enigmatics
Go get me a juice box!
canesfins13 said:You are right in that it depends on the language of the contract, but if the contract was voided then Ricky would be a free agent. He is not a free agent, and there is debate on whether he is entitled to the full compensation, so my guess would be it is not void.
What I presume to be the case is that a retirement is a breach of the contract, damages being return of the bonus. The contract is not voided, Ricky remaining property of the Dolphins. The question is whether Ricky's return (contrary to what a retirement implies) thus remedies any breach on retirement. In other words it was a leave of absense, which is not a retirement, and likely not covered under the contract. This is probably why there is question whether the contract is in full force (thus no breach) or his retirement for a year is still a breach, and I would assume a provision in the contract would then apply imposing the veteran minimum if he returns. This is how I read the controversey, but I am pretty sure that the contract is not voided.
Not necessarily. As far as my knowledge of the NFL goes, when a player abruptly retires, teams still retain player rights for "X" amount of years. My guess is that's done so that players can't abruptly retire just to become free agents whenever they so amply feel like it. Thereby making a void stemming from a breach contract distinctly possible without losing the rights to that specific player.