Saying he'll file bankruptcy to avoid having to pay back the Dolphins the signing bonus money he owes back for not playing out his contract. Seriously??? wow. yeah...good luck getting past the bankruptcy trustee on that one, Ricky.
Ricky: For the last time, you're supposed to enjoy Soap Operas, not emulate them. The word of the day is: Stupid.
Can you do that? Surely the dude isn't broke. Wouldn't they make him liquadate some of his assets, houses, hummers, bentley's, diamonds, etc. before letting the tax payers foot the bill for his mistakes?
You can't, unless you're legitimately broke. The definition of bankruptcy is being unable to pay your debts as they come due. It doesn't sound like Ricky is unable, according to what I heard...it sounds like he's unwilling to pay one specific creditor. That doesn't cut it. And yes...you're only allowed to protect certain properties in a bankruptcy...anything outside of those exempt properties is fair game for liquidation. Sorry about the lack of a link...I heard it on Jim Rome's show.
In a bankruptcy, the taxpayers don't "foot the bill." The debt just disappears. It is not like the creditors get paid by the government.
Yeah but don't we pay in the end. If we all bought a bunch of stuff at sears then all declared bankrupcy then sears is saddled with our debt and in order for them to continue to be in business they would have to raise prices, etc to make up the amount we defaulted on. The debt can't just disappear. Someone ends up paying for it in the end and I'm sure in some way it ends up being us (the consumers and taxpayers).
Count me in the anti-Dolphins camp on this one. I don't think the Dolphins should profit from Ricky's retirement by collecting signing bonus money they never paid. And if part of it is incentive money that was paid to Ricky, clearly he achieved the incentives if the money was paid. So the Dolphins should have no claim to that money, either. It'd be like if you retired from your job as an accountant and your bosses came by and said, "You remember that Christmas bonus we gave you the last couple of years? We're going to need you to pay that back along with that signing bonus that your first employer paid you."
Unless, of course, it was in his contract. In which case he hadn't fully 'earned' the bonus, as one aspect of it was his continued service. Sort of like an employer saying 'we'll pay for your masters degree...but if you leave us before 5 years, you have to pay us back' If that's the deal....he owes the money.
If he owes the signing bonus money, he owes it to the Saints, though. The Dolphins shouldn't get money they never paid. The "penalty" clause stuff will have to be decided by the NFL (since I'm sure the Union will pursue a grievance), but I personally think they should just let it go. They never paid the bonus money, but they want it anyway. They paid incentives based on things Ricky achieved for them, but now they want it back (which I believe is unprecedented in the NFL. Teams have gotten their paid signing bonus money back, but I don't think any other team has asked for money paid for achieved incentives back). Maybe Ricky should just come back and sit out this year and then just dog it until the Dolphins cut him. Sort of like an employer saying 'we'll pay for your masters degree...but if you leave us before 5 years, you have to pay us back' I don't really see it like that. I'd see it more like, the company will pay you a bonus if you sell a a certain number of units. You achieve that, but then the next year you retire, so they ask for that performance bonus back even though the units were sold in a previous year. The Dolphins more directly benefitted from Ricky's achievements than the company would in the masters degree example (and a masters degree would ostensibly continue to benefit the company as long as you stay there while the number of units sold in a previous year is only important during that previous year when it was achieved).
mrpaige, this is simple contract law. the contract governs. it governs his ability to say goodbye...and it governs how he is to be paid...and it governs what rights both parties have upon its termination by either party. this is not a "what's right, what's wrong" scenario. there is no injustice. they're obligations owed and owing to both parties by the terms of their own agreement. as for the saints...the dolphins acquired the contract the saints entered into with ricky...including the rights and obligations the saints had. ricky doesn't get a free pass on the terms of his contract becauase he was traded. the dolphins paid the saints for the rights they acquired..if there's a problem there, it's between the dolphins and the saints...ricky is still obliged to live by his obligations under the deal. if you sign the deal, you live by the deal. if you're not gonna live by the deal, you can argue all the injustice you want...but it's still breach of contract.
tend to agree with max....without the hardline contract law lawyerism . Should Ricky get the money? The agreement he signed said it was repayable if he didn't honour his contract. He made a personal decision not to do so (which, IMO was his right), but he should then abide by the buy out clauses and other consequences of his decision. Plus...if there's a greivance, he should address it through whatever greivance process exists....not bankruptcy law.
