarm


  • ask me how to be redundant!


  • 3661 posts

Posted 04 November 2012 - 10:27 AM

Can someone explain the following two things to me:

1. Why is this happening now? The contract was signed nearly a year ago.

2. Why don't they just strike out the relevant clause?


My (marginally) reliable sources advise that it is just being reported now. No problem - Ditka is out there to replace him.

#6 Reverend


  • through the velvety hallway


  • 22561 posts

Posted 04 November 2012 - 11:27 AM

1. Why is this happening now?


It isn't.

#7 JCizzle

  • 2336 posts

Posted 04 November 2012 - 11:27 AM

This is huge. Dallas is going to offer him a blank check, and NO pretty much has to match based on how they've fallen apart without him around.

#8 wutang112878


  • SoSH Member


  • 5377 posts

Posted 04 November 2012 - 11:47 AM

If the league can void the contract they must have had to approve it in the first place right?? And if thats the case, why didnt they catch this when they first saw it? I would think that would give Payton some legal ground to tell them to go screw at this point. Although, having it voided is probably best case scenario for him right now.

#9 JerBear

  • 823 posts

Posted 04 November 2012 - 12:03 PM

It isn't just getting voided now, it was never approved. Benson announced the signing before the league approved it and never came out and said "Just kidding, the league said no!"

#10 Reverend


  • through the velvety hallway


  • 22561 posts

Posted 04 November 2012 - 12:08 PM

It isn't just getting voided now, it was never approved. Benson announced the signing before the league approved it and never came out and said "Just kidding, the league said no!"


What makes you think that people who can't read and understand the article will be able to read and understand your post?

#11 wutang112878


  • SoSH Member


  • 5377 posts

Posted 04 November 2012 - 12:40 PM

It isn't just getting voided now, it was never approved. Benson announced the signing before the league approved it and never came out and said "Just kidding, the league said no!"


Something still seems odd, because if the league never approved it I dont understand why they didnt issued a statement saying the contract wasnt approved, or force Benson to release a statement saying such. Because it seems like this was being debated if the contract was ok or voided:

As recently as March, when Payton was visiting NFL offices to appeal his yearlong suspension in the bounty scandal, he asked NFL commissioner Roger Goodell for the status of his contract extension and was told it was unsatisfactory as it initially was constituted, sources said.



#12 fineyoungarm


  • ask me how to be redundant!


  • 3661 posts

Posted 04 November 2012 - 12:41 PM

Well, Glazer just reported that Payton says there is a 100% chance that he returns to the Saints next year. If so, it seems to speak well of him in turns of "loyalty" and intelligence. Loyalty to Brees, his team, his owner, his GM and his subjects (that is the fans) - it's good to be king, and he is a king here (Brees is the king). I have lived a bunch of places with rabid fans about certain teams and players. This place takes the cake, when it comes to the QB and the coach.

The intelligence overlaps the loyalty factor. (The much and justly reviled) Tom Benson will pay him whatever, nobody looks over his shoulder (I mean nobody) and on and on.

And then there is vengence for this season.

So, if he stays, if is not for alruistic reasons, but it is understandable and probably smart. Also, for all anyone knows his girlfirend(s) is/are here.

Ah, I see that he "absolutely plans to stay". The operatvie word being "plans".

Edited by fineyoungarm, 04 November 2012 - 12:53 PM.


#13 fineyoungarm


  • ask me how to be redundant!


  • 3661 posts

Posted 04 November 2012 - 12:44 PM

Of course, I have failed to address the cosmic question that some of you have - what the hell is so offensive about the offending clause? The parties were not a liberty to agree to that? How on earth does that threaten the good of the game? In fact, it seems to me that voiding the contract is more nefarious than the contract clause at issue.

#14 Ed Hillel


  • Wants to be startin somethin


  • 41526 posts

Posted 04 November 2012 - 12:54 PM

Something still seems odd, because if the league never approved it I dont understand why they didnt issued a statement saying the contract wasnt approved, or force Benson to release a statement saying such. Because it seems like this was being debated if the contract was ok or voided:


It seems the league believed the onus wasn't on them, since it wasn't they who announced the signing. Still, it does seem a bit odd. He's one of your best coaches, why not make a statement? Maybe the NFL figured it had given enough bad news to New Orleans at that point. As you point out, it's also a bit odd that Payton was still asking about the contract status as late as March.

Well, Glazer just reported that Payton says there is a 100% chance that he returns to the Saints next year.


If he was 100% to return, then why hasn't he negotiated a new deal? It seems they have had plenty of time. Is it possible they have, and that it hasn't been announced? I'm not sure if there are rules dictating that contracts have to be made public.

Edited by Ed Hillel, 04 November 2012 - 12:56 PM.


#15 maufman


  • SoSH Member


  • 11958 posts

Posted 04 November 2012 - 12:56 PM

Of course, I have failed to address the cosmic question that some of you have - what the hell is so offensive about the offending clause? The parties were not a liberty to agree to that? How on earth does that threaten the good of the game? In fact, it seems to me that voiding the contract is more nefarious than the contract clause at issue.


Not the "good of the game" -- the good of the owners.

It's a conflict of interest for the GM -- the clause benefits the GM's personal job security at the expense of the club's interests. Other businesses would put systems in place to manage this; the NFL owners, however, have the luxury of letting the league office play the heavy for them.

#16 fineyoungarm


  • ask me how to be redundant!


  • 3661 posts

Posted 04 November 2012 - 01:15 PM

Not the "good of the game" -- the good of the owners.

It's a conflict of interest for the GM -- the clause benefits the GM's personal job security at the expense of the club's interests. Other businesses would put systems in place to manage this; the NFL owners, however, have the luxury of letting the league office play the heavy for them.


I have nothing to add to this truthful statement.

#17 kenneycb


  • Hates Goose Island Beer; Loves Backdoor Play


  • 7183 posts

Posted 04 November 2012 - 02:52 PM

If he was 100% to return, then why hasn't he negotiated a new deal? It seems they have had plenty of time. Is it possible they have, and that it hasn't been announced? I'm not sure if there are rules dictating that contracts have to be made public.

Can he, especially in light of his suspension where he's essentially supposed to be in a quiet room?

#18 fineyoungarm


  • ask me how to be redundant!


  • 3661 posts

Posted 04 November 2012 - 03:45 PM

Also, Loomis' suspension ends after tomorrow's Monday Night game, I believe (8 games).

#19 Dogman2


  • Yukon Cornelius


  • 10970 posts

Posted 04 November 2012 - 05:39 PM

Can he, especially in light of his suspension where he's essentially supposed to be in a quiet room?


No. The terms of his suspension prevent it.

#20 wutang112878


  • SoSH Member


  • 5377 posts

Posted 05 November 2012 - 10:09 AM

It seems the league believed the onus wasn't on them, since it wasn't they who announced the signing. Still, it does seem a bit odd. He's one of your best coaches, why not make a statement? Maybe the NFL figured it had given enough bad news to New Orleans at that point. As you point out, it's also a bit odd that Payton was still asking about the contract status as late as March.


Maybe its just me but if I was Goodell and Benson was told the contract wasnt valid, after months of back and forth trying to get a contract that the league could approve I would eventually want to either issue a statement by the league or Benson. Because otherwise it looks like Benson either isnt paying attention to Goodell or announced the deal to get leverage against him. Perhaps Goodell got to that point and leaked this story, who knows. Its just the way it has come out like this it doesnt seem like Goodell completely had this situation under control.

#21 jsinger121


  • @jsinger121


  • 9972 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 02:48 PM


Ed Werder@Edwerderespn

Very good source tells me that Saints owner Tom Benson would sue league for millions if Sean Payton allowed to leave for Dallas or elsewhere



#22 abty

  • PipPip
  • 2149 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 07:12 PM

When the Giants choke away the division and Tom Coughlin's head explodes, Payton better be recruited by our GM. I miss him.

#23 BannedbyNYYFans.com

  • 3092 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 08:30 PM

When the Giants choke away the division and Tom Coughlin's head explodes, Payton better be recruited by our GM. I miss him.


If he ever left NO, and I don't see it happening, he's going to Dallas, not NY.

#24 abty

  • PipPip
  • 2149 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 08:33 PM

And how do you expect him to go to Dallas when I kidnap him and gag him until the Dallas Stadium blows up? Sometimes you gotta put more tought into these things :)
With that said, I still cannot believe he would not find a way to stay in N.O. Sure, he'd have full power in Dallas but he basically has that now and knows his system. There would also be a whole hell of a lot less pressure to continue to work with the Saints as opposed to having Jerry SteinJones staring down at him all damn day.

Edited by abty, 07 December 2012 - 08:35 PM.


#25 PedroKsBambino


  • SoSH Member


  • 14163 posts

Posted 07 December 2012 - 09:00 PM

And how do you expect him to go to Dallas when I kidnap him and gag him until the Dallas Stadium blows up? Sometimes you gotta put more tought into these things :)
With that said, I still cannot believe he would not find a way to stay in N.O. Sure, he'd have full power in Dallas but he basically has that now and knows his system. There would also be a whole hell of a lot less pressure to continue to work with the Saints as opposed to having Jerry SteinJones staring down at him all damn day.


That's the thing---he'll never have full power in Dallas and he knows it. If he leaves (and like you guys I don't think he will) I'd expect him to go to a well-regarded owner who actually lets the coach do his thing. The Giants most certainly qualify

#26 BannedbyNYYFans.com

  • 3092 posts

Posted 08 December 2012 - 12:03 PM

That's the thing---he'll never have full power in Dallas and he knows it. If he leaves (and like you guys I don't think he will) I'd expect him to go to a well-regarded owner who actually lets the coach do his thing. The Giants most certainly qualify


His children don't live in NY. There is zero chance he ends up there.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users