Exempt List

[Nate Dogg]

I think it means that neither the team nor the league wants to get held legally accountable for denying Hardy his salary if/when he is found innocent. The court of public opinion is just one of the courts that is playing a roll in these decisions.

 

I guess it's a double-edged sword. If he's found innocent I'll be glad they made this move and it would be great to have him back fresh for playoffs. But if he's found guilty it would've been better to go ahead and just cut him and terminate his contract. Obviously he might sue, but employers have all kinds of legal loopholes for conduct detrimental and damaging the brand.

[smash_n_dash]

I think that prior to the rice and Peterson issues the Panthers were willing to negotiate a future contract with Hardy if/when he's found innocent. It may not have been a high value contract for fear of future incidents occurring (has other character issues from the past) but I'm sure Gettleman would have been fine with something around $6-7M a year (if innocent). I really can't see how anything has changed since nothing that's happened since July has been Hardy's fault, so yes he could play for us past this season, if he wants to.

[greghardy'sAK-47]

So you think that if he's found guilty he will still play football this season?

 

I have a hard time believing he plays another snap with a guilty verdict.

i think you misread my post.  anyway, no way is hardy back this season if found guilty.  

[smash_n_dash]

I guess it's a double-edged sword. If he's found innocent I'll be glad they made this move and it would be great to have him back fresh for playoffs. But if he's found guilty it would've been better to go ahead and just cut him and terminate his contract. Obviously he might sue, but employers have all kinds of legal loopholes for conduct detrimental and damaging the brand.

Sue for what?

[Nate Dogg]

Sue for what?

 

Ray Rice and the NFLPA are suing the Ravens for the money he lost from having his contract terminated.

[smash_n_dash]

They're fighting for punishing him twice. It's perfectly acceptable to terminate employment based upon criminal convictions.

[tondi]

They're fighting for punishing him twice. It's perfectly acceptable to terminate employment based upon criminal convictions.

 

I don't think Rice been convicted of anything.

[csx]

I guess it's a double-edged sword. If he's found innocent I'll be glad they made this move and it would be great to have him back fresh for playoffs. But if he's found guilty it would've been better to go ahead and just cut him and terminate his contract. Obviously he might sue, but employers have all kinds of legal loopholes for conduct detrimental and damaging the brand.

 

Well considering that his legal process isn't over yet I don't know what else they can do. Anything else is just jumping to a conviction before one is given. The team is being punished by all of this but you can bet the parties involved have good lawyers who are doing the best they can to minimize the potential backlash. I think they have counsel telling them that suspension without pay prior to a conviction is a bad path to take. Until then they take a hit in the public court of opinion. And our coach is the one having to deal with it for some reason.

[Mr. Scot]

I think it means that neither the team nor the league wants to get held legally accountable for denying Hardy his salary if/when he is found innocent. The court of public opinion is just one of the courts that is playing a roll in these decisions.

 

That, plus the NFL wants him out of the public eye so they can pray the public forgets him.

 

Easier to get a guy to keep his mouth shut when you're paying him a lot of money to do nothing.

[smash_n_dash]

I don't think Rice been convicted of anything.

That's not what I was referring to. If GH is found guilty, are we legally capable of cutting Hardy or not? As for Rice, they already doled out a 2 game suspension, then further suspended him for the same event. That's the NFLPA's reason for fighting.

[tondi]

That's not what I was referring to. If GH is found guilty, are we legally capable of cutting Hardy or not? As for Rice, they already doled out a 2 game suspension, then further suspended him for the same event. That's the NFLPA's reason for fighting.

 

I would say we can only do what the NFL and NFLPA have agreed to do via the CBA.  If they have agreed that a player can have a contract terminated over a misdemeanor conviction then we should be fine but if not we won't really have cutting him as an option.  With the NFLPA suing over the RR situation I would infer we don't have the ability to cut him, at least not without paying him and if we are going to have to pay him either way I can understand why they would keep him around just in case this works out and they get to bring him back.

[csx]

I would say we can only do what the NFL and NFLPA have agreed to do via the CBA.  If they have agreed that a player can have a contract terminated over a misdemeanor conviction then we should be fine but if not we won't really have cutting him as an option.  With the NFLPA suing over the RR situation I would infer we don't have the ability to cut him, at least not without paying him and if we are going to have to pay him either way I can understand why they would keep him around just in case this works out and they get to bring him back.

 

That's a good question. But teams can and do cut players all the time. I am curios as to the distinction between distinguishing between standard football termination and one that is for conduct reasons.

[Mr. Scot]

Per PFT, some other teams are complaining that the League is doing special favors for the Panthers and Vikings by letting them use this list.

[Sapper]

There needs to be a Hardy thread mod...it would be a 24 hour job.