Jump to content

NFL OFFSEASON/PRESEASON 2010


Str8_Nola

Recommended Posts

This forum is supported by the 12ozProphet Shop, so go buy a shirt and help support!
This forum is brought to you by the 12ozProphet Shop.
This forum is brought to you by the 12oz Shop.
  • Replies 329
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • 2 weeks later...

Raiders file grievance against Russell

 

The Oakland Raiders have filed a grievance against former quarterback JaMarcus Russell(notes) seeking repayment of $9.55 million, the team confirmed Thursday.

 

The grievance is based on the contention by the Raiders that the contract was changed at one point during Russell’s three-year stint with the organization and that he’s not allowed to keep all of the money he had collected prior to his May 7 release. Russell, the No. 1 overall pick in the 2007 NFL draft, was guaranteed $32 million as part of a six-year contract reportedly worth $68 million.

 

“We have filed a grievance against JaMarcus Russell and that’s all we’re going to say at this time,” Raiders attorney Jeff Birren said.

 

Part of the guaranteed $32 million was originally in the form of salary advances for the 2010, 2011 and 2012 seasons. A portion of those salaries is in question, according to the grievance.

 

“The money in question was fully guaranteed. That is why JaMarcus was forced to hold out and miss all of training camp as a rookie,” Metz said. “The Raiders know that and this is our only comment.”

 

Russell will be represented in the grievance by the NFL Players Association.

 

1274994115.jpg?x=225&y=200&xc=1&yc=1&wc=225&hc=200&q=100&sig=4oz9H6bdrR7RsPUeLF6wuA--

 

lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NFL SUNDAY PACKAGE ADVICE for DirecTV USERS:

 

So I tried to pull my yearly bit today.

 

Call DTV, ask for customer retention/cancellation - usually the original operator will not bargain, yes, I have tried many many times, so ask to transfer.

 

Today I asked for a transfer to retention, the guy said he was (lie) so I went to work on him.

I said the usual stuff:

 

* Too expensive

* never really use it

* go to bars

* go to neighbors

* wife is upset

 

 

He pulled some Glen Garry tactics explaining how much bars are.. blah, blah, blah.

I said yeah, but neighbors are free, and I only watched 6 games at home last year(lie), paying $50 a game is still more than a bar.

 

Got put on hold for 5 mins, he came back with offer of 6 months of free HD access ($10 off for 6 months.)

Which is basically the same as $10 off the 6 monthly payments of 49.99 for NFL package($299.94).

Tell them $_ _ _ is your ceiling or you won't renew.

 

Conclusion: I am now paying the equivalent of $39.99 x 6 months = $239.94

It may have been more, but I am already receiving $10 off a month for 6 months for some other junk my wife complained about last month.

(Which actually makes it $179.94)

So you may do better.

 

 

 

** Keep in mind they take notes about your call.

Last year I tried three times with different operators, and they knew in advance my tactics and denied me.

My fourth try last year I got transferred to cancellations and got a deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^this is good but yea dude they know everything about you trust me. my girlfriend is a supervisor at a customer service place for a bunch of different companies and i hear shit everyday about how people try to get over them. she says they keep track of every single perchase you've made with them and free samples you've gotten. so when you call all of your info shows up on the computer. she says they eventually black ball you. not sure how DTV does things but im sure they have a similar system.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Santa Clara Voters Appear To Approve 49ers Stadium

 

An artist's rendering of the proposed 49ers stadium in Santa Clara.

SF 49ers

 

49ers_stadium_staclara.jpg

 

 

numSlides of totalImages Related LinksView The Proposed Stadium

Complete California & Bay Area Election Results

A measure to lease land to the San Francisco 49ers for a new stadium in Silicon Valley appears to have passed

 

With the votes from all the precincts counted, more than 11,000 voters, or just under 60 percent, cast their ballots in favor or Measure J. Less than 8,000, or about 40 percent, opposed it.

 

But Santa Clara County elections officials say more than 90,000 provisional and absentee ballots still need to be counted by Friday.

 

The 49ers already were celebrating a victory, having made no secret about their desire to move from their longtime home at San Francisco's Candlestick Park to a new, $937 million stadium about 45 miles to the south in Silicon Valley.

 

"I think this is a very, very big day, not just for the 49ers but for the NFL," 49ers team president Jed York told reporters on Wednesday afternoon, hailing the preliminary results of the vote.

 

York called the apparent passage "a giant step," noting the difficulty of getting stadiums approved anywhere in the country. He said the next step was putting together the financing.

 

The team and the National Football League have agreed to contribute nearly $500 million, and the Santa Clara Stadium Authority and the city of Santa Clara would foot the rest of the bill, according to York.

 

But San Francisco city officials were still holding out hope for keeping the team, with Mayor Gavin Newsom saying that the Santa Clara financing plan was "built on shaky economic ground." He predicted the project was destined to fall apart.

 

Newsom said San Francisco was forging ahead with its redevelopment plans for Hunters Point, where Candlestick is located, which include the possibility of a new stadium there.

 

"When the Santa Clara plan falls apart, San Francisco stands ready to welcome its 49ers home," Newsom said.

 

The 49ers have played in San Francisco since the franchise was established more than 60 years ago and have called Candlestick Park their home since the early 1970s.

 

Opponents of Measure J had warned that while a stadium in Santa Clara might make money for the team, it would be a bad financial deal for the city.

 

Proponents countered that the deal would create thousands of new jobs for local workers and millions of dollars for schools and Santa Clara's general fund.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...