Vincent Jackson's Lawyers Demand Retraction from Kevin Acee
by creanium on Aug 30, 2010 6:03 PM PDT
in San Diego Chargers Media Coverage
Email
PrintLast week, San Diego Union-Tribune Chargers Beat Writer, and all-around object of BFTB's affection, Kevin Acee wrote an article stating that ultimately Vincent Jackson controls his own fate with the Chargers (and any other team in the NFL for that matter). A lot of what Acee said was not much in the way of news to many of us here who follow the Chargers religiously.
However, what has puzzled some people, is how Vincent Jackson could afford to not play this season, and how he's able to forego the over-$3-million-payday and stick to his guns. Kevin Acee was able to shed some light on the subject:
League and sources in the agent community have confirmed that his ability to forego a salary is due to the financial backing of Schwartz and Feinsod, with the understanding the agents will be paid back after Jackson receives the mega contract they are seeking.
So that makes a lot more sense, that Jackson's agents are paying him now, with the expectation that they'll make a good amount of money when Vincent receives his supposedly-forthcoming big contract. There are no rules in the NFL saying an agent that already represents a player can't loan or give their client money, so there really is no wrongdoing here; for the most part, this was a non-story when it was published a week ago.
However, the article has gained new life as Vincent Jackson's lawyers have sent a letter to the San Diego Union-Tribune and its online counterpart, SignOnSanDiego.com, demanding a retraction. The letter gives the newspaper a specific time-frame in which to comply with the request. It is possible legal action will be pursued if the UT does not comply, presumably for libel.
So what exactly is the point of contention?
In a phone interview with ProFootballTalk.com, Jackson's lawyer, Howard Weitzman explained:
[The article] inferred Vincent was not capable of managing his finances and that Neil and Jonathan are giving him financial backing so that he won't negotiate and sign with the Chargers. [Vincent] has managed his finances well. This could cause some G.M.'s down the road to look at him differently.
[The article] infers that these agents have told him, 'Forget about it, we'll back you. You don't have to worry about making money. We'll get you more down the road.'"
Well, that certainly clears things up, doesn't it? They're demanding a retraction because apparently Vincent Jackson has trouble using Quicken. I fail to see how this is truly an issue worth pursuing, and if anything is just another in a long line of actions that is causing Vincent Jackson to lose supporters.
It appears as though Jackson is fighting a losing battle here. The burden of proof is now on Jackson's camp to prove that Kevin Acee is wrong, and by extension the Union-Tribune. But how exactly do you prove that something like this didn't happen?
Ultimately, what does Vincent Jackson's camp hope to gain by discrediting Kevin Acee and the Union-Tribune? It appears to be not much, really. They seem to be wanting to show that the Union-Tribune has sided with the Chargers in Jackson's fight with the team. Okay, so what? Is this just their elaborate way to gain a rather insignificant negotiating point in their favor? Just so they can tell a potential GM another team, "you can't always believe what you read in the papers"?
I didn't realize being able to manage your finances was something a lot of General Managers took into heavy consideration. I guess it is more important than the seemingly-ludicrous $50 million contract request or the 2 DUI arrests or the 3-game suspension (thanks to those DUIs) or even the boneheaded moves made on the field. But that's probably why I'm not an NFL General Manager or a lawyer, I have my priorities all messed up.
55 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Mmmmm... Agents.
This doesn’t paint agents in any better light for me.
"Never give up, even in defeat." I go for both the Bolts and the Vikings, so I guess you could call me Thor.
One thing
This might discourage the paper or any other publication from putting out stories that are critical of Jackson.
the more you practice the luckier you get
Acee is right
It seems to me AJ has the leverage. If JAX sits until the last possible moment, the Chargers will have him early enough for the playoffs and get a third rounder in compensation when he walks. I’d rather take that than a second rounder now… And, people who know appear legit concerned there won’t be football next year anyway. No football next year means a handful of games in two years for JAX. Even if there is a new CBA by the time the Chargers are preparing to defend their title, there is no guarantee restricted free agents will be any freer.
JAX is suspect. His contract demand is abusurd, he gets arrested before the playoff game (that’s a huge line to cross) for the second time. His agents are bankrolling him to encourage him to meet their ego (Revis doesn’t deserve what he’s asking either). Also, Northern Colorado?
But damn, boy can jump! Let’s remember it was AJ who took the heat when he drafted Jackson at the end of the second round. Not that he felt it or cared. I feel like AJ knows JAX better than we do. And he knows the NFL better than JAX.
I need the regular season to start.
by All alone in DC on Aug 30, 2010 6:40 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
rec for this line alone!
Even if there is a new CBA by the time the Chargers are preparing to defend their title
"i'm not inclined to resign to maturity"...PSYCH theme
by $#%@ eli and his daddy on Aug 30, 2010 9:42 PM PDT up reply actions
Curious exchange
I mean everybody knows that Acee is AJs lackey. My theory is VJacks camp is starting to really feel the hammer of leverage. His camp went from quiet to giant interview and now this. This is not the first Acee statement that VJacks has refuted. Remember they refuted Acee contract numbers too.
IMO
hammer shmammer
Isn’t a good agent supposed to understand leverage before he goes all in? It’s not like they couldn’t have seen the developments unfolding as they did. We may be surprised by what happens but that’s why we make our livings in other areas….
by All alone in DC on Aug 30, 2010 7:14 PM PDT up reply actions
I still am not convinced that VJacks holdout is a bad idea
I mean it remains to be seen, because he could still be traded tomorrow and get paid. With that said if I was the guys agent I would have told him to sign the tender, and shut up. Understanding the holdout is getting you no where is one thing, but imagine what they are thinking if there’s even a coin flips chance VJack gets caught into the clause of the new CBA. That would be a fail, that could sink these agents forever
IMO
Sounds like a lot of bluster
Do we have a BTFB LLP to provide any analysis of this? From my understanding libel is very hard to prove, at least in this country, and it doesn’t sound like VJ has a leg to stand on.
by CABurrito on Aug 30, 2010 6:48 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
This ain't the UK
I’m very far from a lawyer, but stating that sources have informed you of a financial transaction, which bears no negative light on the parties involved, is not libel. Jackson’s lawyers would have to prove that what Acee reported was false, that he knew it was false, and (I think) that he published it with malicious intent, which would require proving that it has had some negative effect. All of this would likely require Acee revealing his sources, which the courts have typically not considered constitutional.
It’s very difficult to successfully sue a reporter for libel in this country. More so if the reporter is from a respectable organization, fair or not. Freedom of speech is not taken lightly here, and for good reason. What’s more, Jackson is a well known public figure and will have a harder time with a libel case, again fair or not.
This would be a civil case, and so much softer in terms of evidence, but I still can’t see any court taking it. Given the context, it’s particularly laughable. Jackson’s people have found that they aren’t going to make a ton of money off of him this year unless they do something, and this is one move with that aim in mind. They just want to stir up some noise and maybe try to scare people away from writing negative stories about Jackson. Clearly, they are unaware of the Streisand Effect. Threatening legal action is awfully easy. Doing something about it less so.
"Were such things here as we do speak about?
Or have we eaten on the insane root
That takes the reason prisoner?"
by aesimpleton on Aug 30, 2010 8:44 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
I would like to add
I don’t really blame Jackson for this situation, though his choices are his own. He has thrown in with these people, and apparently trusts them. Loaning him money, regardless of the amount, would place an even stronger psychological hold over him; he owes them now. Maybe they had reason to believe he would leave them. Who knows. And it may just be my own bias, but it looks to me like a manipulative relationship. These agents really are scum. Just the worst kind of people.
"Were such things here as we do speak about?
Or have we eaten on the insane root
That takes the reason prisoner?"
Yep simple sensationalism
As the season approaches; and M80 makes catches and Seyi Ajirotutu looks to make the cut; the attention from the media would naturally decline. What better way to stir the pot than sue a fish hack?
- You get the media bump.
- You don’t actually have to set the record straight.
- You don’t have to disclose the ACTUAL terms of the player-agent relationship.
- You don’t have to disclose the ACTUAL terms of a contract request that was a non-starter for both Seattle and San Diego.
Why does it seem like Schwartz and Feinsod have a professional wrestling background?
by Trendsearcher on Aug 30, 2010 10:19 PM PDT up reply actions
They surely have some stones
Going up against the JETS with Revis already signed for 3 years, and AJ simultaneously.
IMO
John Clayton
Also broadcast this news. Is he being sued as well?
Those hoping for a legitimate Pro Bowl WR may have to wait a little longer as the Seahawks have reportedly passed on trading for San Diego’s Vincent Jackson.
Speaking on 710 ESPN this afternoon, John Clayton reported that Vincent Jackson and his agent were asking for a five-year $50 million deal with $30 million guaranteed, which was too much for Seattle.
“John Schneider basically said, ‘Thank you very much. We’ll move on to the next thing,” Clayton said.
When all else fails....
run Iso!
Maybe vj screamed “show me the money” at his agents and inspired them to douchiness
by Orz on Aug 30, 2010 7:18 PM PDT via mobile reply actions
Man
I don’t know how he handles his finances, but he certainly needs some help picking his advisers. This has PR nightmare written all over it; what team wants a drunken headstrong litigious scofflaw at wideout?
"Football is a physical sport, sometimes you have a disagreement on what's going on, and you have a discussion about it." Kris Dielman
by Brian (DaBolts) on Aug 30, 2010 8:47 PM PDT reply actions
the Raiders?
"I'll tell you about it because I am here and you are distant."
by The Kipper on Aug 31, 2010 4:53 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Ha, perfect.
"Football is a physical sport, sometimes you have a disagreement on what's going on, and you have a discussion about it." Kris Dielman
by Brian (DaBolts) on Aug 31, 2010 6:18 PM PDT up reply actions
His agents are setting up an excuse for why no team will take VJ – of course it’s not because he’s asking for an outrageous amount of guaranteed money. It’s because NFL GMs are “looking at him differently” for borrowing money from his agents, whatever that means .
At this point, I don’t think this has any effect on VJ playing for ANY team this year – he’s not going to because I think his agents have convinced him he’s worth whatever ridiculous sum of money he’s asking for and to not take a penny less. And since no team will pay that plus give the Chargers whatever draft choices/players AJ wants in trade, VJ will sit out this year, wait for the new CBA and probably become an unrestricted free agent, open to the highest bidder.
Whatever. I don’t care anymore.
hey, so, like.....
are we going to have to take up a collection in case they sue john for posting this? ive bit a few bags of mountain dew cans i can cash in if we need it!
"i'm not inclined to resign to maturity"...PSYCH theme
by $#%@ eli and his daddy on Aug 30, 2010 9:35 PM PDT reply actions
"ive got" i mean
"i'm not inclined to resign to maturity"...PSYCH theme
by $#%@ eli and his daddy on Aug 30, 2010 9:37 PM PDT up reply actions
Wow guys
The burden of proof is not on Vincent Jackson to disprove the claim the burden of proof is the person that makes the claim – in this case Kevin Acee.
Otherwise I could make a claim about Unicorns existing and it would be on you guys to disprove it(Spoiler Alert: You never would).
You also didn’t print that VJ is suing to remove the claim that his contract demands are over $50million. So we could have been fed an entire bag of lies.
Way to beat the guy when he is down. I smell some bitterness.
I also smell a charger ploy.
"I sawed a woman in the park today"
Not bad grammar. Just recollections of a deranged killer.
Even so, what does VJ and his agency gain by bringing this article up again? No one had given Acee’s article a second glance until the retraction demand came out.
My point wasn’t that they shouldn’t have demanded it in the first place, nor did I necessary shed any agreement to Acee’s article, I merely was pointing out that even if the agency is in the right here, it’s not really a fight worth fighting. Not to mention VJ’s stock is already pretty low at this point in time, and this doesn’t exactly win him any more support.
"Don’t get nervous. Norv is in charge."
Burden of Proof
If Vincent Jackson wants to file a libel suit against Acee/U-T, then the burden is on the plaintiff—VJ—to prove the falsity of the statement. Moreover, since VJ’s a public figure, he’d probably have to prove that Acee acted maliciously and with reckless disregard for the falsity of the statement. Needless to say, this would be basically impossible in these circumstances, and the lawyer has to know this. But I think Dextermilo’s point—that this could cause the media, and the U-T specifically, at least to pause for a moment before writing anything else critical about VJ—is a good one.
Acee referred to sources in the league and agent community.
This will have no impact on anything, and is not going anywhere.
An autumn Sunday,
Perched in front of the big screen;
Beer in white knuckles.
by Neoplatonist Bolthead on Aug 31, 2010 6:59 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
^^^ Agreed ^^^
The burden of proof is not on Vincent Jackson to disprove the claim the burden of proof is the person that makes the claim – in this case Kevin Acee.
As a reporter Acee has more cover in a slander case than your typical civilian. And while eventually Acee might be compelled / coerced to reveal his sources. The question really comes down to damages. How much damage was done IF Acee falsely reported that the agents were loaning V Jax some jack? Not much IMO.
V Jax has already shown in the past that he has difficulty managing his business. His car was towed before the playoff game because he was driving on a suspended and had expired tags (he was also acting like an ASS and creating a public nuisance). It falls to V Jax’s side to prove the damages, and IMO the damages (even if their complaint is valid) are minimal at best. The circulation of te information was very limited until they hyped the situation.
Let’s talk about the agent’s exposure going forward… Get them in open court… Don’t you expect that they have been negotiating with other NFL teams w/o the Chargers’ approval? I would think that would be a discoverable fact in any complaint they might file. I doubt this situation goes much further.
by Trendsearcher on Aug 31, 2010 9:59 AM PDT up reply actions
Well the cat's out of the bag
I don’t see the UT retracting their statements having much of an effect on Jackson’s tarnished reputation.
Cheap publicity
And another nail in the coffin for VJ staying in SD.
McNabb is close to getting a new WR.
If the thunder don't get ya then the lightning will!!
Robert Hunter
contract
tell me how the burden of proof is on the one being accused. the paper alleges that Jackson is being paid by his agents, it seems to me that the paper has to prove what it printed is true, so they better have a paper trail to prove this.
SOMEONE PLEASE TELL WHY ONLY ONLY POSITION PLAYERS HAVE TO HOLD OUT FOR THEIR MONEY. HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF A QB HAVING TO HOLD OUT FOR MONEY. I REMEMBER YEARS AGO EMMITT SMITH HELD OUT FOR MONEY, JONES WAS SAYING THE TEAM COULDN’T AFFORD TO GIVE HIM A NEW CONTRACT. AFTER LOSING 2 OF THEIR FIRST 4 GAMES THEY FOUND THE MONEY TO PAY EMMITT. TWO WEEKS LATER THEY GAVE TROY AIKMAN A 50 MILLION DOLAR CONTRACT.
QBs are bona fide centerpieces.
The best of the best RBs and pass-rushing DE/LBs are also worth whatever you pay them, if they stay healthy. Other guys may work just as hard and stand out just as well over the competition, but that doesn’t mean you can always pay them like the “difference-maker” players.
RBs, WRs, CBs, OTs and DTs are probably the most susceptible to holdout. RBs get hurt a lot, and most great RBs are pretty much done by the end of their #2 contract, so teams are often unwilling to pay what the player really needs to be earning if he wants to come out of football a rich invalid, rather than a poor one. WRs put up big, flashy stats. If a CB is really good, it’s really obvious. There just aren’t many high-quality OTs and DTs to go around. But if you have an okay OT and a QB who doesn’t demand too much of his line, you don’t need a top OT. If you replace that exceptional WR with a merely-good one, you won’t see much drop-off. CBs really matter, but it’s a position where your squad is as good as your second-best CB, so having one really great one is only meaningful if the rest of the squad is solid. DTs are highly susceptible to injury, almost as bad as RBs in that regard.
An autumn Sunday,
Perched in front of the big screen;
Beer in white knuckles.
by Neoplatonist Bolthead on Aug 31, 2010 7:13 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
QBs have the greatest singular impact on the game
Just ask Ryan Leaf and Jamarcus Russell they will tell you the same. Why in the heck wouldn’t you lock ‘em down?
Plus they generally have longer careers, again find a good one and hold on to him.
by Trendsearcher on Aug 31, 2010 10:06 AM PDT up reply actions
QBs dont hold out
SOMEONE PLEASE TELL WHY ONLY ONLY POSITION PLAYERS HAVE TO HOLD OUT FOR THEIR MONEY
Because QBs dont have to. On a side note the term position player isnt really used in football like in baseball. In football all players play a position
IMO
30% on the Lebron scale.
VJAX is looking like a real douche.
"Crush your enemies, see them driven before you and hear the lamentation of their women." -The Barbarian
He's still out of the douchey top ten.
He’s mostly hurting himself. Okay, maybe we’d rather he didn’t do it for our sake as fans, but it’s mostly academic. The team has two starter-quality WRs and several guys you wouldn’t mind going in with, but don’t want to rely on for a year.
But we’ve got/had players with worse issues, like Cro. Even SP has bigger legal problems than VJ. VJ is just your ordinary Diva WR. Somehow, we ended up with guys who thought that they were TO and Deion. At least they got rid of themselves….
An autumn Sunday,
Perched in front of the big screen;
Beer in white knuckles.
by Neoplatonist Bolthead on Aug 31, 2010 7:25 AM PDT up reply actions
I think they're trying to protect themselves
Eagles fan here, but I thought the story was interesting. I’m a graduate student in Sports Management, so I see this story from a slightly different perspective.
I think this is less about Vincent Jackson’s image, which is suffering on several different fronts, and more about protecting the agency. Loaning money to players so they can hold out is not necessarily against any NFL policies, but it’s not necessarily ethical, either. Players are paid to play, not to sit out, and giving the players an advantage and allowing them to sit out for as long as they want will be a tactic that General Managers will not forget in future negotiations.
If the story stands as fact, these agents may have difficulty signing many big contracts, and will lose clients as a result. There’s always a Drew Rosenhaus ready to swoop in and take high-profile client who wants a deal their agent just can’t deliver.
P.S. Just read an article that puts the Philadelphia Eagles number 2 in the country for tailgating, with San Diego Chargers as number 1. Needless to say, you can expect a visit from me next time we play out there!
by laxer298 on Aug 31, 2010 9:24 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
The new stadium they are proposing downtown
… would not have tailgating. That would be a crime. This may be an urban legend, but people say the Qualcomm parking lot is one of the biggest lots in the U.S. It’s definitely a scene down there. Add in great weather and the best looking girls in the U.S., and it’s hard to argue that we don’t have great tailgating.
Come on down. I’m sure people will offer you some carne asada or some fish tacos. Just tell them you heard the best mexican food this side of the border (and maybe both sides) is in San Diego. There’s no question about it, it’s true.
You may be on to something there
One thing I forgot to point out in the story: this is the same agency that represents Darrelle Revis, another high-profile holdout. Unlike Jackson, Revis is a relative late-comer in the holdout game, he reported to mini-camp but didn’t start holding out until August 1st. Revis still has 3 years left on his contract, but just wanted to renegotiate and get paid more now. Kind of makes me wonder who really is in control, the players or the agents?
I know agents always care more about themselves than their clients, this year, it just seems to be a much more blatant display of who the puppet-masters really are.
"Don’t get nervous. Norv is in charge."
As much as I don't like him...
Drew Rosenhause explains in his second book, “Next Question”, that the reason he gets a lot of clients is because many agents are only in it for the short-term, and don’t really care that much about their clients.
What you’re seeing this year, I think, is a lot of fear over the collective bargaining agreement and potential holdout, and a desire to strike it rich immediately after a player’s breakout season, because they’re not looking beyond the next couple of years.
There are some agents who are doing things the right way. I mean, consider how many players we’re really talking about holding out up to this point, and how many are playing right now.
This makes some sense
Although I do not see why loaning would be unethical or detrimental to future clientele at least from a players point of view. Just because my agent someone money doesnt mean much at least to me. But there has always been this strange feeling that goes on with lending, whether it’s with a bank or a loan shark. It’s been that way for thousands of years
IMO
The issue for the agents is that every negotiation they walk into, they’re going to be the guys that paid their player to hold out (doubly so if they’re helping Revis out). That is going to hurt them in negotiating favorable deals, and when they can’t get the deals done, that’s where they’ll lose clients.
Ummm.... because it might be against the law??
I do not see why loaning would be unethical or detrimental to future clientele at least from a players point of view
Do you think that paying players bribes might create an unfair market place for every other agent that does not pay bribes? I’m not saying that a crime is occuring, but once all the facts come out there might be a crime occuring.
It sure seems like a simple kickback scheem to me. I’ll pay you to give me the business.
by Trendsearcher on Aug 31, 2010 10:18 AM PDT up reply actions
Yes, but it's...
“I’ll pay you to give me YOUR business,” which is a rebate by another name.
An autumn Sunday,
Perched in front of the big screen;
Beer in white knuckles.
by Neoplatonist Bolthead on Aug 31, 2010 10:34 AM PDT up reply actions
Rebates are funny
The distinction between a rebate and kickback is difficult. For one thing, if the product or service was available to any buyer, and multiple buyers, then yes I’d call it a rebate. Lot of legitimate reasons to offer rebates.
If I as a buyer am competing against multiple other buyers for a unique product, and I offer a payment to the broker to sell to me, instead of the other buyers then I believe we are talking about a kick-back. Equal access is one key distinction.
In this instance, the agents might be paying V Jax for the right to represent. I think that would be bad. Or they could be providing a collateralized loan – this might be OK. That’s why we have judges.
by Trendsearcher on Aug 31, 2010 11:52 AM PDT up reply actions
oh there's the bribe word
What you are calling a bribe and maybe rightfully so could be called a loan. And a business loan isnt illegal if it’s just a payback agreement without interest. Kickback might be a better word, but even that isnt necessary illegal as long as it’s understood and not outright agreed upon. There is a reason that individual loans at least those that charged interest were illegal for a significant portion of european history.
IMO
I’m curious to see how this “loan” is classified. We’re not talking few thousand dollars between friends. I’m sure we’re getting into hundreds of thousands. So IRS will be sniffing around. How’s the agent classifying this payment? A personal loan? Taxable income? A gift?
A personal loan would be my guess
Because it’s not taxable I think. Problem with that, is you have to say there’s interest because if you don’t its a gift I would think
IMO
Just another weird thought
I wonder if they are worried about the IRS here. If they are paying Vincent Jackson that income is taxable and if they’d like it kept discreet and quiet then having the IRS poking their nose in there is not a good thing. Maybe the lawyer is attacking the statements partially in an effort to make the government think that this practice doesn’t exist. That might be reaching.
No, I don't think you're an idiot. Please don't go trying to prove me wrong about that.
Bolts from the Blue - General Manager: It is what it isn't
by Wonko on Aug 31, 2010 11:28 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
ok? is it a 1 time loan or a weekly allowance or....
does VJ stop by the office every day and say “hey fellas, i need a few $$$ for gas and food?”
"i'm not inclined to resign to maturity"...PSYCH theme
by $#%@ eli and his daddy on Aug 31, 2010 6:16 PM PDT reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
BFTB Apparel Store
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
