Vick about to take it in the butt...

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 8:44 pm

RACK Crayola for employing reverse-Affirmative Action!!!!

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 9:45 pm

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:I think there's a better chance of the Falcons cutting Vick before Goodell stepping in. Anyone know the salary cap implications and at what point in time (now?) would Atlanta take the lowest hit to their cap figure?

The Falcons are totally fucked unless they can hold onto Vick through June 1 of next year and get playing time from him. They're looking at 6 million in dead money this year and 15 million next year. If they were somehow able to keep him on the books for another year, they would be only slightly less screwed since another year would be amortized and they would be looking at an accelerated cap number of around 10 million or so for the year 2009 plus another 6 million or so on the books for 2008.

Considering that the cap is about 109 million this year and will be about 114 million in 2008, they would be looking at 5% of their total cap money this year as dead weight. And in 2008 that would be 13% of their total cap space that would be dead just on account of Ron Mexico. Another perspective that would give you an idea just how huge a deal this would be is to consider that 6 million is almost $1,750,000 higher than the average rookie signing allocation allowed to teams this year under the collective bargaining agreement.

http://www.ajc.com/sports/content/sport ... 0vick.html

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 · Wed Jul 18, 2007 10:14 pm

BSmack wrote:
ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:I think there's a better chance of the Falcons cutting Vick before Goodell stepping in. Anyone know the salary cap implications and at what point in time (now?) would Atlanta take the lowest hit to their cap figure?
The Falcons are totally fucked unless they can hold onto Vick through June 1 of next year and get playing time from him.

Yeah, ignore my post about Atlanta releasing Vick before he's found guilty. Now that I think about it... I am assuming there's got to be some language in his ginormous contract which makes it voidable upon a felony conviction or other shitty behavior.

Blueblood · Post by **Blueblood** » Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:54 am

"Woof Woof. If you're going to come at me one-on-one, you better bring a lot, JACK!"

RadioFan · Post by **RadioFan** » Thu Jul 19, 2007 5:42 am

Dinsdale wrote:anyway, when he's found guilty, he should be hanged, doused with water, and electrocuted. Then I could get a laugh out of something that has so far only turned my stomach.

Woof woof Rack.

jiminphilly · Post by **jiminphilly** » Thu Jul 19, 2007 5:48 pm

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:
BSmack wrote:
ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:I think there's a better chance of the Falcons cutting Vick before Goodell stepping in. Anyone know the salary cap implications and at what point in time (now?) would Atlanta take the lowest hit to their cap figure?
The Falcons are totally fucked unless they can hold onto Vick through June 1 of next year and get playing time from him.
I am assuming there's got to be some language in his ginormous contract which makes it voidable upon a felony conviction or other shitty behavior.

They can pretty much cut him for any reason they want.. based on how the arbitrator sided with the Eagles in the TO case a few years ago, I don't see any way Vick would win his grievance.

*from the article B cited-

". . . f player has engaged in personal conduct reasonably judged by Club to adversely affect or reflect on Club, then Club may terminate this contract."

If a contract is terminated under that clause, the player has the right to file a grievance and have an arbitrator decide whether the club acted reasonably.

Aside from "personal conduct," other grounds for termination of NFL contracts are "unsatisfactory" skill or performance by the player and a "need" by a team to make "room" under the salary cap for other players. The standard contract also stipulates that if an injured player is released, he'll be paid for the balance of the season in which the injury was suffered.

While NFL teams usually can terminate player contracts at will, they cannot escape the salary-cap ramifications.

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 · Thu Jul 19, 2007 6:10 pm

http://www.nflgridirongab.com/2007/06/1 ... al-costly/

There are consequences facing the Falcons. The Michael Vick incidents (the water bottle and the dog-fighting allegations) can only be a public relations nightmare for Falcons owner Arthur Blank. And more options may come up if things take a turn for the worse. For example, if Vick is charged with participating in dog-fighting, or if he’s indicted by a grand jury, the standard NFL contract would allow the team to suspend Vick for at least four games. The Falcons could also use a suspension as justification for terminating Vick’s contract. The Dallas Cowboys cut quarterback Quincy Carter in August 2004 after he was suspended by the NFL for four games for violating the league’s substance abuse policy. Carter filed a grievance, which was unsuccessful.

My question is... this means suspended without pay, correct? Also, it's says AT LEAST four games. It may be more.

My point being, his contract may inhibit their ability to sign other players, but they don't necessarily have to pay Vick every dollar counted against the cap if he's suspended though either.

We need a lawyer to check in and give us the low down. Unfortunately, just about all of them are shit posters who I'd rather avoid. Hmmm.....

As we speak, I'd bet Atlanta is doing a Cost/Benefit Analysis on cutting Vick. These issues are the things they're discussing, I'm sure.

Luther · Post by **Luther** » Fri Jul 20, 2007 5:42 am

PETA is just pissed off because of the new line of Michael Vick Pit Bull shoes.

Rip City

Mike the Lab Rat · Post by **Mike the Lab Rat** » Fri Jul 20, 2007 1:25 pm

Luther wrote:

PETA is just pissed off because of the new line of Michael Vick Pit Bull shoes.

Rip City

Holy crap. That was damned funny.

Racks to Luth yet again.

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 · Fri Jul 20, 2007 1:35 pm

RACK Luth.

Vick's next shoe venture: Crushpuppies.

Tom In VA · Post by **Tom In VA** » Fri Jul 20, 2007 3:18 pm

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:RACK Luth.

Vick's next shoe venture: Crushpuppies.

RACK Luth and UCan't for the LOL'rs.

Luther · Post by **Luther** » Sat Jul 21, 2007 10:52 pm

Michael Vick's nightmare.

Rip City

Luther · Post by **Luther** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 4:47 pm

Nope, him holding that dog was a stock photo I found on the net.

There was an editorial in our local rag this morning and after reading it I feel confident that Vick just won't be able to recover from this mess. I'm even confident he couldn't recover if found not guilty. He'd have more support from the public had he tagged team that gal in Colorado with Kobe, stood next to OJ in Brentwood, or stood buck nekkid in the Georgia Dome with a sign that said, "Suck my Vick Dick."

For years we here in Portland had to go through all the bad press with criminal Jailblazers in the news all the time. It took years to get rid of all of them. I actually feel very sorry for Atlanta, and for Georgia. He's got a contract and probably no matter what happens he'll still get that check. As Rasheed Wallace used to say before we jettisoned him, "CTC,". Cut the Check. Basically he was saying, "Fuck you, I don't care, someone just cut the check. That is all that is important to me."

Georgia, sadly, things are going to get a lot worse before they get better.

Rip City

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 9:57 pm

War Wagon wrote:What are the potential penalties if he's convicted?

Nevermind what punishment the NFL might dole out, he could be looking at time behind bars.

He'll get work-release

If he was white, he'd fucking be on waivers by now

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 3:22 pm

Looks like the Falcons are going to do something by tomorrow.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/w ... 7/22/vick/

Alge Crumpler's FFL value is going to get killed.

RumpleForeskin · Post by **RumpleForeskin** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 4:36 pm

My pit, Fitch.

As an owner of THE sweetest pit on the planet, I despise Mike Vick for any involvement he had in this situation. When were on vacation, my wife and I were watching the report on SC and when they started talking about the various ways of killing the dogs, my wife demanded I turn the TV off. All I could imagine when hearing the gruesome ways of those dogs being executed was my dog being handled that way. NOT COOL.

jiminphilly · Post by **jiminphilly** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 4:48 pm

Raise your hand if you think Michael Vick is the only Falcon involved in this dog fighting ring?

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 · Mon Jul 23, 2007 4:53 pm

RACK the shed you and your family call home, Rumps... Your wife must feel like a bull in a ~~china shop~~ Dollar Store.

RumpleForeskin · Post by **RumpleForeskin** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 5:09 pm

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:RACK the shed you and your family call home, Rumps... Your wife must feel like a bull in a ~~china shop~~ Dollar Store.

Ucant, that is my mother's Barn on her 13 acre spread near Austin. She likes to decorate it for the holidays. S'all

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 5:16 pm

mvscal wrote:
RumpleForeskin wrote:As an owner of THE sweetest pit on the planet,
...until it rips your kid's face off.

That explains some of what happened to the wife.

RumpleForeskin · Post by **RumpleForeskin** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 5:19 pm

mvscal wrote:...until it rips your kid's face off.

That is a major misconception of pits. The owner is 95% to blame for a way a dog is around others. And with pits, you have to spend A LOT of extra time with them. I've had a lot of feedback from friends and relatives saying that they DO NOT believe my dog is a pit because of the way he is around children and other dogs. We have raised him with a lot of love and ABSOLUTELY DO NOT play tug-o-war with him and his toys. We are not aggressive with him at all. From day one we have made our best efforts to take the aggressive nature he has in him and have successfully turned him into a "lab" personality.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 5:40 pm

BSmack wrote:
mvscal wrote:
RumpleForeskin wrote:As an owner of THE sweetest pit on the planet,
...until it rips your kid's face off.
That explains some of what happened to the wife.

He couldn't have gotten much. She still has a shitload of face.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 5:46 pm

You could fill a library with the information/stats available on pits.

But some people have the same ego problem as the little-dicked pit bull tough-guy that just manifests itself in a different way.

"No, they're great, sweet dogs, it's just how you raise them."

Well, no... it isn't.

Same reason alligators don't make good pets. Same reason cougars don't make good pets. All the good upbringing in the world doesn't change DNA, nor can it change a natural disposition.

But there's always the "no, I'm such a great dog trainer, those rules don't apply to me."

Straight-up ego problem... textbook case.

And anyone who risks their childrens' safety to prove their point is subhuman scum, and should be jailed for a very long time when the animal injures the child.

Fucking deplorable.

RumpleForeskin · Post by **RumpleForeskin** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:27 pm

Whatever, Dins. You say its my ego and its complete bullshit, but you couldn't be more wrong. I'm sure the number of pits alive on the planet and the number of pits who have attacked humans is probably less than 30%. Maybe even less than 20%. Yes, they are mean dogs, yes they are bred to protect, but don't fucking say that all pits are alike and that owners of pits are just naive and don't know what they are talking about just because they think their pit is different. Not all dogs of the same breed are alike.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:31 pm

RumpleForeskin wrote:I'm sure the number of pits alive on the planet and the number of pits who have attacked humans is probably less than 30%. Maybe even less than 20%.

And these stats are good enough for your children?

Fucking deplorable.

Your Honor, the Prosecution rests.

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 · Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:40 pm

RumpleForeskin wrote:Not all dogs of the same breed are alike.

I disagree. Any toy breed that is under 15 lbs and "goes for walks" in its owner's purse is a useless, POS overstuffed rat.

Furthermore... said owner, whether it be a transgendered male or a slutatious bimbo, could suck start a supercharged OReck DutchTech 1800.

L8.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 7:07 pm

One of my old buddy's mom just passed away after a very long, debilitating bout. He got her a chihuahua to keep her company while she was stuck in a chair wasting away.

His mother passed recently. And now he's got a freaking chihuahua. But since he took care of it these last couple of years, he's kind of attached to it, and doesn't want to get rid of it.

As if his buddies didn't have enough fodder against the guy. When the booze flows, and the conversation inevitably turns to "you know how I know you're gay?" ...

He doesn't usually come out ahead.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 7:21 pm

I think a guy with a toy dog still comes out ahead of a guy with a cat.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 7:25 pm

My 90 year old cat would eat that chihuahua for breakfast.

Confucius say: Man with cat doesn't have his yard torn up by gophers and moles, and has no rodents living in his garage.

RumpleForeskin · Post by **RumpleForeskin** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 7:31 pm

Your 90 year old cat would probably take out my pit too. He's really that nice.

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 · Mon Jul 23, 2007 7:38 pm

Dinsdale wrote:Confucius say: Man .................with cat, get no pussy.

Fixed.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 7:39 pm

Dinsdale wrote:Confucius say: Man with cat have two pussies.

FTFY

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 · Mon Jul 23, 2007 7:40 pm

Well Goobs, that was my other choice.

I wasn't sure which to chose, so thanks for picking up the slack.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 7:54 pm

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:Well Goobs, that was my other choice.

I wasn't sure which to chose, so thanks for picking up the slack.

There was also the angle of people resembling their pets....

RumpleForeskin · Post by **RumpleForeskin** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 7:57 pm

Cats are pointless

Bucmonkey · Post by **Bucmonkey** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 8:00 pm

Pet smack..../rolleyes

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 8:08 pm

^^^^^^^^^
Must be another cat-loving poofter.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 8:13 pm

RumpleForeskin wrote:Cats are pointless

Really?

Remind me what was the pivotal bit of misinformation that lead to millions and millions of deaths from the black plague in Europe again?

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 8:25 pm

And this just in...

Lockport boy sexually assaulted by Pit Bull

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 8:33 pm

BSmack wrote:And this just in...

"Just in" two weeks ago.

Lockport boy sexually assaulted by Pit Bull

See! I TOLD you they were friendly dogs.

Sin,
Rumple