PFT: If Seymour doesn't report, Raiders will want their pick back

YourBrain said:

Chicken - Egg. If you don't show you can't fail. But then again you never passed. Yeah I'm sure that loop-hole will hold water. I understand we all want our angle in this to be the one that plays out. But if he doesn't show, it's all going to be voided, it's the only sane thing you can do and the Bill Of Rights, allows the player not to show if he chooses not to.

Click to expand...

Actually the Bill of Rights is superceded by a CBA...and the NFL CBA provides there are consequences for not showing. In this case it's the 5 day letter which stipulates you either show or you are ineligible to play for the remainder of the season and your contract does not toll so you lose a year of service and start the following season right back where you left off...unless you decide to retire. They have these rules so that all players can't simply refuse to be traded...

Re: The Seymor Deal

PatsWorldChamps said:

reread what i said...

Click to expand...

That would be a colossal waste of time.

thewaylifeshouldbe said:

The what???

You mean that it links to some radio shows facebook page?

Click to expand...

You dont know what a URI is? it is the thingy you type into your browser to go to a site.
for example
New England Patriots Forums - PatsFans.com Patriots Fan Messageboard

YourBrain said:

Chicken - Egg. If you don't show you can't fail. But then again you never passed. Yeah I'm sure that loop-hole will hold water. I understand we all want our angle in this to be the one that plays out. But if he doesn't show, it's all going to be voided, it's the only sane thing you can do and the Bill Of Rights, allows the player not to show if he chooses not to.

Click to expand...

The Bill of Rights ? Oh, for the love of God. You are right, he doesn't have to go to Oakland. He can retire.

PatsWorldChamps said:

You dont know what a URI is? it is the thingy you type into your browser to go to a site.
for example
New England Patriots Forums - PatsFans.com Patriots Fan Messageboard

Click to expand...

EDITED: My bad, they seem to be one and the same.

Same as before though-

Now explain how the URL is in violation of the TOS please.

Re: The Seymor Deal

PatsWorldChamps said:

reread what i said.. the pats are stupid if they did NOT have a clause that the trade is in effect regardless of his reporting...

Click to expand...

They don't need one. Oakland now has his contract. If he doesn't report, he is in violation of his contract with Oakland, not with any terms of the trade agreement.

The trade is complete. It can be reversed if the league office determines the Pats didn't act in good faith in the trade (not disclosing an injury or any other nastiness).

Couple of points to consider:
- If players could just refuse to report and get trades reversed, why would anyone need a no-trade clause in their contract?

- The Jake Plummer situation already cleared up what happens in these situations. If you are concerned about a player not reporting or retiring, make the trade compensation conditional (as the Bucs did with Plummer). When Plummer retired, the Broncos did not take him back...just got less compensation from Tampa.

FWIW we aren't going to be testing uncharted waters here with a no-show. Seymour is going to sign with the Raiders, it's all about $$$. He wants to be the highest paid DL, Raiders only offering highest paid DE. ONLY, lol.

Re: The Seymor Deal

Metaphors said:

They don't need one. Oakland now has his contract. If he doesn't report, he is in violation of his contract with Oakland, not with any terms of the trade agreement.

The trade is complete. It can be reversed if the league office determines the Pats didn't act in good faith in the trade (not disclosing an injury or any other nastiness).

Couple of points to consider:
- If players could just refuse to report and get trades reversed, why would anyone need a no-trade clause in their contract?

- The Jake Plummer situation already cleared up what happens in these situations. If you are concerned about a player not reporting or retiring, make the trade compensation conditional (as the Bucs did with Plummer). When Plummer retired, the Broncos did not take him back...just got less compensation from Tampa.

Click to expand...

that is a nice opinion, but you, and no one on this site, has read the contract (so you dont know)... stay tuned

thewaylifeshouldbe said:

EDITED: My bad, they seem to be one and the same.

Same as before though-

Now explain how the URL is in violation of the TOS please.

Click to expand...

it was a link with a personal ID for forward payments

PatsWorldChamps said:

it was a link with a personal ID for forward payments

Click to expand...

Who is getting paid? Certainly not me.

From what I gathered it is the Facebook page for some radio sports jockey with the radio station.

But hey, since it is likely as legit as magic underwear, and possibly a violation of the TOS, it is easily eradicated. I will update the post with the Radio stations link and the post can be found on that page.

Is that cool?

MoLewisrocks said:

Actually the Bill of Rights is superceded by a CBA...and the NFL CBA provides there are consequences for not showing.

Click to expand...

But one part of the Bill of Rights that isn't superceeded is "you can't make someone do something like this". Yes there are consequences if you don't comply. But you can't be forced to.

YourBrain said:

But one part of the Bill of Rights that isn't superceeded is "you can't make someone do something like this". Yes there are consequences if you don't comply. But you can't be forced to.

Click to expand...

Yes, he can retire.

Re: The Seymor Deal

PatsWorldChamps said:

that is a nice opinion, but you, and no one on this site, has read the contract (so you dont know)... stay tuned

Click to expand...

You are correct, but since no trade I have ever heard of was ever reversed due to trade contract language, I'm pretty confident I'm on the right side of reality here.

If the contract had language to the effect: "If Seymour doesn't want to report, the trade is voided and his contract is returned to you"...and Belichick signed off on it, I will eat some serious crow and sign any petition available to have Belichick stripped of his GM responsibilities.

Re: The Seymor Deal

PatsWorldChamps said:

that is a nice opinion, but you, and no one on this site, has read the contract (so you dont know)... stay tuned

Click to expand...

I'm guessing the New England Patriots have.

Re: The Seymor Deal

The language is usually more like "Should the player not pass a physical within times and rules pursuant to the CBA, then the receiving team shall have a right to render the contract null and void by notice to the league office and to the sending team"

If the patriots wanted to guarantee the deal without being voidable by a failure to report or failure to pass a physical, then that term would have been added. A term often used to give different compensation based on the number of games played in the first year.

Either term would likely have reduced the compensation that oakland would give. After all, why would you give first round draft choice for a player that doesn't report or pass a physical.
=============

All this being said, I expect Seymour to report and then to be Oakland's problem, just as Samuel was the problem of the patriots. If not, I expect Seymour to belong to the patriots again and be traded to pioli.

Metaphors said:

You are correct, but since no trade I have ever heard of was ever reversed due to trade contract language, I'm pretty confident I'm on the right side of reality here.

If the contract had language to the effect: "If Seymour doesn't want to report, the trade is voided and his contract is returned to you"...and Belichick signed off on it, I will eat some serious crow and sign any petition available to have Belichick stripped of his GM responsibilities.

Click to expand...

Re: The Seymor Deal

PatsWorldChamps said:

that is a nice opinion, but you, and no one on this site, has read the contract (so you dont know)... stay tuned

Click to expand...

.....don't have to read his contract.The League says the trade is complete,they have copies of all contracts.The Raiders say he's on their roster and he's on their salary cap.The patriots say Richard Seymour is no longer employed by this orginization.

All three entities involved have copies of the contract and none have hinted at a no trade clause or a Santa clause awarding Seymour a free washer and dryer,if he's traded.

Who else do we need to hear from?....The U S Supreme court?

Re: The Seymor Deal

This will be solved soon, but apparently we differing in the understanding of what it means to void a contract.

To me, and to the analysts at the Oakland Tribune, a contract that is voided is indeed a contract that has already been accepted by the league. There are terms and conditions that allows the receiving team to void the contract, or make it like it never existed. One term that usually comes under this rubric is passing a physical.

Under normal circustances, the trade goes through, the contract and its terms are approved by the league the same day, the rosters and caps are changed, and then sometime in the next week the player takes a physical at which time the contract can be voided.

The alternative for the league is a total mess where they are waiting for physicals before they can approve a contract.

italia44 said:

.....don't have to read his contract.The League says the trade is complete,they have copies of all contracts.The Raiders say he's on their roster and he's on their salary cap.The patriots say Richard Seymour is no longer employed by this orginization.

All three entities involved have copies of the contract and none have hinted at a no trade clause or a Santa clause awarding Seymour a free washer and dryer,if he's traded.

Who else do we need to hear from?....The U S Supreme court?

Click to expand...

Re: The Seymor Deal

mgteich said:

The language is usually more like "Should the player not pass a physical within times and rules pursuant to the CBA, then the receiving team shall have a right to render the contract null and void by notice to the league office and to the sending team"

Click to expand...

Would you agree to a trade with that language in it? Anyone who would should be shot. And then fired. In that order.

That is fancy language giving the player in question the right to void the trade.

mgteich said:

If the patriots wanted to guarantee the deal without being voidable by a failure to report or failure to pass a physical, then that term would have been added. A term often used to give different compensation based on the number of games played in the first year.

Either term would likely have reduced the compensation that oakland would give. After all, why would you give first round draft choice for a player that doesn't report or pass a physical.

Click to expand...

Those are terms of compensation (a "Conditional 1st"), not terms of trade viability. Haven't heard "conditional" anywhere near the 2011 1st round pick.

Teams are responsible for knowing and disclosing injuries in any trade transaction. If the receiving team discovers an undisclosed injury, they cry foul and the league determines if the sending team acted in good faith.

If a player would rather give up a year's salary, a chance at free agency in a year or even retire rather than go to your team...and you are still willing to give up a 1st to get him...no amount of contract protections are going to be enough to save you.

mgteich said:

All this being said, I expect Seymour to report and then to be Oakland's problem, just as Samuel was the problem of the patriots. If not, I expect Seymour to belong to the patriots again and be traded to pioli.

Click to expand...

That is the problem and the reason why the trade won't be voided. Seymour would be tainted goods...no longer viable on the Pats and only worth pennies on the dollar in a trade. You think trades are scarce now? Try pulling one off when players have implicit no-trade rights. You would have to ask their permission before even discussing them in a trade. It would be a mess.

I really think Seymour could surprise everyone and retire

God knows he has the money to do so and yet still have a great post career out of football.

From what I see,Richard is a guy who does not LOVE the game of football but more of working like any man at his job and which he is good at.

There is a difference between guys like Brady and Bruschi who LOVE the game and guys like Seymour who are in it simply for a good paying job that they excell at - -I may get flamed for this but I truly think he is in the NFL for the money,he just happens to be better at his job than most of his profession.

I believe that Richard has a Batchelor's Degree in Real Estate at Georgia,that line of work would be just fine with pay.

PATRIOTSFANINPA said:

I really think Seymour could surprise everyone and retire

Click to expand...

I agree. I've been saying that since Monday.

He has two options. Report or retire.

It's his complete prerogative to do either.