Reddick fines and report date update....clear as mud

[AFJF]

Nobody seems to know when Reddick has to report in order to avoid having his contract toll and tons of different numbers floating around in regards to how much he has been fined.

Tried to do this as a Jets fan PSA.  By all means, feel free to listen to the full version on Cimini's flight deck podcast titled "Who to blame for the Denver Debacle".

 

But I took a few minutes to listen to the episode a second time and take notes from former agent Joel Corry who works for CBS sports and consolidate it to a quick 10 min. explanation.

Sorry for the face, feel free to look away from the screen if it helps you power through.
 

 

[Jack Straw]

There’s been a lot of debate about how Reddick’s holdout affects his contract, specifically whether this season will count toward his free agency or if his contract will be extended into 2025. @Sperm Edwards and I have been discussing this for the past few days, and there seems to be some differing views from the NFL talking heads. Here’s my understanding:

1. The Basic Rule: 6 Games Normally Count as an Accrued Season

In Article 8, Section 1(a) of the CBA, it states that a player accrues a season if they are on “full pay status” for 6 or more regular-season games. This is important because players need a certain number of accrued seasons to qualify for free agency and other benefits.

For most players, especially those with fewer than 3 accrued seasons, being active for 6 games in a season means that season will count toward their career, regardless of how many games they missed. This is the standard 6-game rule.

2. Reddick’s Case: Why the 6-Game Rule Might Not Be Enough

While the 6-game rule usually applies, Reddick’s situation is different because he has more than 3 accrued seasons and is currently holding out. When a player holds out or misses most of the season, the situation becomes more complex. We need to look at Article 8, Section 1(b) to understand how his holdout might affect whether this season will count.

 

3. The “Material Period of Time” Clause

Article 8, Section 1(b) introduces the concept of a “material period of time” that could prevent a player from accruing a season, even if they return and play some games later.

• What does it say? The CBA states that a player shall not receive an accrued season if they miss a material period of time, even if they eventually return to perform their services. This applies to players who hold out or don’t perform their contract services for a significant portion of the season.

• Why this matters: The CBA doesn’t define what a “material period of time” means in terms of games missed, leaving it open for interpretation. This is likely intentional to prevent players from holding out for most of the season and still receiving credit for the year by playing just a few games.

4. The 6-Game Rule vs. the 50% (9-Game) Threshold

If Reddick only plays six games, that’s roughly 35% of the season (6 out of 17 games). Missing 65% of the season could be seen as a material absence. Under the CBA, missing a significant portion of the season—like 65%—could result in the team arguing that he didn’t meaningfully contribute and, therefore, his contract should toll, extending into 2025.

This is where the idea of a 50% threshold (nine games) comes into play. Playing at least half the season (nine games) makes it much harder to argue that a player missed a material amount of time.

5. Contract Tolling: What Happens If He Misses Too Much Time

[See Appendix A, Section 16 (EXTENSION)]: This part of the CBA explains what happens if a player fails to perform their services, like in the case of a holdout. The contract can be tolled, meaning the missed time is added to the player’s contract. In Reddick’s case, if the team argues his absence is "material," his contract could be extended into 2025.

Importantly, this section uses the phrase “nearest multiple of one.” If a player only contributes a minimal amount—like six games out of 17—this clause would round down, meaning that season wouldn’t count.

6. The Intent Behind the CBA: Flexibility for Future Changes

The CBA was written with flexibility in mind, especially with potential season expansions. This ensures that teams are protected from players exploiting the system by holding out for most of the season and then returning just in time to meet the six-game rule. By leaving the term “material period of time” open-ended, the CBA allows teams to argue against minimal participation, even if six games are played.

---

What Does This Mean for Reddick?

If Reddick only plays six games, his absence could be considered “material,” and under the CBA’s nearest multiple of one rule, six games would round down to zero seasons. This means his contract could be tolled and extended into 2025, jeopardizing his free agency status.

However, if Reddick plays nine games (50% of the season), he is much more likely to avoid the risk of contract tolling. Nine games would round up to a full season, meaning his absence is less likely to be viewed as material, and he would avoid the risk of his contract extending into 2025.

 

[Raideraholic]

Jets are going to pay him 14 million dollars for 2025 when it can be a total rebuild .     It all depends on what happens the rest of the season for the Jets, what happens with Reddick going forward.        

[AFJF]

39 minutes ago, Jack Straw said:

There’s been a lot of debate about how Reddick’s holdout affects his contract, specifically whether this season will count toward his free agency or if his contract will be extended into 2025. @Sperm Edwards and I have been discussing this for the past few days, and there seems to be some differing views from the NFL talking heads. Here’s my understanding:

1. The Basic Rule: 6 Games Normally Count as an Accrued Season

In Article 8, Section 1(a) of the CBA, it states that a player accrues a season if they are on “full pay status” for 6 or more regular-season games. This is important because players need a certain number of accrued seasons to qualify for free agency and other benefits.

For most players, especially those with fewer than 3 accrued seasons, being active for 6 games in a season means that season will count toward their career, regardless of how many games they missed. This is the standard 6-game rule.

2. Reddick’s Case: Why the 6-Game Rule Might Not Be Enough

While the 6-game rule usually applies, Reddick’s situation is different because he has more than 3 accrued seasons and is currently holding out. When a player holds out or misses most of the season, the situation becomes more complex. We need to look at Article 8, Section 1(b) to understand how his holdout might affect whether this season will count.

 

3. The “Material Period of Time” Clause

Article 8, Section 1(b) introduces the concept of a “material period of time” that could prevent a player from accruing a season, even if they return and play some games later.

• What does it say? The CBA states that a player shall not receive an accrued season if they miss a material period of time, even if they eventually return to perform their services. This applies to players who hold out or don’t perform their contract services for a significant portion of the season.

• Why this matters: The CBA doesn’t define what a “material period of time” means in terms of games missed, leaving it open for interpretation. This is likely intentional to prevent players from holding out for most of the season and still receiving credit for the year by playing just a few games.

4. The 6-Game Rule vs. the 50% (9-Game) Threshold

If Reddick only plays six games, that’s roughly 35% of the season (6 out of 17 games). Missing 65% of the season could be seen as a material absence. Under the CBA, missing a significant portion of the season—like 65%—could result in the team arguing that he didn’t meaningfully contribute and, therefore, his contract should toll, extending into 2025.

This is where the idea of a 50% threshold (nine games) comes into play. Playing at least half the season (nine games) makes it much harder to argue that a player missed a material amount of time.

5. Contract Tolling: What Happens If He Misses Too Much Time

[See Appendix A, Section 16 (EXTENSION)]: This part of the CBA explains what happens if a player fails to perform their services, like in the case of a holdout. The contract can be tolled, meaning the missed time is added to the player’s contract. In Reddick’s case, if the team argues his absence is "material," his contract could be extended into 2025.

Importantly, this section uses the phrase “nearest multiple of one.” If a player only contributes a minimal amount—like six games out of 17—this clause would round down, meaning that season wouldn’t count.

6. The Intent Behind the CBA: Flexibility for Future Changes

The CBA was written with flexibility in mind, especially with potential season expansions. This ensures that teams are protected from players exploiting the system by holding out for most of the season and then returning just in time to meet the six-game rule. By leaving the term “material period of time” open-ended, the CBA allows teams to argue against minimal participation, even if six games are played.

---

What Does This Mean for Reddick?

If Reddick only plays six games, his absence could be considered “material,” and under the CBA’s nearest multiple of one rule, six games would round down to zero seasons. This means his contract could be tolled and extended into 2025, jeopardizing his free agency status.

However, if Reddick plays nine games (50% of the season), he is much more likely to avoid the risk of contract tolling. Nine games would round up to a full season, meaning his absence is less likely to be viewed as material, and he would avoid the risk of his contract extending into 2025.

 

This is part of the problem.

The language is too vague.  Lots of "likely/possibly/could be/might" With no specifics and plenty of wiggle room to be interpreted several different ways, it means we really don't know anything and it likely lands with an arbitrator.

[Jetsfan80]

8 minutes ago, Raideraholic said:

Jets are going to pay him 14 million dollars for 2025 when it can be a total rebuild .     It all depends on what happens the rest of the season for the Jets, what happens with Reddick going forward.        

Oh hey RH how's your season going

[DJF71]

3 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

Oh hey RH how's your season going

Same as the Jets

[Jack Straw]

8 minutes ago, AFJF said:

This is part of the problem.

The language is too vague.  Lots of "likely/possibly/could be/might" With no specifics and plenty of wiggle room to be interpreted several different ways, it means we really don't know anything and it likely lands with an arbitrator.

I believe the vagueness was intentional to allow for flexibility as games are added to the schedule. If the CBA included rigid guidelines, everything would need to be rewritten as additional games come online.

The challenge is that these issues are scattered across the 400+ pages of the document. But once you get past the legalese of it all, I don't think it's all that confusing. 

I believe that Reddick needs to be on the roster by week 10, at the latest, to get to FA. 

[AFJF]

6 minutes ago, Jack Straw said:

I believe the vagueness was intentional to allow for flexibility as games are added to the schedule. If the CBA included rigid guidelines, everything would need to be rewritten as additional games come online.

The challenge is that these issues are scattered across the 400+ pages of the document. But once you get past the legalese of it all, I don't think it's all that confusing. 

I believe that Reddick needs to be on the roster by week 10, at the latest, to get to FA. 

Not trying to be antagonistic, but we can all say what we personally believe the deadline is or should be, but at the end of the day there is nothing in writing and so it will be up to the league or an arbitrator.

Nine weeks is a good assumption because that is the precedent that was set by Galloway.

But as the video touches on, what if he reports at week 9 and the Jets ask for a two week roster exemption and he's technically not on the roster until week 11?

Will an arbitrator consider the fact that the Jets made a very generous contract offer that the player turned down which brings in to question whether or not he was negotiating in good faith?

[CanadaSteve]

22 minutes ago, AFJF said:

This is part of the problem.

The language is too vague.  Lots of "likely/possibly/could be/might" With no specifics and plenty of wiggle room to be interpreted several different ways, it means we really don't know anything and it likely lands with an arbitrator.

It has to be vague.....Lawyers have to lawyer so they can then fight about things in court and make bank. 

[doitny]

27 minutes ago, Raideraholic said:

Jets are going to pay him 14 million dollars for 2025 when it can be a total rebuild .     It all depends on what happens the rest of the season for the Jets, what happens with Reddick going forward.        

they are going to cut him next year. Mac is doing much better than anyone thought and JJ is coming back. neither of them are getting demoted so Reddick can play.

[Sperm Edwards]

36 minutes ago, AFJF said:

This is part of the problem.

The language is too vague.  Lots of "likely/possibly/could be/might" With no specifics and plenty of wiggle room to be interpreted several different ways, it means we really don't know anything and it likely lands with an arbitrator.

It’s defined elsewhere that 6 games accrues a season.

The idea that a season accrues differently for one player vs another based on tenured seasons to date is more than a stretch. 

[Jack Straw]

45 minutes ago, AFJF said:

Not trying to be antagonistic, but we can all say what we personally believe the deadline is or should be, but at the end of the day there is nothing in writing and so it will be up to the league or an arbitrator.

Nine weeks is a good assumption because that is the precedent that was set by Galloway.

But as the video touches on, what if he reports at week 9 and the Jets ask for a two week roster exemption and he's technically not on the roster until week 11?

Will an arbitrator consider the fact that the Jets made a very generous contract offer that the player turned down which brings in to question whether or not he was negotiating in good faith?

I hear you, and I am also not trying to be antagonistic. But I believe that Appendix A, Section 16 (extension) spells this out pretty clearly. 

And to your point on Reddick showing up in week 9 and the Jets asking for a roster exemption. My understanding is that Reddick just needs to show up and make himself available in order for him to satisfy his end of the contract. If the Jets play games, they'd lose in arbitration as it'd be pretty clear that they were acting in bad faith.