So Which Is It?

Is it a collective bargaining isse? How else could they stop him? Players have retired and un-retired before. Maybe not eligible for game 1, but otherwise, why not?

I was wondering this as well. If he chose retirement he should be able to un-retire. The Vikings had him under contract when he retired they retain his rights. Or so I thought. If they cut him it would be different. 
Mike Tice retire in 1993 then played 3 games in 1995.  I don't  remember if he started being TE coach in between. That might be the difference. I don't know how they could stop Newman if he wanted to.

If it is a rule it makes sense,  otherwise teams would just make veteran cuts into coaches to stash for later in the season if needed essentially cheating the roster number rules.

@"JimmyinSD" said: If it is a rule it makes sense,  otherwise teams would just make veteran cuts into coaches to stash for later in the season if needed essentially cheating the roster number rules.

I agree but didn't Newman retire not get cut? I guess the league probably wouldn't like your scenario. If he was cut then the Vikes would lose his rights anyhow. There would be no stashing. I still don't see where it matters. If he retires and takes up gardening as a hobby then gets bored he can un-retire. If he coaches and says being around it makes me want to play he can't?_?  Sounds like a court battle.

@"suncoastvike" said:

@"JimmyinSD" said: If it is a rule it makes sense,  otherwise teams would just make veteran cuts into coaches to stash for later in the season if needed essentially cheating the roster number rules.

I agree but didn't Newman retire not get cut? I guess the league probably wouldn't like your scenario. If he was cut then the Vikes would lose his rights anyhow. There would be no stashing. I still don't see where it matters. If he retires and takes up gardening as a hobby then gets bored he can un-retire. If he coaches and says being around it makes me want to play he can't?_?  Sounds like a court battle.

@"JimmyinSD" said:

@"suncoastvike" said:

@"JimmyinSD" said: If it is a rule it makes sense,  otherwise teams would just make veteran cuts into coaches to stash for later in the season if needed essentially cheating the roster number rules.

I agree but didn't Newman retire not get cut? I guess the league probably wouldn't like your scenario. If he was cut then the Vikes would lose his rights anyhow. There would be no stashing. I still don't see where it matters. If he retires and takes up gardening as a hobby then gets bored he can un-retire. If he coaches and says being around it makes me want to play he can't?_?  Sounds like a court battle.

if he is around the team he would be more involved day to day and it would be just about like having an extra guy on the practice squad.  I can see it either way,  but they have to try and do something to maintain a little integrity in their rosters.

however its not like Brady wont be getting 10 million a year for life for some sort of bull shit title from the pats after he is done.  

No person employed by a club as a coach, trainer, or in any capacity other than as a player, including, but not limited to, consultants, independent contractors, part-time employees, paid or unpaid interns, or any other person(s) providing non-player services to the club, may play for that club or any other club in that same season.

@"VikingOracle" said: No person employed by a club as a coach, trainer, or in any capacity other than as a player, including, but not limited to, consultants, independent contractors, part-time employees, paid or unpaid interns, or any other person(s) providing non-player services to the club, may play for that club or any other club in that same season.

Thank you.

Makes sense. 

It makes sense in the fact that you could just sit and stash as many guys, especially older/developed guys as you want for later in the year and keep them fresh or injury issues.

Looks good in the purple golf shirt! ;)

@"JimmyinSD" said: If it is a rule it makes sense,  otherwise teams would just make veteran cuts into coaches to stash for later in the season if needed essentially cheating the roster number rules.

I can't imagine he's going to be paid that much as a coach if at all.  And I doubt he will file retirement papers at this point.

I do think eventually Newman will be paid really well as a coach.

I guess I kinda knew it was a rule. Never bothered to look it up.
Thanks Oracle.
Guess I still think it's kinda unfair. Oh well. Hope we don't get to this point.

It's to prevent teams from stashing players on their teams as coaches.....good rule.

@"JoDakota" said: It's to prevent teams from stashing players on their teams as coaches.....good rule.

I get why. Just it's kinda silly in cases like this or really any older vet. You don't want him coming out of retirement with the coaches playbook or team secrets and go to a new team. That would effect the integrity of the game. Back to his old team though?? If he's experienced enough to coach is he really going to have an unfair advantage. He knew the playbook before. He wouldn't have needed more time to get ready even if he wasn't around the team. If he retired and didn't coach he could un-retire and play. Still take the same amount of time to get game ready. Not arguing it really just don't think staying with the same team effects balances as much as they want to make it sound.

not really Newman related, but I've always thought they should hire older retired players to run some of the scout team functions.  I always thought it was kind of silly to have your practice squad guys emulating the other team rather than focusing on getting better at your system exculsively.