What should the NFL do to Michael Vick if he's found guilty?

[korbel]

Peter King in his regular Monday Morning column - www.cnnsi.com

Offers some insight into Michael Vick's contract with the Falcons and how the bonus money is structured and described.

Bottom line is that it does not look as if the Falcons may recover nearly as much as previously believed.

Hello Eastender,

I cannot find the contratc details you mention.

Here is what happened in court today:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/football/nfl/08/27/bc.fbn.vick.plea.ap/index.html

"Vick admitted helping kill six to eight pit bulls and supplying money for gambling on the fights. He said he did not personally place any bets or share in any winnings." How far can/should the NFL legitimately go with this if the judge accept a plea where Vick testifies he did not personally gamble??? If the judge accepted such a plea, can the NFL still use sanctions against gambling on Vick just because he supplied money??? I will wait to see the specific rules and contract details before I answer this.

Hmmmm,

Korbel

 

[eastender]

Getting Cute

Hello Eastender,

I cannot find the contratc details you mention.

Here is what happened in court today:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/football/nfl/08/27/bc.fbn.vick.plea.ap/index.html

"Vick admitted helping kill six to eight pit bulls and supplying money for gambling on the fights. He said he did not personally place any bets or share in any winnings." How far can/should the NFL legitimately go with this if the judge accept a plea where Vick testifies he did not personally gamble??? If the judge accepted such a plea, can the NFL still use sanctions against gambling on Vick just because he supplied money??? I will wait to see the specific rules and contract details before I answer this.

Hmmmm,

Korbel

The statement avoids any mention of benefits from a standard "Bookie" operation, in layman's terms the middleman's cut,which does not require placing a bet but withdraws benefits if the odds are properly structured regardless of who wins or loses.

 

[korbel]

Suckered?

Peter King in his regular Monday Morning column - www.cnnsi.com

Offers some insight into Michael Vick's contract with the Falcons and how the bonus money is structured and described.

Bottom line is that it does not look as if the Falcons may recover nearly as much as previously believed.

Hello Eastender,

Regarding the bonus money it looks like the Falcons owner Blank cut his own throat in his enthusiasm to sign Vick. I am not aware of what has been done to safeguard any team against such player complications regarding bonus money. But it sure looks like Blank didn't worry about it when he should have. Maybe this episode will make owners think a lot more when they get the itch to go shopping carte blanche and shovel money at players. I understand there are provisos about such things as riding motorcycles in contracts. Still, it looks like owners have not thought it out far enough to get due protection against illicit or criminal player activities. As Peter King implied: it's Blank's own fault if his half blind, over-zealous courting of Vick makes him unable to get back most of the bonus money.

Too bad,

Korbel

 

[eastender]

Very True

Hello Eastender,

Regarding the bonus money it looks like the Falcons owner Blank cut his own throat in his enthusiasm to sign Vick. I am not aware of what has been done to safeguard any team against such player complications regarding bonus money. But it sure looks like Blank didn't worry about it when he should have. Maybe this episode will make owners think a lot more when they get the itch to go shopping carte blanche and shovel money at players. I understand there are provisos about such things as riding motorcycles in contracts. Still, it looks like owners have not thought it out far enough to get due protection against illicit or criminal player activities. As Peter King implied: it's Blank's own fault if his half blind, over-zealous courting of Vick makes him unable to get back most of the bonus money.

Too bad,

Korbel

The comments re the Falcons owner are very true. Realistically where on the risk scale "dog fighting" and related would be far from a priority. Illegal drugs,steroid use and countless other human frailties would rank above.

Protecting people from their own stupidity or weaknesses rarely works.

 

[korbel]

The comments re the Falcons owner are very true. Realistically where on the risk scale "dog fighting" and related would be far from a priority. Illegal drugs,steroid use and countless other human frailties would rank above.

Protecting people from their own stupidity or weaknesses rarely works.

Hello Eastender,

This could be easily addressed under the label "illegal activities" if an owner has the guts to risk tainting the signing parties with some reality.

Reality bites at times,

Korbel

 

[eastender]

True

Hello Eastender,

This could be easily addressed under the label "illegal activities" if an onwer has the guts to risk tainting the signing parties with some reality.

Reality bites at times,

Korbel

True.Unfortunately guts and the desire to get an edge financially do not go hand in hand.

 

[Dee]

Here's his statement.... add another year on for, you know, using "you know", you know, like most, you know, athletes, you know, do, you know.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/football/nfl/08/27/bc.fbn.vick.plea.text.ap/index.html

Here's the religious part that daringly commented on:

I'm upset with myself, and, you know, through this situation I found Jesus and asked him for forgiveness and turned my life over to God. And I think that's the right thing to do as of right now.

Perhaps he could ask Paris Hilton for some tips... here's what she said... how is she doing so far?

I’m not the same person I was… I used to act dumb, it was an act and that act is no longer cute. It is not who I am… I am 26 years old now and it is a different time. I have become much more spiritual. God has given me this new chance… My spirit or sould did not like the way I was being seen and that is why I was sent to jail. God has released me.

Criminals find religion, adulterers hold their wife's hand as do politicians - for public consumption only. Makes me sick.

 

[korbel]

Sorry??? NO!

Well another athlete when caught doing something horribly wrong suddenly finds religion. That gets me right in the heart, i was near brought to crocodile tears. These apoligies by pro athletes or celebrities are a dime a dozen. I often wonder if they are sorry for what they done or sorry because they were caught, time will tell.

Hello Daringly,

What these people are truly sorry about in most cases is losing a kind of untouchability, their "above the law" world that allowed them to act any way they wanted because of the superstar celebrity. What they are sorry about is being made to answer in the real world they thought they were above. They failed to realize that once the public focuses on their excesses they can be treated as "commonly" as anyone else. Booo Hooo...now I'm just one of you. Maybe people like Vick should have their money put into a trust fund for them until they are mature enough to deal with their status and all that money...say at age 73 or so. The man could have done anyone and he chose to live like a fool on the field.

As for the money, ESPN estimates between lost endorsement deals, lost contract money, and partial returns of the bonus, Vick could losing somewhere in the neighborhood of $100,000,000. Hope you didn't spend what you got paid Mr. Vick.

Mind-boggling,

Korbel

 

[fly to me]

I think Michael Vick should be suspended for at least 2 years.Last season he gave the finger to his own fans as he was walking off the field after a bad game.He was involved with illegal gambling (Remember Pete Rose 's Example) .He openly lied to his team,the league,and us fans about his involvement,and only came clean after he realized there was too much evidence agaist him!!What a great role model to have for young kids?

 

[korbel]

Punishment.

I think Michael Vick should be suspended for at least 2 years.Last season he gave the finger to his own fans as he was walking off the field after a bad game.He was involved with illegal gambling (Remember Pete Rose 's Example) .He openly lied to his team,the league,and us fans about his involvement,and only came clean after he realized there was too much evidence agaist him!!What a great role model to have for young kids?

Hello fly to me,

The punishments he is about to receive will be prison time, loss of around $100,000,000 in earnings, and at least some sort of ban for years will in sum exceed anything any other sports figure has ever gotten. Excessive or not..it's well in the process now.

One thing I find a bit disturbing is how the Falcon's organization is handling Vick's punishment. I am not sure it is right or wrong, but there is something disturbing about keeping him on the roster when he is supposed to be suspended from play. We can all understand that they want to get back as much of that bonus money as possible. Still what does it say when they seem to be playing it both ways instead of showing everyone Vick's actions are intolerable by just cutting him loose. Is this right???

Not sure,

Korbel

 

[Nugie]

Korbel,

I don't think I understand your position.

You're linking potential earning capacity in a free-market system with the punishments meted out by the criminal justice system.

Pro sports make their money from people willing to pay to watch sports (and the ad revenue it generates). Are you trying to argue that a business owner that doesn't think a player with a controversial history would be a sound business decision is somehow violating the spirit of double jeopardy?

Let's say I've got an employee who is caught stealing from me. He gets convicted and is sent to jail for 30 days. Afterwards, I don't want to hire him back. Is my failure to provide employment to someone in a competitive position somehow a violation of that person's civil rights?

Please explain.

 

[korbel]

Korbel,

I don't think I understand your position.

You're linking potential earning capacity in a free-market system with the punishments meted out by the criminal justice system.

Pro sports make their money from people willing to pay to watch sports (and the ad revenue it generates). Are you trying to argue that a business owner that doesn't think a player with a controversial history would be a sound business decision is somehow violating the spirit of double jeopardy?

Let's say I've got an employee who is caught stealing from me. He gets convicted and is sent to jail for 30 days. Afterwards, I don't want to hire him back. Is my failure to provide employment to someone in a competitive position somehow a violation of that person's civil rights?

Please explain.

Hello Nugie,

Reading you characterization of my post I don't know how you could think that. What do you mean by "someone in a competitive position"? When I cited all the penalties Vick faces and implied it might be excessive I was mentally comparing the criminal behavior of other sports stars who committed crimes like rape (Tyson, possibly Kobe Bryant) and other who were guilty of ethics violations, misdemeanors, and criminal acts but never paid such a price as Vick will, and were able to continue in their sport. With the apparent gambling connection the NFL has every right to ban him permanently. So where did I supposedly imply Vick should be hired back? But remember I was not talking about "earning potential in ferring to the $100,000,000 estimate. This figure was of contractual guarantees already signed as I understand it. That is not potential. Potential refers to uncertain possible earnings or value, not precisely quantified guaranteed earnings or value. His contracts were a done deal that have been negated. Negating a done deal sure seems like punishment to me.

As for the other segment, the Falcons plan to keep Vick on their roster even though he is an admitted criminal. Would you keep an employee who stole from you officially employed even though he doesn't work for you? Yes, I know it's the only way the Falcons can get back some of the bonus money. But doesn't that seem like double dealing hypocrisy too?

Regards,

Korbel

 

[EagerBeaver]

Korbel,

You keep whining about the Falcons not cutting Vick, but why is it that they are not cutting Vick? Because of the beloved salary cap you have repeatedly championed on this Board. If there were no salary cap, Vick's ass would already have been cut and he would be looking for a new job when he gets out of jail. The Falcons need to recoup $22 million from Vick in bonus money which they can then apply to the 2008 salary cap, but they can only do that if they keep him on the roster. Arthur Blank is not going to let the Vick situation totally fuck up his team because of the salary cap rules that are in place. His duty is to the Falcons team and fans, not to people like you who can't decide whether the salary cap is a good or bad thing.

I do agree with you on the punishment of Vick possibly being excessive. His financial punishment - and he may very well lose the $100,000,000 figure you discuss - coupled with a jail term is unprecedented in human history to my knowledge, even for greater offenses (against human beings) than what he committed. I personally think Judge Hudson should give him the prosecution recommended sentence of 12-18 months. Probably 18 months. Which is still very harsh when coupled with the financial and career consequences you have already discussed.

 

[EagerBeaver]

He is getting exactly what he deserves.

In our legal system, what a defendant "deserves" as punishment is determined by precedent punishments meted out for the offense committed. I can think of many animal cruelty cases involving death of an animal where the defendant, if a first time offender, got no jail time but rather probation/community service even if he admitted to causing the death of a specific animal, something which Vick did not do. Vick is a 1st time offender. He pled to a conspiracy charge. So I am not sure I understand the basis for your statement. If you can point me to legal precedent where the same punishment was meted out for the same or a similar offense committed by a 1st time offender, please do.

 

[korbel]

Korbel,

You keep whining about the Falcons not cutting Vick, but why is it that they are not cutting Vick? Because of the beloved salary cap you have repeatedly championed on this Board. If there were no salary cap, Vick's ass would already have been cut and he would be looking for a new job when he gets out of jail. The Falcons need to recoup $22 million from Vick in bonus money which they can then apply to the 2008 salary cap, but they can only do that if they keep him on the roster. Arthur Blank is not going to let the Vick situation totally fuck up his team because of the salary cap rules that are in place. His duty is to the Falcons team and fans, not to people like you who can't decide whether the salary cap is a good or bad thing.

I do agree with you on the punishment of Vick possibly being excessive. His financial punishment - and he may very well lose the $100,000,000 figure you discuss - coupled with a jail term is unprecedented in human history to my knowledge, even for greater offenses (against human beings) than what he committed. I personally think Judge Hudson should give him the prosecution recommended sentence of 12-18 months. Probably 18 months. Which is still very harsh when coupled with the financial and career consequences you have already discussed.

Hello EB,

NIce to hear from you. Thanks for the whining characterization. Now I can be reasonably sure it's truly EB posting. Thanks also for this mischaracterization about my view of the salary cap in your post. That makes it unmistakably an EB post.

As I have said, I am fully aware of the financial necessity for Blank to keep Vick on the roster. No one begrudges him any chance to recoup financial assests for his team. But I do find it ironic and seedy that Vick will be officially listed on the roster for at least two years. Yes, it is a very strange and screwed up episode. But my full support of the salary cap has never changed. So why do you insist on saying I am indecisive about it except to find something you can be pissy about. If Blank can give Vick all the salary and bonuses he did with a cap, which in my estimation puts Vick at an undeserved value above better quarterbacks who can actually win championships, then what would the doting, idolizing, delusional Blank have given him without a salary cap and how much more would he have lost. It sure was nice of Blank to pay Vick $23,000,000 or so in 2005 for that 8-8 record...lol.

As for the punishment, we seem to agree closely about it.

SIDE NOTE: Really EB, the personal hostility is so obvious. Use it as much as you like. It's quite entertaining and totally pointless.

Cheerio buddy,

Korbel

 

[EagerBeaver]

Korbel,

Since I have never met you, it is impossible for me to have any personal animosity towards you. However, I disagree with some of the viewpoints you have posted which give the superficial appearance of being well thought out, but in fact are not. It has nothing to do with anything personal towards you, but rather the methods by which you seek to argue your positions, which I find to be disingenuous.

 

[korbel]

Korbel,

Since I have never met you, it is impossible for me to have any personal animosity towards you. However, I disagree with some of the viewpoints you have posted which give the superficial appearance of being well thought out, but in fact are not. It has nothing to do with anything personal towards you, but rather the methods by which you seek to argue your positions, which I find to be disingenuous.

Hello EB,

This is what I mean. Either it's personal or you are just plain arrogant or ill-mannered. If you don't like how I am saying things then isn't it more intelligent to make a better argument instead of resorting to condescension. I am not trying to prove the world is round, I just give my viewpoint without claiming to be an expert or that I am better than others as you nearly always do by seeking to impose your laughable impertinent pseudo-superiority. If you don't like my "positions" then make a better case for all to see. If you are better than all will then know. But try to avoid any more silly denigrating tripe. You look very bad doing it and quite laughable.

Now this silly personal waste of space with you is over for me. Preach on if you will. I will not make any more personal exhanges with you of this sort. Let's stick to the issues without denigration.

Chuckles,

Korbel

 

[eastender]

Request for Info

In our legal system, what a defendant "deserves" as punishment is determined by precedent punishments meted out for the offense committed. I can think of many animal cruelty cases involving death of an animal where the defendant, if a first time offender, got no jail time but rather probation/community service even if he admitted to causing the death of a specific animal, something which Vick did not do. Vick is a 1st time offender. He pled to a conspiracy charge. So I am not sure I understand the basis for your statement. If you can point me to legal precedent where the same punishment was meted out for the same or a similar offense committed by a 1st time offender, please do.

EB,

So far the Michael Vick story has lacked substance. The exact details of the charges,findings and his plea or the court transcript have been lost in the usual babble of sound bites, excerpts and other contractions.

His admission is not limited to a conspiracy charge but touches on participating in the death of certain pitbulls, alludes to gambling without specifics, within a Federal context - rarely would this be the case in the death of a single animal. Also the causing death phrase is somewhat of a catchall, ranging from unintentional to depraved indifference. A judge would consider this before passing sentence.

As for the financial punishment at least two concepts are being lumped together.The criminal aspect - the judge hearing the case in the criminal division of the appropriate federal jurisdiction will determine what he feels is the appropriate jail time and fine. There is also the civil aspect - all concerned parties have the right to recoup or act on contractual violations.
If Michael Vick feels hard done by the lost endorsements he has the right to launch an appropriate civil action to recoup these loses.

 

[EagerBeaver]

Eastender,

What you said is true, but you have omitted something else from the analysis, which is the specter of State criminal charges still being filed against Vick for the same offenses, which could lead to development of further facts. That could still happen between now and the sentencing in December.

I imagine that Judge Hudson at sentencing will be torn between pressure to impose a sentence longer than what is being recommended due to some of the things you mentioned, and balancing that with considerations of the enormous financial punishment already levied (as previously discussed in this thread) and the fact that Vick is a 1st time offender. As you note, the exact nature of what Vick did in terms of killing the animals is unclear - I don't know what "collective efforts" means. The exact nature of Vick's involvement in gambling is unknown. The Judge is likely to be bombarded with letters and testimony of Vick's good character which he will also have to consider. In the end, balancing all of these things, the easy way out for him will be to impose the prosecution recommended sentence of 12-18 months, going on the high end. Will he do that? Who knows.

 

[eastender]

Context

Korbel,

Since I have never met you, it is impossible for me to have any personal animosity towards you. However, I disagree with some of the viewpoints you have posted which give the superficial appearance of being well thought out, but in fact are not. It has nothing to do with anything personal towards you, but rather the methods by which you seek to argue your positions, which I find to be disingenuous.

Korbel,

Within the context of a court room or an academic debate EB's comments would be viewed as mild but dismissive.

Again you raise interesting ideas and points but lack the willingness to work at supporting or developing them. Do not expect others to do the work for you or drop their standards of vigor.