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!

     

Beason's civil trial starts today


CatMan72

Recommended Posts

Panthers linebacker Jon Beason will be in court Monday for an incident in 2009 in which he is accused of punching a man in the face.

Gary Wright of the Charlotte Observer writes that Beason is accused in a civil trial of attacking Gregory Frye at a club after Frye told Beason’s teammate Donte Rosario that he saw Beason “up at the lake doing coke with some girl.” That remark reportedly enraged Beason.

Read more: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/09/jon-beasons-civil-trial-starts-monday/

I honestly didn't know this was still going on. Don't know if Beason really did it or not, but from all I've heard and know about this Greg Frye, he deserved it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, and I missed this comment at the end of the PFT article:

(No word on whether any charges will be brought against NFL Network for their criminal underrating of Beason in their top 100 player series.)

Can't believe I'm going to say this, but... GO PFT!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they charged five bucks apiece for the chance to kick Frye in the nuts, they'd likely make a fortune off this board alone.

I'd pay 100 for that opportunity, would wear steel toe boots to make sure he can't infect the rest of society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't that Frye dude post on here?

Oh, wait, that's right.....:lol:

After the incident, some guys that said they knew him or had hung out with him posted here for a bit. There was plenty of belief that at least one of the "defenders" was actually Frye himself.

Nothing any of them said did anything to change the impression that he's a douchebag / loser / waste of oxygen / whatever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...