| For a while, it looked as if things were going
pretty well in Cincinnati. Bengals president Mike Brown was determined to change the image
of his team and he was succeeding. The Bengals had a new stadium, a new practice
facility and new practice uniforms. The team's top draft pick, WR Peter Warrick, signed
early, and OT Willie Anderson signed the largest contract ever given to an offensive
lineman. Players were telling media members how happy they were that the Bengals had
finally provided them with large enough towels to wrap around their waists. Players even
talked at length about how pleased they were when they were given hats - that's right,
hats!
"We never had hats before," said the players.
Suddenly, the team's reputation for being unfriendly toward players was disappearing,
and the talk around the league was that things were finally turning around in Cincinnati.
The town was in the middle of its biggest love-in since a man named Junior decided to come
home.
Of course the Bengals, the losingest franchise of the '90s, found a way to screw things
up.
Enter the so-called "loyalty clause," a most questionable policy amid Brown's
recent movement to improve the fortunes of the franchise. The clause, which is to be
included in every future Bengals contract, calls for the forfeiture of signing-bonus money
if a player criticizes the Bengals management or coaching through the media.
The "Carl Pickens" clause, as it is also known, was introduced by the Bengals
in order to curb the amount of verbal abuse team management has taken in recent years.
Pickens, the embittered Bengals wideout, blasted management last December when head coach
Bruce Coslet was brought back for the 2000 season. Ex-Bengals punter Lee Johnson
criticized the front office and wondered to reporters if fans should buy tickets after a
poor Bengals performance. He was subsequently fined and released.
The Bengals seem like the jilted lover who's determined not to be hurt again. But by
building a wall between management and players, the Bengals may never be courted again.
Let's say a high-profile free agent comes into town for a visit. He sees the new
stadium and practice facilities and hears a pitch from company man Anderson on how
committed the Bengals are to their players nowadays.
So the player, as Brown had hoped, sits down to negotiate a contract. Things go well
and both sides agree on a fair amount. Everything is amicable. Until they come to the
loyalty clause. With no further discussion, the player and his agent are out the door.
Every improvement Brown has made is dwarfed by a clause that the other 30 teams don't
include in their contracts. The question that we're left with is this: Why would any free
agent want to jeopardize the only guaranteed part of his contract?
Brown has insisted that the clause wouldn't be invoked for a player stating that his
team could've played better or that maybe a cornerback should have held on to an
interception. What Brown is essentially saying is, "Don't criticize the management,
and you'll be fine." Brown claims that as a private company, the Bengals have a right
to protect their product. His main motivation is to prevent comments from a player
determined to force a trade. The NFLPA has yet to file an official grievance with the
league, and that means the issue may not be resolved until the clause is invoked for the
first time.
So that means someone must be the guinea pig. But why even place yourself in a
position? One day you make a crack about Brown perhaps not intended for the media, but
within earshot of a reporter and the next you're sitting before an arbitrator watching as
your money is taken away?
The most ironic part of this whole new experiment is the definition of loyalty itself.
Loyalty: a feeling of devoted attachment and affection.
Last time I checked, such qualities were not developed by simply writing them into a
contract. They are developed over time and with trust. Which leads to another question a
free agent might ask: What's going on in Cincinnati if this clause must be included in a
contract?
It's certain that the NFL will be watching once this clause is contested. In a time
when players consistently use the media as a tool to force trades or bigger contract
extensions, perhaps every NFL team would want a clause like this in every contract they
draw up.
But for now, Brown and the Bengals are on a limb all alone. They're headed for the
chutes, which is a shame because they've climbed a lot of ladders. |
