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!

     

The money part of firing Rhule


Chiefzack
 Share

Recommended Posts

If Tepper decided to pull the plug after this season, a big consideration is Matt Rhule is due 5 years 100% guaranteed at $10 million... so 50 million

If I'm not mistaken, those buyouts usually don't equal "coach gets a check" there's terms that usually say if terminated, you can accept this lump sum amount or get payments of the remaining balance over 10-12 years, but if you accept payments you cannot accept another job.

 

I'm just wondering if Matt's contract is as iron clad as made out? Usually most coaches don't ever usually get 100% of that guaranteed amount unless they take payments, so they get a lump sum of 50-60%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, SizzleBuzz said:

Yes, it is.

That said, Big Dave don't give a flying F***...

...paying Rhule out is akin to loose change under the car seats for him.

See ya...

I understand that we are not getting out from under the 100% guaranteed.

What I'm wondering is did Rhules agent put a clause in where he gets paid 100% of the remaining contract if he gets fired?

We might be able to get out at 50-60% if he took a lump sum if he has to take payments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is it that anyone has seen up to this point that indicates Rhule will finally figure it all out if he's given more time/another season?  

I'm just not seeing anything that suggests Rhule is growing into his job as a head coach.  Quite the contrary in fact, it appears to me that this team and Rhule are regressing.

  • Pie 6
  • Beer 1
  • Flames 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, NanuqoftheNorth said:

What is it that anyone has seen up to this point that indicates Rhule will finally figure it all out if he's given more time/another season?  

I'm just not seeing anything that suggests Rhule is growing into his job as a head coach.  Quite the contrary in fact, it appears to me that this team and Rhule are regressing.

This. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LinvilleGorge said:
2 minutes ago, NanuqoftheNorth said:

I'm just not seeing anything that suggests Rhule is growing into his job as a head coach.  Quite the contrary in fact, it appears to me that this team and Rhule are regressing.

This. 

 

Who do you suggest should replace the Head Ball Coach Matt Rhule?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I don't think it's any weird or unique clause, it's the offset language, same thing so many contract disputes are over. It just means that including it, if a player is cut and then signed by another team, the original team would be able to subtract how much they're getting paid by the new team from what they still owe him on their guaranteed money. For example, it's why Russell Wilson signed for the minimum last year with the Steelers as that was included in his Denver contract.  So if he signed with the Steelers for $1 million, he'd get $1 million less from the Broncos, if it was $2 million, he'd get $2 million less, basically he couldn't make any more money than he was already going to make, so you sign for the minimum to not take unnecessary cap room from your new team while giving extra cap room to your old one. The problem with trying to include it in rookie deals is that a team trying to include it, it says they think they don't really believe the player will make it 4 years with the team before they cut them.  And this usually comes up with one or two rookies in most seasons, the difference is it's usually handled much more quietly and not as public and ugly as this one. The other difference is that it's happening with the Bengals, which I believe I saw are one of the few (or only?) team that doesn't have protections for rookies in rookie and mini camps to be able to participate even if they haven't signed their contract yet.  The other teams have injury protections that allow them to still play, but the Bengals do not, which is also why this one is so public and ugly, as most the time this happens, the rookie is still participating in the rookie and subsequent mini camps, giving them more time to get the contract done before training camp when they'd then hold out.
    • adamantium? adam? adam thielen super bowl game winning catch ?
    • You're really gonna pass up the opportunity to make a joke about skidmarks in underwear here?  Alright fine.
×
×
  • Create New...