Welcome to PatsFans.com

Globe: Union files Seymour Grievance over five day letter

Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by solman, Sep 12, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. solman

    solman Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2007
    Messages:
    1,069
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    According to the Globe, the union has filed a grievance against the Oakland Raiders for sending Seymour the five day letter.

    According to the article:

    I, for one, would like to know where to rules concerning the five day letter are spelled out. The ability to Toll a player's contract for another year seems particularly onerous. On other, seemingly less serious matters, the CBA goes into greater detail.
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2009
  2. PatsWickedPissah

    PatsWickedPissah PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    23,675
    Likes Received:
    630
    Ratings:
    +1,701 / 19 / -12

    Disable Jersey

    Looks like a moot point
  3. Pats726

    Pats726 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    9,800
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    Was there a longer thread on this that disappeared?? Seems to have vanished...was it merged??
  4. solman

    solman Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2007
    Messages:
    1,069
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    I hope so.

    The fact of the matter is that Seymour didn't talk about reporting until the five day letter showed up, and he lost his leverage.

    If he thinks that he can preserve his leverage by not reporting until Tuesday, he might very well change his mind about reporting.
  5. Pats726

    Pats726 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    9,800
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    The union's point is all wet...there is no way the Patriots could send a 5 day letter...teh contracts were traded...so Seymour was not a Patriot player... could not be done. If somehow this is ruled in his favor it would be the blueprint for any traded player..you just do not show up for the physical...I THINK Seymour knows this and that is why he will report today...More an dmore his image is sinking...and sinking fast. If it is teh union that is filing this or being pushed by Parker..it may prove a point..but the door will be slammed shut.
  6. ursa99

    ursa99 Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2005
    Messages:
    75
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Seymour's contract is owned by the Raiders. Could this whole thing be turned around. Unlikely. I'm sure the Commissioner and the owners wouldn't allow it as it would set a dreadful precedent. I think all of this is for Seymour to gain some leverage in his contract situation. I doubt he actually wants to return to the Patriots and I think the feeling is mutual. Having said that, what is the bottom line? I think the outcome of the grievance hearing will be interesting as it will close or expose wider this loop hole that Seymour is trying to crawl thru. Frankly I wish this whole thing would just go away.

    Are you ready for some Football?? YEA!
  7. jefmblrd

    jefmblrd Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2005
    Messages:
    954
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +37 / 1 / -0

    #50 Jersey

    Hey, it's just business Richard-remember that line? Suck it up and report to your new team. You can't have it both ways.
  8. Lord_Reginald_III

    Lord_Reginald_III Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2007
    Messages:
    108
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    exactly, would set a very chaotic precedent. dude's a raider whether he's sulking in attleboro or heading to the east bay
  9. Pats726

    Pats726 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    9,800
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    It may NOT be Seymour that wishes to appeal..but the union..or it could be Parker who is pushing this..one way or another it will clarify...To me once the contracts have been exchanged, the trade is ON and the players swapped are with their respective teams..unless there is an issue with the physical. There is NONE is this case...it's a player that wishes NOT to be there...different story. This loophole will be closed if it's at all open. No chaos...players do not run the asylum.
    My guess is that if the Pats sent the letter, that too would have had a grievance.
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2009
  10. mgteich

    mgteich PatsFans.com Veteran PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    20,855
    Likes Received:
    127
    Ratings:
    +335 / 21 / -2

    I don't where Seymour has done anything unreasonable. He has been in contact with his new team. He has taken a few days to attend to some personal matters before reporting. He is likely to be reporting today.

    Even if he were planning a holdout before or after his physical, that is within HIS business rights.

    And filing a grievance is again within his BUSINESS rights and also within those of the NFLPA.


    REPEAT TEN TIMES
    The NFL is a business.
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2009
  11. DaBruinz

    DaBruinz Pats, B's, Sox PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Messages:
    24,307
    Likes Received:
    196
    Ratings:
    +362 / 24 / -48

    #50 Jersey

    MG - Yes, the NFL is a business. And yes, Seymour is well within his rights to hold out, though its pure speculation on your part that he hasn't reported because of family matters. In fact, your supposition flies in the face of everything we've heard. Including from Rodney Harrison.

    The Raiders are within their rights to put him on the Reserve/DNR list and withhold his paychecksl. And, I'm pretty certain that Seymour losing 217.6K (minus the 9.25% income taxes in Cali) is plenty of motivation for him to be report and take the physical.

    BTW, I suggest that, instead of pretending like there aren't people on here who are intelligent in legal matters, you might want to give them the benefit of the doubt instead of just poo-pooing their statemtents like you know more than they do.. Its just your supposition that the NFLPA knows more. And that isn't necessarily the case. Especially since they have a new Executive Director who hasn't been that involved in things, other than trying to stop a Labor investigation...

    BTW, The grievance that the NFLPA file is whether or not the 5 day letter can be applied to players who have been traded. Its not over whether it was Oakland's right to send it. There is a difference.
  12. PatsWickedPissah

    PatsWickedPissah PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    23,675
    Likes Received:
    630
    Ratings:
    +1,701 / 19 / -12

    Disable Jersey

    I'm no lawyer but were I the NFLPA I'd file a grievance just to keep my player rights open on the matter. Let time sort out the issues and legal standing. No penalty incurred by simply filing.
  13. mgteich

    mgteich PatsFans.com Veteran PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    20,855
    Likes Received:
    127
    Ratings:
    +335 / 21 / -2

    I did not suggest that I knew more that the sports contract attorneys that will be involved in the grievance. And you are certainly entitled to believe that the NFLPA knows little merely because they have a new director.

    Personally, I believe that the issues of the last week have been a fabrication of the media, including Harrison. Certainly if he reports today or tomorrow and actually plays a bit on Monday, most of the media and most of us posters will be shown to be what we are. We like controversy and we like to see hundreds of posts and articles over what may amount to absoltely nothing.

    If you don't believe that taking his kids (and cousin) out of school on the first day and preparing their move back south is not a family matter, then that is your opinion.

    Borges has reported what Seymour said. Believe it or not, as you will.

    I think that it is perfectly reasonable to take a week to report, and is certainly within Seymour's rights as a player. I suspect that Seymour has indeed been in contact with Oakland as he and Oakland have indicated. And yes, I find it reasonable that Belichick informed Seymour by phone call in very few words "your rights have been trade to oakland". After all, for Belichick, there was nothing else to say.

    And, of course, Sey will not be paid if he doesn't report, no matter what nonsense has been posted.

  14. Pats726

    Pats726 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    9,800
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    It's certainly wuthin his rights to do any of all of what he did...but it was NOT classy at all. It reeks of many other things, none of them very good. And that is more the opinion, of fans here, of those in Oakland and around the NFL.
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2009
  15. solman

    solman Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2007
    Messages:
    1,069
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    There are many ways to do business. You can try to work together with your partners, or you can be a dick, and push things as far as the legal system will allow.

    Seymour was a dick. He focused exclusively on being paid as much money as possible. He signed contracts paying him vast quantities of money in exchange for work, accepted the money, then refused to report for work unless he was given more money.

    Now it appears to be the union's turn to be unreasonable. Under Upshaw, the league and the union had many disagreements, but they made a good faith effort to work with each other, and the NFL players benefited spectacularly from that partnership.

    Both the union and league intended for players without no trade clauses to be traded between teams, and for the teams that they are traded to to be able to enforce this. Filing a grievance suggesting otherwise doesn't merely attempt to clarify the five day letter procedure. It tells the NFL:

    "We are going to use every single word in every contract and agreement in our favor. It doesn't matter if we all previous agreed on something, just as long as the actual language permits us to argue to opposite. From now on you will have to spend endless additional hours drafting agreements to make sure that they are impervious to any possible attempt on our part to challenge them."

    Whatever benefits players reap from this change in attitude will be utterly trivial in comparison to the gains made under Upshaw. But if there is a lockout in 2011, it will be catastrophic for everybody involved.

    Being a dick in business is rarely profitable. Unfortunately, the union is now run by a lawyer, the only class of people who don't seem to understand this.
  16. crowell33

    crowell33 Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    2,536
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Wow. 10char.
  17. crowell33

    crowell33 Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    2,536
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Wow again. 10 char.
  18. DaBruinz

    DaBruinz Pats, B's, Sox PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Messages:
    24,307
    Likes Received:
    196
    Ratings:
    +362 / 24 / -48

    #50 Jersey

    No. You suggested you knew more than other people about the topic and that other people have no contract knowledge.

    I think its hilarious that you say that most of the things in the media and from Rodney were fabrications, but that Borges was telling the truth about Seymour. I mean, we all know that Borges is the icon of truth when it comes to all things Belichick.. :rolleyes:. Not to mention how BB didn't know what he was doing when he drafted Seymour, right???

    As for Seymour, why did he have to take his kids out of school and move them back south? Sounds pretty silly to me. Especially considering that he just moved them up to New England. What difference does it make if they are in New England or in Georgia? While he's with the Raiders, he's not going to be seeing them much anyways..

    Its only "perfectly reasonable" if you've made arrangements with your new team in that regard. However, remember that it was Cable who said that Seymour and the Pats had issues to straighten out on Tuesday.. So, yes, he'd been in contact with the Raiders, but not in the way you are implying. At least not until Thursday or Friday..

    Now, could it have been that Cable misheard Seymour on Monday when they talked? Sure. I see Cable being stupid enough to think that Seymour saying "I've got things to take care of here in New England" as "I've got things to take care of with the Patriots." Well, anything is possible. As people have mentioned, Cable doesn't seem to be the brightest bulb in the shed. So all the ruckus this week could have been much ado about nothing.

    If so, shame on us.. And more shame on the media.. As you said.
  19. BradyFTW!

    BradyFTW! PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2007
    Messages:
    17,135
    Likes Received:
    230
    Ratings:
    +776 / 12 / -5

    #12 Jersey

    This is just business too. Playing for the Raiders isn't a good business decision...
  20. Pats726

    Pats726 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    9,800
    Likes Received:
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -0

    And if doesm't WISH to play for teh Raiders..he can get a job digging ditches..is that a good business decision?? Actually...he has no say in this..he can retire or report or be suspended..maybe he prefers no money to the almost 4 he will earn..wait a minute it IS about the $$$$$$$$$.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>