Can the Ravens exercise a "morality clause" to shed Ray Rice's contract?

[TL24x7]

Excellent explanation from Brian McFarland on the Ravens options with Ray Rice should they choose to part ways due to conduct unbecoming of a Raven.

LINK

Brian will be on 105.7 The Fan at 5PM to discuss this.

Listen in HERE

[BcRaven]

LOL...you can't fool me :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KS2khYJZKwA

... Bc

[wickedsolo]

Told you guys there was probably a conduct clause in his contract.

Morality clause...conduct clause...basically the same thing.

This is how teams can suspend players without pay for conduct detrimental to the team. The Eagles did it with TO and the Bucs did it with Keyshawn. IIRC, the Niners did it to Brandon Jacobs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GOTA]

Told you guys there was probably a conduct clause in his contract.

Morality clause...conduct clause...basically the same thing.

This is how teams can suspend players without pay for conduct detrimental to the team. The Eagles did it with TO and the Bucs did it with Keyshawn. IIRC, the Niners did it to Brandon Jacobs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's changed in the new CBA. This is what Ravor writes in from the link in Tony's post: Every Ravens fans needs to click on the link and read the whole article since it answers all the questions.

The term “morality clause” has become a major talking point – but without any real context.

The morality clause, contained in Paragraph 11 of the standard NFL contract, simply allows teams to release players for “skill, performance and conduct”. The morality clause, however, does not allow a team to recoup any Bonus money paid (much less his entire bonus).

Of course, the team and, more importantly, the Commissioner do have the ability to suspend a player. If a player is suspended, the team does get a rebate – in cash and Cap – in the amount of the total of the game checks lost by the player during the suspension. Obviously, assuming any suspension for Rice would only be for a couple of games at most, that’s not likely to be a major amount in this situation.

What the CBA does allow is for the team to recoup a portion (notice – a “portion”) of a player’s bonus money when the player commits a “forfeitable breach” by being unavailable to play for his team. Under Article 4, Section 9 of the CBA, unavailability basically comes down to a player retiring early, a holdout, a suspension or incarceration.

However, simply being released by his team before being arrested for a crime does not make a player “unavailable” pursuant to the terms of the CBA. So, the player must be on the team’s roster if and when the player is actually unable to perform due to a “forfeitable breach”.
That obviously shoots down the theory of using the “morality clause”.

[livegonzo]

I hope so! send him packing the women beater of the ravens !

[Lord_Calvert]

It's changed in the new CBA. This is what Ravor writes in from the link in Tony's post: Every Ravens fans needs to click on the link and read the whole article since it answers all the questions.

The term “morality clause” has become a major talking point – but without any real context.

The morality clause, contained in Paragraph 11 of the standard NFL contract, simply allows teams to release players for “skill, performance and conduct”. The morality clause, however, does not allow a team to recoup any Bonus money paid (much less his entire bonus).

Of course, the team and, more importantly, the Commissioner do have the ability to suspend a player. If a player is suspended, the team does get a rebate – in cash and Cap – in the amount of the total of the game checks lost by the player during the suspension. Obviously, assuming any suspension for Rice would only be for a couple of games at most, that’s not likely to be a major amount in this situation.

What the CBA does allow is for the team to recoup a portion (notice – a “portion”) of a player’s bonus money when the player commits a “forfeitable breach” by being unavailable to play for his team. Under Article 4, Section 9 of the CBA, unavailability basically comes down to a player retiring early, a holdout, a suspension or incarceration.

However, simply being released by his team before being arrested for a crime does not make a player “unavailable” pursuant to the terms of the CBA. So, the player must be on the team’s roster if and when the player is actually unable to perform due to a “forfeitable breach”.
That obviously shoots down the theory of using the “morality clause”.

GOTA correct me if I am wrong but didn't the Pats apply for an exception to Hernandez counting against the cap ad were denied? If I am remembering correctly is this because they cut him before he was arrested?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

[GOTA]

GOTA correct me if I am wrong but didn't the Pats apply for an exception to Hernandez counting against the cap ad were denied? If I am remembering correctly is this because they cut him before he was arrested?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

That was my memory as well. If the Pats had waited until Hernandez was unable to play because he was in jail they would have been able to the morals clause but the owner didn't want him on the team. They've been suing for the money they paid him as a bonus ever since.