Rotoworld: Seymour wants new deal from Raiders (Report) - Page 3 - New England Patriots Forums

***HEY BRO! WHAT UP?*** · 09-07-2009, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gwedd

Nope, IIRC, once the trade is signed and passes muster with the NFL, if the player doesn't show up it's the other team's problem and not New England's, unless failure to report is written as an invalidating clause. Also, IIRC, the only way that failing a physical invalidates the trade is if such a requirement is written into the contract. If Oakland didn't have that written in, it's their own darned fault.

I'm pretty sure that is in every contract to cover team's *******. But then again, it's the Raiders.

***mgteich*** · 09-07-2009, 09:08 PM

Yes, it is possible that the one of the oldest and experienced (and slightly touched) owners has had a bunch of incompetent lawyers writing contracts for the many, many years that Davis has owned the team. Much more likely is that standard contracts have include a requirement for physicals for many years.

QUOTE=Gwedd;1490995]Nope, IIRC, once the trade is signed and passes muster with the NFL, if the player doesn't show up it's the other team's problem and not New England's, unless failure to report is written as an invalidating clause. Also, IIRC, the only way that failing a physical invalidates the trade is if such a requirement is written into the contract. If Oakland didn't have that written in, it's their own darned fault.[/QUOTE]

***Gwedd*** · 09-07-2009, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mgteich

Yes, it is possible that the one of the oldest and experienced (and slightly touched) owners has had a bunch of incompetent lawyers writing contracts for the many, many years that Davis has owned the team. Much more likely is that standard contracts have include a requirement for physicals for many years.

QUOTE=Gwedd;1490995]Nope, IIRC, once the trade is signed and passes muster with the NFL, if the player doesn't show up it's the other team's problem and not New England's, unless failure to report is written as an invalidating clause. Also, IIRC, the only way that failing a physical invalidates the trade is if such a requirement is written into the contract. If Oakland didn't have that written in, it's their own darned fault.

[/QUOTE]

Oh, I concur. It's just that we are, after all, discussing the Raiders here....

thewaylifeshouldbe · 09-07-2009, 09:19 PM

Rodney spoke to him and weighed in-

Quote:

Asked if Seymour would report to the Raiders, Harrison said, "I don't know that. Only Richard knows that. But I wouldn't go to Oakland. There's no way in the world I would go to Oakland. The only way I would report is if they promised they wouldn't franchise me after this year."

PFT

***BradyFTW!*** · 09-07-2009, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thewaylifeshouldbe

Rodney spoke to him and weighed in-

PFT

If Harrison says that it's about him being a warrior who can't stand losing. If Seymour says that it's further evidence that he's a lazy bum who's all about the money and wants to go back to playing 6 games a year as soon as possible.

***reflexblue*** · 09-07-2009, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HEY BRO! WHAT UP?

I'm pretty sure if they can't get an agreement with Seymour, the trade is off. It's a good move on his part because he wants to secure his future for him and his family. I'm sure he doesn't want to move across the country for a year and than move again.

Nothing against what you said HBWU but i always get a kick out hearing that a player whos made more money than this entire board will ever earn in a life time has to "secure his future". I know its all relative but just the same it always makes me laugh.

spacecrime · 09-07-2009, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HEY BRO! WHAT UP?

I'm pretty sure if they can't get an agreement with Seymour, the trade is off. It's a good move on his part because he wants to secure his future for him and his family.

Yeah, they must be awfully hungry after Seymour only making less than ten million a year. He should quit the lousy stinking NFL and take a job at the mall. Security guard or something. And Dunkin Donuts is looking for people in Lawrence.

SVN · 09-07-2009, 11:17 PM

eugene parker strikes again !

***BradyFTW!*** · 09-07-2009, 11:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reflexblue

Nothing against what you said HBWU but i always get a kick out hearing that a player whos made more money than this entire board will ever earn in a life time has to "secure his future". I know its all relative but just the same it always makes me laugh.

If you were in a position to make sure that your children could live comfortably for probably the duration of your lives, you wouldn't take it?

People forget that these guys' earning potential evaporates around when they hit 35-40. Don't get why anyone blames them for making as much money as possible before then- the future is an uncertain place, bad investments happen, etc. etc.- but the more money you wake, the more you can secure your entire family's long term future. I don't blame any athlete that chooses to maximize his earning potential during his (relatively) short career.

Patspsycho · 09-07-2009, 11:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BradyFTW!

If you were in a position to make sure that your children could live comfortably for probably the duration of your lives, you wouldn't take it?

People forget that these guys' earning potential evaporates around when they hit 35-40. Don't get why anyone blames them for making as much money as possible before then- the future is an uncertain place, bad investments happen, etc. etc.- but the more money you wake, the more you can secure your entire family's long term future. I don't blame any athlete that chooses to maximize his earning potential during his (relatively) short career.

Not to mention that there was an article recently at NFP talking about how over half of retired football players are broke.