Skip to content

Larry Johnson Loses Grievance On Future Guaranteed Salaries

The good news for NFL players coming out of last week’s combined Plaxico Burress/Larry Johnson grievance is that the forfeiture of signing bonus money has been significantly limited.
The bad news for NFL players is that Special Master Richard Burbank upheld player contract language invalidating future guaranteed base salaries.
Per a league source, Johnson’s grievance failed as to the question of whether the Chiefs are permitted to erase $3.5 million in guaranteed base salary due in 2009 and $250,000 in guaranteed base salary due in 2010 based on Johnson’s one-game suspension in 2008 for violation of the personal conduct policy.
With the future guaranteed payments now off the books, the Chiefs are expected to cut or trade Johnson.
Meanwhile, we’re told that Johnson’s grievance prevailed as to the partial forfeiture of his signing bonus allocation applicable to 2008, for the same reasons that the Burress grievance prevailed on that point — according to Burbank, suspensions don’t trigger a forfeiture of signing bonus money.

Permalink 12 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Contracts, Kansas City Chiefs, Rumor Mill, Top Stories
12 Responses to “Larry Johnson Loses Grievance On Future Guaranteed Salaries”
  1. Colinito says: Apr 6, 2009 1:22 PM

    I don’t like it. Seems like even guaranteed money isn’t a sure thing anymore.

  2. empty13 says: Apr 6, 2009 1:23 PM

    well since johnson is guaranteed to be an asshole womanwhupper and an inveterate spitter, why should he be guaranteed anything…

  3. dopenuts says: Apr 6, 2009 1:32 PM

    seeing lj in orange and brown sounds nice!!!!!!!!!!

  4. rlewis4242 says: Apr 6, 2009 1:39 PM

    If the players are in breach of contract, then they should forfiet their futuer payments. It’s no different than if a coach gets fired and gets his contract paid out ‘Guaranteed’, unless it’s for cause. If you are upset (Colinito) about the players not getting enough money, be upset about the fact that they can be cut for no reason and lose out on the back end of a contract that was signed, not when it works as it should in the real world.
    Also, I think that Burbank blew it in his interpretation of Article XIV, Section 9 of the CBA. If Burress knew or should have known that it was illegal to have the gun (and you’d have to be a complete moron to not know bringing a loaded weapon into a crowded nightclub would be a risky proposition), and also knew that suspensions and possible prosecution and jail time would be a likely result, then that should amount to intentional action. The language ‘has the effect’ seems to be broad enough to cover more than just deciding to retire or not show up.

  5. jeff303 says: Apr 6, 2009 1:43 PM

    On behalf of Chiefs’ fans everywhere, please don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out Larry – you piece of crap.

  6. smiley says: Apr 6, 2009 1:44 PM

    Here comes the cryin’.

  7. Ralph GreNader says: Apr 6, 2009 2:26 PM

    Burress is a dumbass and Johnson is a thug. Maybe teams should look at character before giving away money. As much as I hate the patriots and steelers you don’t see this nonsense happening on their watch.

  8. Colinito says: Apr 6, 2009 2:38 PM

    Okay, so a bar fight is for cause? It basically opens up the door for teams to forfeit guaranteed money if the player gets into any trouble whatsoever. Some of you may be okay with that, but all I see is potential for abuse. And making “guaranteed” money less guaranteed than ever. Remember that guaranteed money is only a fraction of what their contract is anyway, and now it will be less.

  9. mcrowell says: Apr 6, 2009 2:46 PM

    @ ralph grenader:
    aren’t “dumbass” and “thug” rather synonymous with each…either way, they are BOTH dumbasses and thugs…between the two you have lots of run ins with the cops, and lots of court dates = dumbass and thug.

  10. Ralph GreNader says: Apr 6, 2009 3:02 PM

    Mcrowel:
    Touche

  11. warpaint88 says: Apr 6, 2009 3:18 PM

    As a Chiefs fan, I really don’t want to trade LJ.. I think if we improve our line (which we are working on doing) he still has some good football left in him. Give him a solid line and he’s an animal. Johnson’s bread and butter is not outrunning linebackers, it’s hitting the hole his line provides for him and making the secondary his bitch.
    That being said, he’s a crybaby and an asshole. So whether the Chiefs trade him or keep him it’s a win-win. But I say keep the guy and run him into the ground.

  12. TheDPR says: Apr 6, 2009 4:37 PM

    >>>>>
    “With the future guaranteed payments now off the books, the Chiefs are expected to cut or trade Johnson.”
    >>>>>
    Expected by whom? Not me.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!