I Could See Al Davis Potentially Doing This......

[Pujo]

I believe that the only offense that is punishable by two years is killing vicous fighting dogs.

Damn right, those dogs had it coming. If they didn't want to get killed by Michael Vick, they should have picked another career.

 

[crowell33]

Damn right, those dogs had it coming. If they didn't want to get killed by Michael Vick, they should have picked another career.

Yeah, if they had become seeing eye dogs they wouldn't have been in this mess.

 

[alvinnf]

Just this year but they could go after him for the prorated signing bonus I believe, which is 1/4 of $5 million or $1.25 million.

You know if I am Seymour making 3.75 this year. I don't show up. He's gonna have somebody put 20 mil gar. his way. Why play in Oak if he can just sit out to get to his payday, he's thirty it's all about the gauranteed money at this point. Why get all jacked up in Oak when your on the cusp of your last big deal.

 

[Frezo]

Yeah, if they had become seeing eye dogs they wouldn't have been in this mess.

Meanwhile back at Gillette Brace is running a 40 4.95...with 100 lbs in each hand...after eating 6 Big Macs...with Wilfie on his back...

 

[mayoclinic]

Meanwhile back at Gillette Brace is running a 40 4.95...with 100 lbs in each hand...after eating 6 Big Macs...with Wilfie on his back...

Hopping on one leg ...

 

[Frezo]

Hopping on one leg ...

in a bikini...

 

[mayoclinic]

in a bikini...

with triple-D cups, of course ...

 

[Frezo]

with triple-D cups, of course ...

...............

 

[italia44]

You know if I am Seymour making 3.75 this year. I don't show up. He's gonna have somebody put 20 mil gar. his way. Why play in Oak if he can just sit out to get to his payday, he's thirty it's all about the gauranteed money at this point. Why get all jacked up in Oak when your on the cusp of your last big deal.

because he has to report or retire.He loses all his salary and is in the same position in 2010.He's not a free agent.

 

[efin98]

That's why I wrote,"Ignoring the ethical or legal implications for the physician of making a false report," in the original post.....

Even so, those alone will prevent a doctor from willingly and knowingly falsify the reports just to make a buck...unless Al could bribe both his doctor and the league appointed "third party" it ain't happening.

 

[SidelineSid]

because he has to report or retire.He loses all his salary and is in the same position in 2010.He's not a free agent.

Lets assume that the Raiders get fed up and choose another option: they decide to trade him. Where do you think he would go? More importantly, do you think the Raiders would trade him to one of our rivals (SD, MIA, Jets, IND) in order to get back at us?

 

[tanked_as_usual]

Lets assume that the Raiders get fed up and choose another option: they decide to trade him. Where do you think he would go? More importantly, do you think the Raiders would trade him to one of our rivals (SD, MIA, Jets, IND) in order to get back at us?

not to SD......but maybe the other 2, or god forbid, the steelers

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

What has he said about Seymour having any leverage ?

Schefter said on sportscenter that Seymour has leverage with the Raiders because not only does he have one year left on his contract but the Raiders don't have a choice but to own up to Seymour's contract demands (assuming he wants to retire as a Raider) because they just gave up a 1st round pick to the Pats. Do you think the Raiders want to see him walk in 2010? That would go down as the worst trade in NFL history and grand theft by the Pats. In addition, the Raiders do not want the 29 year old Seymour (they just gave a 1st round pick for) to sit out the entire season. Schefter wrapped it up by saying if Seymour doesn't report and the situation gets really ugly, the league could step in a void the trade.

I don't think so...a 5 day letter will go out and if he does not report..he will NOT play this year, will get no money and this year on his contract will be voided, thus, he will not be a free agent until the end of 10. I really do NOT think he wants to do that...too much about the money.

The Raiders do not want to go the 5 day letter route because they are essentially wasting another year off of a player that is about to turn 30. Would you want to trade for a player that is about to turn 30 for a first round pick, yet not see him play until 2010? Seymour and his agent could demand the Raiders to tear up the remaining year deal of his contract and sign a new deal with the Raiders like Samuel did with the Pats '07 as long as they didn't franchise him the following year. At this point, because the Raiders f***** up and didn't talk to Seymour before the trade was finalized, they have no choice but to cave in on Seymour's demands. If not, Seymour can threatened to sit out the entire season or retire. In the end, this would be the Raiders worst nightmare.

If he fails to report, the Raider's have an insubordinate employee in violation of his contract.

The Pats will sit back and enjoy wheeling and dealing with the Raiders'#1 pick in 2011.

See the above post. Schefter said that if it gets really ugly, the league can intervene and void the trade completely. I wouldn't get too comfortable with the 1st round pick as of yet. If Seymour doesn't report in the next couple of days, it could get really ugly.

 

[tanked_as_usual]

Schefter said on sportscenter that Seymour has leverage with the Raiders because not only does he have one year left on his contract but the Raiders don't have a choice but to own up to Seymour's contract demands (assuming he wants to retire as a Raider) because they just gave up a 1st round pick to the Pats. Do you think the Raiders want to see him walk in 2010? That would go down as the worst trade in NFL history and grand theft by the Pats. In addition, the Raiders do not want the 29 year old Seymour (they just gave a 1st round pick for) to sit out the entire season. Schefter wrapped it up by saying if Seymour doesn't report and the situation gets really ugly, the league could step in a void the trade.

what would be the explanation in screwing the pat in this one? voiding the trade just excuses the raiders for poor decision making......none of this is the pats fault so why should they get screwed?

See the above post. Schefter said that if it gets really ugly, the league can intervene and void the trade completely. I wouldn't get too comfortable with the 1st round pick as of yet. If Seymour doesn't report in the next couple of days, it could get really ugly.

again, what is the justification of having the pats be the only ones to get hosed in this? there is no validity in voiding the trade

the only recourse would be for the raiders to trade him to someone else

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

what would be the explanation in screwing the pat in this one? voiding the trade just excuses the raiders for poor decision making......none of this is the pats fault so why should they get screwed?

again, what is the justification of having the pats be the only ones to get hosed in this? there is no validity in voiding the trade

the only recourse would be for the raiders to trade him to someone else

Sorry, I'm just relaying what Schefter said and the league can void it if they want to. Although Seymour's current contract wasn't the one he signed as a rookie, but I'm sure the league is going to implement some kind of rules that permits this stuff during rookie deals.

 

[SidelineSid]

what would be the explanation in screwing the pat in this one? voiding the trade just excuses the raiders for poor decision making......none of this is the pats fault so why should they get screwed?






again, what is the justification of having the pats be the only ones to get hosed in this? there is no validity in voiding the trade

the only recourse would be for the raiders to trade him to someone else

If we get screwed because of the League office, then Goodell really does have it out for us. The Raiders shouldn't have been so reckless. They traded for a player before they were able to talk to him and find out his receptiveness to the deal. They could have easily asked the Pats for permission to discuss this with him and would have been well within their rights to do so. If they couldn't get permission to talk to Seymour, then no trade. It's their fault.

 

[muzz]

Seymour can do whatever he wants, but he'll either play, or sit out...sits out and he's in the exact same position next year, with FA still a year away.....never mind the fact that he loses 3.8 MILL...

I don't see that, he CAN try and force the Raiders into not Franchising him, or a big extension, etc....and they may even bite....but they don't HAVE to do anything.
Richard certainly does if he wants to get paid.

TBO, I really don't care what he does, as it won't affect me one bit.

 

[Patsfanin Philly]

If we get screwed because of the League office, then Goodell really does have it out for us. The Raiders shouldn't have been so reckless. They traded for a player before they were able to talk to him and find out his receptiveness to the deal. They could have easily asked the Pats for permission to discuss this with him and would have been well within their rights to do so. If they couldn't get permission to talk to Seymour, then no trade. It's their fault.

Can you imagine the precedent that this will set of a player could void a trade by refusing to go?? This totally violates the CBA which states that the new team takes the contract and the player is obligated to perform.....

 

[HEY BRO! WHAT UP?]

Can you imagine the precedent that this will set of a player could void a trade by refusing to go?? This totally violates the CBA which states that the new team takes the contract and the player is obligated to perform.....

It's pretty messed up but it could happen because with the right lawyers, you can find a loophole to just about anything.

 

[tanked_as_usual]

Can you imagine the precedent that this will set of a player could void a trade by refusing to go?? This totally violates the CBA which states that the new team takes the contract and the player is obligated to perform.....

there is the possibility this thing grows its own head and forces decisions that has never been made before......since the league has found it fit to remove picks from the draft, I can't why they would not be able to add a pick.......it would not be beyond the realm of goodell's goofy world to terminate seymour's contract and then add a pick to the draft for the patriots that would be either the one before or the one after the raiders pick......and then seymour can sign with anyone the pats aren't playing this year.........make everyone happy

of course you could avoid setting a precedent by not letting seymour play this year