psychoPat

MoLewisrocks

That's just a webmaster function. Doesn't mean any more than the depth charts the PR and IT people post.

thewaylifeshouldbe

He has been listed on the Raiders website roster for a couple days now.

pats1

No, he has been on there since the day of the trade. And online team rosters mean nothing, they are entirely unofficial. Just whatever the webmaster or PR department choses.

jacenlukesolo

Yeah he'll probably end up on their roster under a list that says did not report.

mgcolby

He has been officially listed as a Raider on the Players Association website. I can't believe this is still a discussion.

The man is a raider, unless he fails a physical. End of story. If he retires, then he officially retires as a Raider.

__________________
Hey, Bill you're wasting Brady's prime years......oh wait....
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Ice_Ice_Brady

Adam Schefter disagrees that his roster presence is irrelevant:

Money for nothing - Richard Seymour remains on Oakland's 53-man roster, which means he's on course to collect weekly check of $216,764.71.

Adam Schefter (Adam_Schefter) on Twitter

BPF

I saw that as well, interesting.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, therefore, is not an act but a habit."
Aristotle

"I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance."
Socrates

STH since 1994....sec 236

BPF

I pointed it out on another thread that he's been on there since at least 9/8: Rumor: Seymour Trade Not A Done Deal?

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, therefore, is not an act but a habit."
Aristotle

"I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance."
Socrates

STH since 1994....sec 236

JoeSixPat

Is this "drama" over yet?

I'm not sure refusing to show up for a physical is the same as failing a physical, is it?

Seems like the League would want to take a stand on that one. Richard Seymour wasn't traded - his contract was. And his contract is currently owned by the Raiders. If he legitimately fails his physical that's one thing but I don't think the League is going to allow a defacto "no trade clause" in every contract because a player might not want to play somewhere

Seymours only option then would be not to play - but I can't see the league handcuffing teams by giving in to this tactic