Says the Broncos benched him because he wouldn’t agree to take out the injury guarantee in his deal. Not sure the union is going to like this. Wilson - ( New Window )
Denver shouldn't have made the request/demand they made
in any event, but the contract issue was more complicated than at first glance.
Notice that Wilson says they wanted him to "push back" the guarantee, not "take out" the guarantee. What does that mean and why would Denver ask that?
Wilson's contract provided that his 2025 salary would fully guarantee a year in advance, in March 2024. Since you can't cut an injured player, Broncos were concerned about the consequences of any injury for that full guarantee.
The full guarantee is what they wanted him to push back, I believe, and the injury issue got mixed up with it.
I would like to see the exact communications between the Broncos and Wilson's agent. But I doubt there will be legal action exposing them.
Even if Denver did what he said they did, what rule did the Broncos
violate? Teams can bench players over contract situations right? Is there a rule against that?
My guess is it's not an issue unless he had incentives in the contract that he failed to reach because he was benched because of the clause in the contract. The union would definitely be taking a stand if that were the case.
stating their position that Denver was violating Wilson's contract by its conduct.
There is the argument that there is substantial dollar value to the player in being on the field, demonstrating his capabilities to the league, and the player would not have made the contract commitment if he knew he would be required to give up his negotiated contract guarantees to get on the field. cbs - ( New Window )
stating their position that Denver was violating Wilson's contract by its conduct.
There is the argument that there is substantial dollar value to the player in being on the field, demonstrating his capabilities to the league, and the player would not have made the contract commitment if he knew he would be required to give up his negotiated contract guarantees to get on the field. cbs - ( New Window )
So he was "damaged" off his already monster contract because he sat?
Teams sit players to keep them from reaching incentives - a dick move, yes.
Notice that Wilson says they wanted him to "push back" the guarantee, not "take out" the guarantee. What does that mean and why would Denver ask that?
Wilson's contract provided that his 2025 salary would fully guarantee a year in advance, in March 2024. Since you can't cut an injured player, Broncos were concerned about the consequences of any injury for that full guarantee.
The full guarantee is what they wanted him to push back, I believe, and the injury issue got mixed up with it.
I would like to see the exact communications between the Broncos and Wilson's agent. But I doubt there will be legal action exposing them.
My guess is it's not an issue unless he had incentives in the contract that he failed to reach because he was benched because of the clause in the contract. The union would definitely be taking a stand if that were the case.
There is the argument that there is substantial dollar value to the player in being on the field, demonstrating his capabilities to the league, and the player would not have made the contract commitment if he knew he would be required to give up his negotiated contract guarantees to get on the field.
cbs - ( New Window )
There is the argument that there is substantial dollar value to the player in being on the field, demonstrating his capabilities to the league, and the player would not have made the contract commitment if he knew he would be required to give up his negotiated contract guarantees to get on the field. cbs - ( New Window )
So he was "damaged" off his already monster contract because he sat?
Teams sit players to keep them from reaching incentives - a dick move, yes.