haha saw this thread and just knew that was coming
All posts by this account, even those referencing real things, are entirely fictional and are for entertainment purposes only; i.e. very low-quality entertainment. These may contain coarse language and due to their content should not be viewed by anyone
This seems to be playing out exactly like Seattle where they won one year, lost the next year to Brady, then figured their qb would be fine with no online for the next 7 seasons until said qb demanded a trade.
elliseamos wrote:This seems to be playing out exactly like Seattle where they won one year, lost the next year to Brady, then figured their qb would be fine with no online for the next 7 seasons until said qb demanded a trade.
I think this one plays out just a little differently. But I guess time will tell.
elliseamos wrote:This seems to be playing out exactly like Seattle where they won one year, lost the next year to Brady, then figured their qb would be fine with no online for the next 7 seasons until said qb demanded a trade.
I think this one plays out just a little differently. But I guess time will tell.
Which one of Hill or Kelce will play the role of Beast Mode?
elliseamos wrote:This seems to be playing out exactly like Seattle where they won one year, lost the next year to Brady, then figured their qb would be fine with no online for the next 7 seasons until said qb demanded a trade.
I think this one plays out just a little differently. But I guess time will tell.
Which one of Hill or Kelce will play the role of Beast Mode?
<checks if payton manning engaged in similar restructure first>
All posts by this account, even those referencing real things, are entirely fictional and are for entertainment purposes only; i.e. very low-quality entertainment. These may contain coarse language and due to their content should not be viewed by anyone
i think it has more to do with whether the club is willing to do it - i.e. pay the guy in a lump sum up front
cash flow
All posts by this account, even those referencing real things, are entirely fictional and are for entertainment purposes only; i.e. very low-quality entertainment. These may contain coarse language and due to their content should not be viewed by anyone
96583UP wrote:i think it has more to do with whether the club is willing to do it - i.e. pay the guy in a lump sum up front
cash flow
Ok yeah I think that makes sense. Risk paying now, non-refundable, guy gets hurt or whatever and keeps the money.
Why would the player ever resist doing this?
Why do they make it sound like the player is helping the team by doing this?
i don't know why a player would resist - maybe bc their agent gets a cut so it's a net loss after transaction fees
they are helping the team bc it allows them to manage the salary cap better
to hire more players to get injured right before the superbowl so pat mahomes can play with an injured toe behind britt reid at LT
All posts by this account, even those referencing real things, are entirely fictional and are for entertainment purposes only; i.e. very low-quality entertainment. These may contain coarse language and due to their content should not be viewed by anyone