Nick Fairley, Saints await decision on contract grievances

Getty Images

The Saints and Nick Fairley both have filed grievances with the NFL’s Management Council over what the team owes the defensive tackle, General Manager Mickey Loomis said Wednesday.

“There’s grievances filed, so we have to go through the process,” Loomis said, via Josh Katzenstein of the Times-Picayune.

Fairley signed a four-year, $28 million deal with the Saints in the offseason, but he never played in 2017 after a team doctor discovered a heart condition. The Saints placed him on the non-football illness list after Fairley visited three heart specialists.

Fairley, 30, likely won’t play again.

He played for three teams in six seasons, making 20.5 career sacks.

Fairley had an $8 million signing bonus as part of the $14 million guaranteed in the contract he signed in March. It’s unclear how much the Saints have paid Fairley.

Loomis would not address where the grievances stand or when they were filed, although he indicated it was a while ago.

16 responses to “Nick Fairley, Saints await decision on contract grievances

  1. I liked Nick with the Lions, didn’t see why we had to let him go. And his health issue is unfortunate.

    But why should he receive any part of an $8M signing bonus? He re-signed in March, and was on the illness list by June.

  2. But why should he receive any part of an $8M signing bonus? He re-signed in March, and was on the illness list by June.

    Because he’s broke already and desperate for some money.

  3. This is on the Saints (and their medical staff), not on Fairley. When the Saints signed him, they had every opportunity to put him through the ringer in terms of a medical evaluation. Unless Fairley had advance knowledge of his condition that he did not share with the team like when the Patriots signed Jonathan Fanene (and it is my understanding that this is not the case), then Fairley did nothing wrong. When the Saints guaranteed that money, they guaranteed it. Nevertheless, the two sides will likely settle somewhere in the middle.

  4. murphyslaw40 , the key word is guarantee , as in the $8 million signing bonus was part of the $14 million guaranteed in his contract . That being said based on the filing of grievances on both sides it would seem that there wasn’t specific language spelling out what was owed in the event of a career ending non- football medical condition .

  5. murphyslaw40 says:
    January 24, 2018 at 3:54 pm
    I liked Nick with the Lions, didn’t see why we had to let him go. And his health issue is unfortunate.

    —————————-

    Really? What did you like about him? He was fat and out of shape and showed very little effort a lot of the time. He was a total waste of a first round pick who only slid to us because of character issues. Then Mayhew, being the genius GM that he was drafted him anyway and it worked out like most of Mayhew’s picks did. I don’t mean to be rude but the whole situation was a disaster so it blows my mind when I hear people say they liked him

  6. I hear the people saying the Saints should have put him through the ringer but some heart conditions aren’t detectable by normal means. Take a look at Pete Maravich, had a one of a kind career all while playing with a deformed heart.

  7. The legal and medical experts in these comments never cease to amaze me.This is/was clearly a fluid situation that to a large degree is linked to the opinion of the Dr. and the liability that the club is willing to carry.

    Doctors first discovered the defensive tackle had an enlarged heart before the 2011 NFL draft. He played through it for several years, but a new doctor he saw this offseason in Boston detected a change in the condition and recommended Fairley end his career.

    The Saints and Fairley then sought multiple opinions before reaching a decision on how to move forward. One of the other doctors believed Fairley could continue playing.shortly after the defensive tackle signed a $28 million contract.

  8. Also, if he retires there’s this…

    If a player unexpectedly retires in his prime, while playing under a long term contract in which the team gave the player a signing bonus, the CBA allows the team to attempt to recoup some of that Signing Bonus. This has become known as the “Barry Sanders Rule”.

    If the team – usually after an arbitration hearing – is entitled to receive the return of a portion of the player’s Bonus, that amount is credited to the following year’s Salary Cap.

  9. In the other pro sports, he would be paid and the team would seek to collect insurance. I know that would hurt the feelings of snowflakes who side with the owners on everything against the players, who exist purely for your amusement.

  10. murphyslaw40 says:
    January 24, 2018 at 3:54 pm
    I liked Nick with the Lions, didn’t see why we had to let him go.
    —————

    I can tell you, he was lazy. Dominant when he wanted to be, but to lazy to do the work all the time.

  11. winningisabrees says:
    January 24, 2018 at 4:57 pm
    People, what this article doesn’t state, is that the condition was found during the physical. All contracts are pending passed physical.
    —————————————————-
    This is fact, and all of the snarky comments about the incompetence of the Saints’ doctors should instead be questioning the team doctors of the two teams who didn’t notice this.

    And as far as “grievances” go, this is normal operating procedure. Fairley knows his signing bonus was based on the years of his contract and would like to get as much as he can, and the Saints rightfully think they owe him less because of said years. Standard legal filings on both sides.

Leave a Reply

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