Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

49ers nightmare season continues


Captain Morgan

Recommended Posts

What's fuged up is that we could've had Hardy playing all this time same as McDonald if we (including Hardy) weren't such pansies about it.

Wrong.

Hardy was arrested, charged & convicted. McDonald was never even charged.

The Panthers didn't put Hardy on the exempt list, the NFL did. If the Panthers and Hardy didn't go along with the NFL's plan, Goodell would've just suspended him indefinitely without pay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong.

Hardy was arrested, charged & convicted. McDonald was never even charged.

The Panthers didn't put Hardy on the exempt list, the NFL did. If the Panthers and Hardy didn't go along with the NFL's plan, Goodell would've just suspended him indefinitely without pay.

 

The "arrested, charged and convicted" statement you made is completely irrelevant. He played week 1 with all that information exactly the same. The NFL COULDN'T just put him on the exempt list. Hardy had to agree to it, and I am 100% sure JR did too. Goodell may have done that but Hardy would appeal it claiming he's still going through the process and he would've been playing until his court case. And that would be insanely risky for Goodell because if Hardy was then found innocent he would sue the sh*t out of the league and create more media shitstorm. Remember, Hardy would've played week 2 as well if WE didn't deactivate him. We've heard Ron say over and over that it was solely his decision but that is complete bullshit. It was JR's decision and his only. Gettleman and Rivera are football guys who were letting it play out in the courts and wanted him on the field. JR stepped in like a pussy and got him on this list to temporarily avoid the bad PR. If he never went on the exempt list the most likely thing that would've happened is JR would've made Rivera have Hardy inactive every week. The 49ers had balls and said that McDonald was playing until the court system played out. We could've easily done that too and had Hardy playing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the argument is Hardy was "convicted" and McDonald was not

 

 

I think it's BS, but it's the reason for the Hardy uproar.

 

All that's completely irrelevant. I'm not comparing Hardy to McDonald. I'm comparing the way our FO handled it to the way the 49ers' handled it. Hardy played week 1 after having been "convicted." He would've kept playing as well if we didn't deactivate him week 2 and give in to the media's bullshit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "arrested, charged and convicted" statement you made is completely irrelevant. He played week 1 with all that information exactly the same. The NFL COULDN'T just put him on the exempt list. Hardy had to agree to it, and I am 100% sure JR did too. Goodell may have done that but Hardy would appeal it claiming he's still going through the process and he would've been playing until his court case. And that would be insanely risky for Goodell because if Hardy was then found innocent he would sue the sh*t out of the league and create more media shitstorm. Remember, Hardy would've played week 2 as well if WE didn't deactivate him. We've heard Ron say over and over that it was solely his decision but that is complete bullshit. It was JR's decision and his only. Gettleman and Rivera are football guys who were letting it play out in the courts and wanted him on the field. JR stepped in like a pussy and got him on this list to temporarily avoid the bad PR. If he never went on the exempt list the most likely thing that would've happened is JR would've made Rivera have Hardy inactive every week. The 49ers had balls and said that McDonald was playing until the court system played out. We could've easily done that too and had Hardy playing.

You're right, the team & Hardy had to agree to put him on the exempt list.

The NFL COULD HAVE just suspended him without pay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is only going to make the NFL's new personal conduct rules they are trying to implement more difficult for the NFLPA to fight.

 

By that I mean in regards to the 49ers allowing him to keep playing after his previous arrest this season.

 

I don't see anyone throwing a big contract at Hardy next year, no matter how his trial plays out. Fair or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 49ers are a disaster this year, and it may take a while to recover from all this poo. And, on top of that, they're stuck with Kaep. Lolololol

 

Due to the structure of that contract, they can actually cut him pretty much anytime without much consequence.  It 'looks' like a big contract, but he really wasn't guaranteed poo unless he and the 49ers meet certain criteria such as playoff wins, Kap having a good season, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
    • Get any shot you can at humane society, so much cheaper
×
×
  • Create New...