In my profession, the division of "stuff" during a divorce -- homes, cars, assets, furniture... -- end up being something we unfortunately end up in the middle of. Joint accounts that each person is trying to beat the other one to. Trying to cancel the other person's insurance out of spite just to make their life difficult. Attmepting to sell all the things they like just so they can't have them. More destruction comes from stubbornness and spite than malicious vindictiveness.
About 3 years ago, we had one affluent couple that spent over a week with their attorneys, in meetings, fighting over things like candlesticks that they bought at a store, in town, where you could still buy them. But there they sat for hours negotiating over who deserved them more because each one couldn't stand that the other soon to be ex-spouse would get what they wanted.
It wasn't about the candlesticks. It was the principle of the thing. It wasn't the job of the attorneys to tell them they were both being ridiculous, it was to get their client as much as they could. What was "fair" to them.
Last year, I was talking to one of them, and he was ruefully laughing as he talked about his bankruptcy. "$3500 candlesticks. I paid over $3500 in legal fees for a *#&%>! pair of candlesticks. Sold em for about 50 bucks. Didn't even like 'em in the first place. What the hell was I thinking? I mean, there's tons of crap like that -- the dresser. I mean, we spent over an hour arguing about a dresser that we bought at home freaking depot! We both could've bought one for what we paid our lawyers on that little spat."
Each person wanted to get that "little bit more" from the other person. There were little things they just "had to have" -- and the divorce attorneys were more than happy to encourage it. Why not when you are getting paid by the hour? But in the end, both parties realized that what they thought they needed so badly at the time, in the long run was meaningless. But the money and time they wasted hurt them both more than any "victory" at the negotiating table ever could have gained.
Player agents seem to be in the same mold -- as are teams, at times, when negotiating. How far apart, really, are the Lions and Jordan Dizon that they are at a stalemate? Really? Is it a Candlestick or a $75 dresser from home depot?
In the grand scheme, is a couple hundred thousand they are apart going to mean anything to the Lions? To Dizon? The extra $80,000 workout bonus? The old end table from uncle Frank that was in the basement you both think is butt ugly and could care less about but want to keep the other person from having just out of sheer stubbornness??
No -- for both Dizon and the Lions every minute of camp he misses is irrevocably hurting both of them. The only one who stands to gain is Dizon's agent. At the typical 3% commissions they earn, another 300K in guaranteed money is anther $9,000 for him. HE wants more, and has convinced Dizon he needs that victory at the negotiating table. End of Story.
Tell your agent no Jordan. As NetRat so eloquently stated:
Posted by NetRat on 07/24/08 at 8:21PM
Hey, nimrod, sign the freak'n contract. This is about football, not DUIs and holdouts. Tell your agent the last offer was good enough and sign on the line already.. or get a new agent.. or it's the bench for you all year.
After all, holding out worked really well for Cedric Benson a couple of years ago. And Brady Quinn really locked up that starting job after missing most of camp with the Browns last year too. The NFL is littered with holdouts, and, in the end it typically amounts to one thing:
A $3500 pair of candlesticks worth $50 bucks and a nut-kicked feeling of what the hell was I thinking?