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

[Deus Irae]

All that is needed for the deal to be complete is for Seymour to pass a physical. He can’t pass a physical if he doesn’t report to the Raiders.

Confusion still clouds Seymour deal - AFC West - ESPN

So what happens if Seymour refuses to report? It depends on the terms of the trade, which usually are contingent on the player reporting and passing a physical.

According to an NFL spokesman, the team could send him a five-day notice letter saying it may place him on the reserved/left squad list. If the Raiders choose to put Seymour player on that list, he cannot play in the 2009 season.

Read more: RAIDERS / Ex-Pat Seymour has yet to report

RAIDERS / Ex-Pat Seymour has yet to report

Nothing's there that I haven't noted. Now, if you have information saying the Raiders waived the requirement of a physical, please supply it. Otherwise, it might be best for you to harken back:

Indy.com | Post: Bills DT McCargo fails Colts physical, trade void | Indianapolis, Indiana

 

[mgcolby]

The comments from coach Tom Cable are really irrelevant since the trade papers have been signed and approved by the league office. He counts on the Raiders’ 53-man roster, so how does Seymour need to clear things up with the Patriots? All that remains is for Seymour to show up and pass his physical. There’s nothing left for the Patriots to do regarding Seymour because he’s now the property of the Raiders, so many NFL observers were left shaking their heads after hearing Cable’s comments.

Seymour has no choice other than to retire, which he doesn’t want to do as he was expecting a Julius Peppers type of contract next offseason in what may be an uncapped year. The Raiders can place him on their reserve did not report list and go after the remaining portion of his pro-rated bonus. But clearly, that’s not a course of action a team that gave up a first-round pick in 2011 wants to explore. Can the Raiders now trade him? Yes, but do you think they can recoup their investment? Hardly. But again, the Raiders made this trade to improve their team, not collect draft picks, so trading Seymour isn’t an option for them.

He is a Raider.

 

[Oswlek]

Just reposting that I think Seymour has to FAIL a physical to nullify the trade. Simply not reporting is not enough.

No one responded to the earlier one and it has been buried a bit.

 

[Rob0729]

The Raiders will want their pick back if they don't get Seymour to play?!? Really?!? That seems pretty shocking.

The question is whether they can get that pick back. Both Michael Lombardi and Adam Schefter have intimated that the deal is done and there is no going back. If true, that means the Raiders' only recourse is to file a grievance with the league. The only way I can see them siding with the Raiders in that case is if Goodell felt that the Pats dealt in bad faith and knew Seymour would never report to the Raiders.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

This is what Schefter said

Schefter says the league bylaws state once a trade is made and processed by the league it can not be void by one of the teams unless it is for a failed physical, not for not showing up for a physical. He says that the league expects it to work out between Seymour and Oakland.

Deus Irae: Nothing's there that I haven't noted. Now, if you have information saying the Raiders waived the requirement of a physical, please supply it. Otherwise, it might be best for you to harken back:

Indy.com | Post: Bills DT McCargo fails Colts physical, trade void | Indianapolis, Indiana

But he failed the physical, Seymour hasnt so Oakland cant void the deal, it doesnt have the power.

 

[Ice Cold Bruschi]

Why would we have to give anything back, its their fault they can't control THEIR player.

 

[SVN]

No goalpost has been moved. If the trade is voided, Seymour goes back to the Patriots with his old contract still in place.

Again, do you have information that says otherwise?

even if tht happens i bet the pats will just release/bench him for the season.no way i can believe he will play a snap for the pats again.

 

[mgcolby]

Confusion still clouds Seymour deal - AFC West - ESPN



RAIDERS / Ex-Pat Seymour has yet to report

Nothing's there that I haven't noted. Now, if you have information saying the Raiders waived the requirement of a physical, please supply it. Otherwise, it might be best for you to harken back:

Indy.com | Post: Bills DT McCargo fails Colts physical, trade void | Indianapolis, Indiana

But not reporting does not constitute a failed physical. So yeah he can go out and hurt himself show up and fail a physical. Other than that its a done deal. If he doesn't show up he is Oakland's problem. End of story.

The league can't afford to set that precedent. Think about it, if Seymour doesn't show up and the Raiders ask and receive a void of the trade from the league. Then they just allowed players to void trades without having a no trade clause in their contract. That would be idiotic as it would undermine the entire trade process.

 

[Oswlek]

This is what Schefter said

It seems that I am correct.

 

[Deus Irae]

But not reporting does not constitute a failed physical. So yeah he can go out and hurt himself show up and fail a physical. Other than that its a done deal. If he doesn't show up he is Oakland's problem. End of story.

The league can't afford to set that precedent. Think about it, if Seymour doesn't show up and the Raiders ask and receive a void of the trade from the league. Then they just allowed players to void trades without having a no trade clause in their contract. That would be idiotic as it would undermined the entire trade process.

It's not about precedent, it's about what the rules are. That's why I asked our moderator if he had other information, but he didn't offer any.

Clearly, there is confusion on this point. I'm trying to contact the league for clarification, but they've not been able to connect me to someone who can give me a definitive answer yet. I'm on hold and will post follow up info.

Follow up: I had to leave a message. If the person returns my call, I'll gladly post whatever information I get on the subject.

 

[Snarf]

What stops him from reporting, and faking an injury or exaggerating an existing condition to fail the physical?

 

[shmessy]

Confusion still clouds Seymour deal - AFC West - ESPN



RAIDERS / Ex-Pat Seymour has yet to report

Nothing's there that I haven't noted. Now, if you have information saying the Raiders waived the requirement of a physical, please supply it. Otherwise, it might be best for you to harken back:

Indy.com | Post: Bills DT McCargo fails Colts physical, trade void | Indianapolis, Indiana

Where's the part about him "reverting" to the Patriots if he "chooses" to void the trade?

 

[Satchboogie3]

But not reporting does not constitute a failed physical. So yeah he can go out and hurt himself show up and fail a physical. Other than that its a done deal. If he doesn't show up he is Oakland's problem. End of story.

The league can't afford to set that precedent. Think about it, if Seymour doesn't show up and the Raiders ask and receive a void of the trade from the league. Then they just allowed players to void trades without having a no trade clause in their contract. That would be idiotic as it would undermine the entire trade process.

I still don't think it actually works that way. A player could refuse to show up and thus void the trade, but thing don't just go back to the way it was. Since the player didn't honor the contract (by refusing to accept a sanctioned trade without a no-trade clause) the contract would now basically be void. The team could allow the player back, but isn't responsible to do so.

Players realize this and know very well that if they refuse to show up to their new team, they are forfeiting a year of salary, and in this case, free agency eligibility next season. It's incentive enough to put their ego aside and report to their new team.

 

[Lloyd_Christmas]

I believe only the league office can void the deal.

Well, if he refuses to undergo a physical which is undoubtedly part of the deal in order for the trade to be consumated, then I do believe the Raiders can choose to back out of it rather than be forced to trade for a player that they cannot verify is healthy.

 

[Deus Irae]

Where's the part about him "reverting" to the Patriots if he chooses to void the trade?

I was posting on the voiding part. If a trade is void, everything reverts to where it was before as if the trade didn't happen. That's what voiding does.

 

[Satchboogie3]

What stops him from reporting, and faking an injury or exaggerating an existing condition to fail the physical?

I'm pretty sure the team would see through that bull****. The Raiders want Seymour, I doubt they would be led to believe some weak attempt to fail the physical.

 

[mgcolby]

I still don't think it actually works that way. A player could refuse to show up and thus void the trade, but thing don't just go back to the way it was. Since the player didn't honor the contract (by refusing to accept a sanctioned trade without a no-trade clause) the contract would now basically be void. The team could allow the player back, but isn't responsible to do so.

Players realize this and know very well that if they refuse to show up to their new team, they are forfeiting a year of salary, and in this case, free agency eligibility next season. It's incentive enough to put their ego aside and report to their new team.

That is not how Lomabardi and Schefter spell it out. The contractual rights of Richard Seymour were traded to the Raiders. The paperwork was submitted to and approved by the league. The only thing that can void the deal is a failed physical. If the player does not report then that is the Raiders issue. That alone will not void the deal.

 

[Snarf]

I'm pretty sure the team would see through that bull****. The Raiders want Seymour, I doubt they would be led to believe some weak attempt to fail the physical.

Who says they want Seymour? It's quite possible that the Raiders internally are regretting the trade, and might be every bit a part of encouraging a failed physical.

 

[shmessy]

Just reposting that I think Seymour has to FAIL a physical to nullify the trade. Simply not reporting is not enough.

Exactly. This is not subjective. It is black and white (or black and silver )

Seymour either:

1) shows up, passes the physical and is a Raider

or

2) shows up, fails the physical and reverts to the Patriots

or

3) Retires in a huff.

That's it. Evidently, that is outside of Deus Irae's comprehension. But we can all have a laugh watching him continue to try to spin it other ways. This is quite fascinating.

 

[shmessy]

I was posting on the voiding part. If a trade is void, everything reverts to where it was before as if the trade didn't happen. That's what voiding does.

Wrong.

It voids the trade.

It doesn't return everything to the way it was on September 5th if the reason for the void is Seymour refusal to report, which is what you argued in post #14.