New York Jets, Haason Reddick Contract Saga No Longer About Fines. Game checks are now on the line, to the tune of $852,941 for each game missed.

[bicketybam]

The fines belong to the NFL, not the Jets. Not being paid by the Jets doesn't absolve him from this. The next team he plays for will be responsible for collecting the fines from his salary and sending them to the NFL for their charity.

[slats]

32 minutes ago, jgb said:

Yes. Article 42, Section 5(b). “The assignment [i.e. trade] and/or termination of a player’s contract[…] shall not result in a waiver of the assigning or terminating Club’s right to seek to recover the full amount of the fines.”

But what is unclear from my quick read is it seems the only mechanism to enforce payment is through monies owed and outstanding from the Club to the player. So… if the Club never paid him and owes him nothing… I’m not sure what recourse the Jets would have. For example, it does not appear they can garnish his wages from a new contract made with another Club. Maybe they can sue him in a court of law, but I think under CBA they are limited to binding arbitration.

@Green Ghost

The team doesn’t collect the fines, the league does, and then donates them to the Professional Athletes’ Foundation. 
 
These rules are in place to avoid the situation that Reddick has chosen to place himself in. They will not waive those fines because that would tell the next guy to go ahead and do the same thing. Binding arbitration is a kangaroo court with Justice Goodell presiding, whenever he decides to play, he’ll pay. 

[Sperm Edwards]

34 minutes ago, Waka Flocka Flacco said:

What you are saying is just completely bonkers. This is homer wishful thinking trying to masquerade as thoughtful via word count. You are talking about decisions that are contractually as well as practically reserved to the player. Your example is not ‘maybe’ a bad one, it’s just insane. The penalties or not for holdouts or in are in the contract he signed which incorporates the CBA. The agent’s upside is capped at 1%. His exposure can’t be based on your feelings. Nobody would take the gig.

Meh, I don't "wish" it one way or the other, don't have feelings for him foolishly losing so much money - on the contrary I've been consistently mocking his stupidity throughout accumulating these fines - so I don't know where any of that comes from. No one even knows that Reddick got bad holdout advice from his agent in the first place and some weeks ago I further suggested Reddick might even be disregarding better advice he did get from his agent.

I was just floating an idea if his paid representation told him things that were incorrect, or advice was egregiously bad, etc. and he acted based upon that (akin to an attorney committing malpractice), might it be actionable. Even in the event it was, in no case would the agent be liable for a greater amount than the commission he was paid by Reddick anyway, as I can't imagine that's absent from the agent agreement.

But my feelings, lmao. 

[Matt39]

9 minutes ago, bicketybam said:

The fines belong to the NFL, not the Jets. Not being paid by the Jets doesn't absolve him from this. The next team he plays for will be responsible for collecting the fines from his salary and sending them to the NFL for their charity.

Is he even paying  the fines? Who enforces that? There doesn’t seem to be any current pain that he’s taking other than not being paid. He’s not giving money back. 

[C Mart]

49 minutes ago, Tooooon said:

Reddick showing up week 11 in the heart of a playoff push and becoming a major distraction is something that should be avoided.  I get it, we don’t KNOW if he will be a distraction, but the writing is on the wall and not worth the risk.  I say trade him. 

"distraction" is in the eye of the beholder. Yes, the media will be over the top writing, talking about it for days. JMO but it won't mean a thing inside the coaches room and locker room w/this team.  They'll welcome him and then say lets get ready for this week's game. 

[jgb]

33 minutes ago, C Mart said:

If he shows up in '24. He gets paid and needs to pay the fines?

If he doesn't show up at all '24, he contracts rolls to '25 season. Guessing he either reports then, gets paid Sept '25 (game checks) and fines carry over?  Or he doesn't report in '25, the song and dance continues leading eventually to retirement?

Obviously, assuming no new contract or reworked contract occurs and also not a regime change. A new regime will just wash his hands of this. 

It carries over and can be deducted from any money Jets pay him in future.

28 minutes ago, bicketybam said:

The fines belong to the NFL, not the Jets. Not being paid by the Jets doesn't absolve him from this. The next team he plays for will be responsible for collecting the fines from his salary and sending them to the NFL for their charity.

See below.

20 minutes ago, slats said:

The team doesn’t collect the fines, the league does, and then donates them to the Professional Athletes’ Foundation. 
 
These rules are in place to avoid the situation that Reddick has chosen to place himself in. They will not waive those fines because that would tell the next guy to go ahead and do the same thing. Binding arbitration is a kangaroo court with Justice Goodell presiding, whenever he decides to play, he’ll pay. 

I don’t think so. The fines collected by the league are in Article 46 (“Commissioner Discipline”) which deals with stuff like on-field illegal hits and the like. Article 42 (“Club Discipline”) deals with stuff like hold-outs and not reporting. Clubs donate half that money and the rest is theirs under Section 5(c) of that Article.

[Sperm Edwards]

39 minutes ago, jgb said:

Yes. Article 42, Section 5(b). “The assignment [i.e. trade] and/or termination of a player’s contract[…] shall not result in a waiver of the assigning or terminating Club’s right to seek to recover the full amount of the fines.”

But what is unclear from my quick read is it seems the only mechanism to enforce payment is through monies owed and outstanding from the Club to the player. So… if the Club never paid him and owes him nothing… I’m not sure what recourse the Jets would have. For example, it does not appear they can garnish his wages from a new contract made with another Club. Maybe they can sue him in a court of law, but I think under CBA they are limited to binding arbitration.

@Green Ghost

I don't think this is a fine mandated only if he goes on to play for for his current team, though. If it was, it would make more sense to be in the form of wage-garnishment. I was proceeding along the lines of the league imposing a fine for holding out the same way they impose a fine for a helmet to helmet hit, rather than the league imposing a mandate that the Jets impose a fine, if you will, where the only way to truly escape the fine is to retire. 

No doubt in normal scenarios an employer wouldn't be able to collect on a fine of money never paid by the employer. But as you bring up this isn't a normal scenario because there's a CBA in effect, and to a not-insignificant degree all team owners are business partners, so it probably passes on. Theory being since they pool almost all team ownership profits together, indirectly or in a sense all salaries are mostly paid 1/32 by every team, since disbursements from tv contracts exceeds the salary cap limits. If a player could escape a league-mandated fine by switching teams, I'd think that loophole would've been publicized - if not exercised by another player - by now.

I forget the exact wording offhand, but they do say the player's team can't reduce or waive it (i.e. mandatory is mandatory). Then again, if loophole language was explicitly stated, it wouldn't really be a loophole then, lol. By that I mean it doesn't (and wouldn't) say "...BUT if the team trades the player away or releases him before paying him any money, the fine disappears even if the player then gets paid by someone else instead," though I have to believe the spirit of the clause is the fine is inescapable outside of the player retiring.

It could be otherwise, but my guess is it follows him. The fines are clearly designed to be punitive to the point of preventing a behavior. If there was such an obvious loophole, it'd be too easy to sidestep that mandate and get out of the discouraged behavior. At the same time, what I found to be a far stranger loophole throughout this ordeal is the idea of a hold-in. "I'm holding out, but I'm going to stage it from the team's property while eating their food, but will refuse to actually participate on the field even though I'm fully healthy enough to do so,"  and be subject to zero fines in the process. It's is kind of funny, tbh. Most of the time it's the players union agreeing to terms they soon regret; the hold-in loophole seems like an oversight the teams will want to push to change in the next CBA, but they may have to give in on something else to get it. 

[jgb]

19 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I don't think this is a fine mandated only if he goes on to play for for his current team, though. If it was, it would make more sense to be in the form of wage-garnishment. I was proceeding along the lines of the league imposing a fine for holding out the same way they impose a fine for a helmet to helmet hit, rather than the league imposing a mandate that the Jets impose a fine, if you will, where the only way to truly escape the fine is to retire. 
 

Two different types of fines. Illegal hits governed by Article 46. Hold-outs by Article 42. The NFL is the party to 46, the team to 42. Accordingly, they both have totally different payment conditions.

19 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

No doubt in normal scenarios an employer wouldn't be able to collect on a fine of money never paid by the employer. But as you bring up this isn't a normal scenario because there's a CBA in effect, and to a not-insignificant degree all team owners are business partners, so it probably passes on. Theory being since they pool almost all team ownership profits together, indirectly or in a sense all salaries are mostly paid 1/32 by every team, since disbursements from tv contracts exceeds the salary cap limits. If a player could escape a league-mandated fine by switching teams, I'd think that loophole would've been publicized - if not exercised by another player - by now.

I can only report what the CBA itself says. It seems you can indeed escape a team fine by finding a way off that team before you collect another paycheck. But escaping  league fine would require retirement.

19 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I forget the exact wording offhand, but they do say the player's team can't reduce or waive it (i.e. mandatory is mandatory). Then again, if loophole language was explicitly stated, it wouldn't really be a loophole then, lol. By that I mean it doesn't (and wouldn't) say "...BUT if the team trades the player away or releases him before paying him any money, the fine disappears even if the player then gets paid by someone else instead," though I have to believe the spirit of the clause is the fine is inescapable outside of the player retiring.

It could be otherwise, but my guess is it follows him. The fines are clearly designed to be punitive to the point of preventing a behavior. If there was such an obvious loophole, it'd be too easy to sidestep that mandate and get out of the discouraged behavior. At the same time, what I found to be a far stranger loophole throughout this ordeal is the idea of a hold-in. "I'm holding out, but I'm going to stage it from the team's property while eating their food, but will refuse to actually participate on the field even though I'm fully healthy enough to do so,"  and be subject to zero fines in the process. It's is kind of funny, tbh. Most of the time it's the players union agreeing to terms they soon regret; the hold-in loophole seems like an oversight the teams will want to push to change in the next CBA, but they may have to give in on something else to get it. 

Again, the CBA lays out plainly that Article 42 fines are owned by the team and don’t transfer with the contract, but the team can still enforce deductions from owed moneys “by the Club” (not “any Club”). My guess is this is so a player is never put into a position to pay more money in fines than he earned by the club. Which would violate employment laws in most if not all states.

Perhaps they could pursue an arbitration case to garnish wages from the players next team, but that mechanism is not specifically enumerated in the CBA. 

[ARodJetsFan]

42 minutes ago, Matt39 said:

Is he even paying  the fines? Who enforces that? There doesn’t seem to be any current pain that he’s taking other than not being paid. He’s not giving money back. 

I believe the league itself has oversight on the enforcement aspect, of fine collection.

However no fines can be collected right now, because he's not currently being paid this season.

Once he reports and start's collecting a salary, the fines should start being collected by whatever team he reports to & sent to the league.

I'm sure there is a particular branch or division, of the NFL league office, that has oversight on this.

[jgb]

7 minutes ago, ARodJetsFan said:

I believe the league itself has oversight on the enforcement aspect, of fine collection.

For Article 46 fines this is true. But for Article 42 fines, which we are talking about here, it’s absolutely the team’s right to enforce.

 

[Matt39]

8 minutes ago, ARodJetsFan said:

I believe the league itself has oversight on the enforcement aspect, of fine collection.

However no fines can be collected right now, because he's not currently being paid this season.

Once he reports and start's collecting a salary, the fines should start being collected by whatever team he reports to & sent to the league.

I'm sure there is a particular branch or division, of the NFL league office, that has oversight on this.

Gotta be honest he’s obviously not concerned about the money aspect at this point. Who knows how this actually works behind the scenes. They “donate” it to charity. Sure .

[bicketybam]

23 minutes ago, jgb said:

Two different types of fines. Illegal hits governed by Article 46. Hold-outs by Article 42. The NFL is the party to 46, the team to 42. Accordingly, they both have totally different payment mechanisms.

I can only report what the CBA itself says. It seems you can indeed escape a team fine by finding a way off that team. But escaping  league fine would require retirement.

Again, the CBA lays out plainly that Article 42 fines are owned by the team and don’t transfer with the contract, but the team can still enforce deductions from owed moneys. Perhaps they could pursue an arbitration case to garnish wages from the players next team, but that mechanism is not enumerated in the CBA.

It states those fines must be paid by the player OR deducted by the club. I would assume if the team has nothing to deduct it from, then the player is responsible.

[The Voice of Reason]

15 minutes ago, jgb said:

For Article 46 fines this is true. But for Article 42 fines, which we are talking about here, it’s absolutely the team’s right to enforce.

 

Then why is the preseason fines considered mandatory 

[bicketybam]

https://nflpaweb.blob.core.windows.net/website/PDFs/CBA/March-15-2020-NFL-NFLPA-Collective-Bargaining-Agreement-Final-Executed-Copy.pdf

[jgb]

6 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Then why is the preseason fines considered mandatory 

That means the team cannot opt to not deduct it from pay. But if there is no pay… as the old adage goes “you can’t squeeze blood from a stone.”

[jgb]

11 minutes ago, bicketybam said:

It states those fines must be paid by the player OR deducted by the club. I would assume if the team has nothing to deduct it from, then the player is responsible.

Which section? I do not see it.

[Matt39]

3 minutes ago, jgb said:

That means the team cannot opt to not deduct it from pay. But if there is no pay… as the old adage goes “you can’t squeeze blood from a stone.”

Precisely 

[Green Ghost]

1 hour ago, bicketybam said:

The fines belong to the NFL, not the Jets. Not being paid by the Jets doesn't absolve him from this. The next team he plays for will be responsible for collecting the fines from his salary and sending them to the NFL for their charity.

You have no idea whether the last part (sentence) of what you said is true.

If you’re going to speculate, fine. We all do that.. Just don’t speak in absolutes, and couch it as if you know what your talking about is factual.

[jgb]

Just now, Green Ghost said:

You have no idea whether the last part (sentence) of what you said is true.

If you’re going to speculate, fine. We all do that.. Just don’t couch it as if you know what your talking about is factual.

What he said is true for Article 46 fines, but not Article 42 fines, which these are.

[bicketybam]

3 minutes ago, jgb said:

Which section? I do not see it.

Article 42, section 1, (b) (vi)

[Tooooon]

1 hour ago, C Mart said:

"distraction" is in the eye of the beholder. Yes, the media will be over the top writing, talking about it for days. JMO but it won't mean a thing inside the coaches room and locker room w/this team.  They'll welcome him and then say lets get ready for this week's game. 

I just don’t buy he’s going to show up and go all out for an organization he clearly dislikes.  In the scenario he fakes/exaggerates  an injury and doesn’t play (we saw this with John Abraham) I think it’s a major distraction to the coaches and players.  

[bonkertons]

2 hours ago, Jetsplayer21 said:

A 2025 3rd ? No way.. Maybe before he was head case, non team player, out of game shape.  Remember the jets traded 2026 3rd, with chance of becoming 2nd.. a 2025 3rd would have beat the jets offer.. His value definitely went down.. He is so bitter with the jets he will play on his current deal with anyone but the jets ? lol. I doubt any team would trust that. He already has shown he is dishonest about honor current deal. I think JD would take a 2025 4th , but that even seems far fetched.. Unless it is flipped for a player to win now, I don’t see why JD would trade a player who really has no choice but to play by week 10. 

Eh, hard to say.  Different animal during the offseason where you have high hopes for these young edge rushers whom you expect to take a big step forward.  Then suddenly the season starts and your guys aren't getting the job done and you see your season slipping away.  Who knows what a GM(or owner, for that matter) would be willing to part with when he's desperate.  I'd still say it's unlikely we get that much for Reddick, but I also wouldn't be surprised if we did.

[Joe W. Namath]

I cannot believe you guys are still talking about this.  What a waste of time.

I have not thought about reddick in a month until I saw this thread.

We are about to be in sole possession of 1st place in the afc east.

Move on jet fans!!!!!

[Ghost]

I seriously hate this guy lol. Send him to Carolina and let him rot 

[C Mart]

6 minutes ago, Tooooon said:

I just don’t buy he’s going to show up and go all out for an organization he clearly dislikes.  In the scenario he fakes/exaggerates  an injury and doesn’t play (we saw this with John Abraham) I think it’s a major distraction to the coaches and players.  

The rest of the league will see it and know.  Good luck going into '25 FA with that on tape

[Rich Thornburgh]

39 minutes ago, Matt39 said:

Gotta be honest he’s obviously not concerned about the money aspect at this point. Who knows how this actually works behind the scenes. They “donate” it to charity. Sure .

501c3 charities only have to send 5% of donations to the actual cause

[Rich Thornburgh]

7 minutes ago, Joe W. Namath said:

I cannot believe you guys are still talking about this.  What a waste of time.

I have not thought about reddick in a month until I saw this thread.

We are about to be in sole possession of 1st place in the afc east.

Move on jet fans!!!!!

You will be thinking about Reddick when we are playing Buffalo 

[Green Ghost]

15 minutes ago, jgb said:

What he said is true for Article 46 fines, but not Article 42 fines, which these are.

Exactly. You’ve explained that very clearly this morning.

I was going to mention that to him, but then I thought better of it, because… bickety.

[Rochester Jets]

Seems crazy to me that this guy wouldn't want to start at DE on a really good defense this season.  You'd think he'd be able to put up some great numbers and increase his potential pay-day next off-season.  

[Joe W. Namath]

4 minutes ago, Rich Thornburgh said:

You will be thinking about Reddick when we are playing Buffalo 

Nope

[jgb]

21 minutes ago, bicketybam said:

Article 42, section 1, (b) (vi)

Thanks! Now I see it. Yeah sure he can always agree to pay. But the question remains what if he is on a new team, is never paid a cent by the Jets, and refuses to pay? I don’t see an automatic mechanism for the NFL to garnish wages from his new team. It could be in there somewhere (the thing is nearly 500 pages) but it seems the Jets would need to get a wage garnishment order from either a court or, if allowed under the CBA which I don’t know, via the non-binding arbitration process established by the league.

But the fact is an employer cannot get from a employee more than it pays him (except for criminal acts like theft). It’s unconstitutional. 

[Green Ghost]

26 minutes ago, jgb said:

That means the team cannot opt to not deduct it from pay. But if there is no pay… as the old adage goes “you can’t squeeze blood from a stone.”

This is what I was referring to last night. How can a team fine a player with a non guaranteed contract who never reported to them?

23 minutes ago, Matt39 said:

Precisely 

Now I’m starting to wonder if those “mandatory” fines for not attending TC are going to be enforceable also if he sits out the entire season.

[Green Ghost]

15 hours ago, bicketybam said:

If he doesn't report this season it will cost him approximately 21 mil between lost salary, returned pro rates signing bonus and fines.

[jgb]

6 minutes ago, Green Ghost said:

This is what I was referring to last night. How can a team fine a player with a non guaranteed contract who never reported to them?

An employer cannot fine an employee more than it pays him because of the 14th Amendment (of the US Constitution, not the CBA). You cannot make an employee pay you to work for you (or to refuse to work for you).

6 minutes ago, Green Ghost said:

Now I’m starting to wonder if those “mandatory” fines for not attending TC are going to be enforceable also if he sits out the entire season.

I mean, that would be the player cutting his nose off to spite his face by basically self-fining himself 100% of his salary and having his contract toll for another year. He’d be a year older and in the same situation as the previous year. Not exactly a worrisome loophole.

[Alka]

15 hours ago, Green Ghost said:

Don’t make up numbers. His contract was for $14 mil, non guaranteed. 

Okay, Let's do the math together, shall we?

He was scheduled to make $14.5 Mill for this season.  If he doesn't show up, he is out $14.5M

On top of that, he has accumulated $6 Million in fines, which he MUST pay.

If we add his lost wages together with the fines that he MUST pay, we arrive at $20.5 Million dollars.

He also had a workout bonus of $250,000.00 that he gave up as well.  And $101,716.00 for showing up to minicamp.

He is very close to the $21M that I talked about, and not the $14M that you mistakenly are referring to.