NFL

iamjs
Posts: 7113
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 5:24 pm
Location: "Hey, who needs hockey? Didn't the Steelers just win the Super Bowl?"
Contact:

NFL

Postby iamjs » Fri Feb 15, 2019 3:15 pm

supposedly that settlement is around $60-80m

Lemon Berry Lobster
Posts: 15363
Joined: Fri May 22, 2015 3:13 pm
Location: dodint is a millennial

NFL

Postby Lemon Berry Lobster » Fri Feb 15, 2019 3:17 pm

Image

MrKennethTKangaroo
Posts: 12406
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 3:50 pm

NFL

Postby MrKennethTKangaroo » Fri Feb 15, 2019 4:22 pm

supposedly that settlement is around $60-80m
if true, that probably means there was some sort of black balling

bad look by the nfl imo.

willeyeam
Posts: 39563
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 12:49 pm
Location: hodgepodge of nothingness

NFL

Postby willeyeam » Fri Feb 15, 2019 4:26 pm

Considering terms of the settlement include no commenting by either party it would be remarkably dumb by someone to already leak amounts. So I have a hard time believing that figure

mikey
Posts: 42246
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 10:58 pm
Location: More of a before-rehab friend...
Contact:

NFL

Postby mikey » Fri Feb 15, 2019 4:38 pm

Settlements are not an admission of guilt.

shmenguin
Posts: 19041
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 2:37 pm
Location: people notice my car when its shined up

NFL

Postby shmenguin » Fri Feb 15, 2019 5:31 pm

Settlements are not an admission of guilt.
Correct. They are buying silence. Mostly from people who veered too far into crazy town.

tifosi77
Posts: 51511
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:07 pm
Location: Batuu

NFL

Postby tifosi77 » Fri Feb 15, 2019 9:00 pm

It's nothing but a numbers game. Kaepernick agreed to a sum that's less than the cost to the NFL of continuing the litigation. It is also possible Kaep offered to settle.

I still get a kick out of the people who argue "if he was Tom Brady or Peyton Manning, Kaep would have a job." Yes. Yes, he would. But the key there is not Tombrady's or Pey Pey's whiteness. It is that they're GOATs. The fact that Kaep doesn't have a job kind satisfies the premise that he's not that good. If he were, at least one team would be willing to put up with the noise. And it entirely possible - likely, even - that 32 billionaires arrived at that conclusion 100% independent of any criminal conspiracy among them.

Freddy Rumsen
Posts: 35313
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 11:50 am
Location: "Order is the only possibility of rest." -- Wendell Berry

NFL

Postby Freddy Rumsen » Fri Feb 15, 2019 9:02 pm

Yeah, there are far too many guys who have jobs that did stuff much more problematic than Kap who've found a home.

shmenguin
Posts: 19041
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 2:37 pm
Location: people notice my car when its shined up

NFL

Postby shmenguin » Sat Feb 16, 2019 8:19 am

It's nothing but a numbers game. Kaepernick agreed to a sum that's less than the cost to the NFL of continuing the litigation. It is also possible Kaep offered to settle.

I still get a kick out of the people who argue "if he was Tom Brady or Peyton Manning, Kaep would have a job." Yes. Yes, he would. But the key there is not Tombrady's or Pey Pey's whiteness. It is that they're GOATs. The fact that Kaep doesn't have a job kind satisfies the premise that he's not that good. If he were, at least one team would be willing to put up with the noise. And it entirely possible - likely, even - that 32 billionaires arrived at that conclusion 100% independent of any criminal conspiracy among them.
He was good enough to play in the league. He was a big enough of a distraction that it wasn’t worth it for any team.

In any other industry, a disruptive force like that Would have to find a different career path. Lots of money at stake for these teams. They’re allowed to protect it.

I’m glad he brought this topic to the spotlight. But you can’t have your cake and eat it too, bub. Activism means sacrifice. It’s hard. Gotta know that before you get started.

slappybrown
Posts: 16580
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 4:19 pm
Location: Lifelong Alabama Football Fan

NFL

Postby slappybrown » Sat Feb 16, 2019 8:39 am

It's nothing but a numbers game. Kaepernick agreed to a sum that's less than the cost to the NFL of continuing the litigation. It is also possible Kaep offered to settle.
Image

genoscoif
Posts: 1955
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 2:04 pm
Location: Suspiciously looking around...

NFL

Postby genoscoif » Sat Feb 16, 2019 9:11 am

If the number is $60-80MM, that's only roughly $2MM per team.....which isn't unreasonable 'shut up and go away' money for any NFL team. It's a bad look for sure, though, and sets quite an interesting precedent.

MWB
Posts: 8175
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 10:04 pm

NFL

Postby MWB » Sun Feb 17, 2019 11:46 pm

Exhibit A as to why I think there was some sort of collusion is the Redskins. They were down to Josh Johnson as a quarterback. They have a crumbling fan base. They picked up a guy who had been released for allegations of domestic violence. You don’t think Daniel Snyder would’ve signed Kaepernick if there wasn’t some sort of agreement among the owners? It would have been a no-lose situation for them, and would’ve made them actually in the spotlight for the first time in years, even if it was just for a few games.

shmenguin
Posts: 19041
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 2:37 pm
Location: people notice my car when its shined up

NFL

Postby shmenguin » Mon Feb 18, 2019 7:28 am

Exhibit A as to why I think there was some sort of collusion is the Redskins. They were down to Josh Johnson as a quarterback. They have a crumbling fan base. They picked up a guy who had been released for allegations of domestic violence. You don’t think Daniel Snyder would’ve signed Kaepernick if there wasn’t some sort of agreement among the owners? It would have been a no-lose situation for them, and would’ve made them actually in the spotlight for the first time in years, even if it was just for a few games.
What would the spotlight bring them, though?

NFL revenue is fairly static. Attendance is a non factor. The TV revenue is split across the league. The only boost would have been a mild gain in merchandise, while upsetting the Alabama portions of Maryland and Virginia.

And even if Snyder was good with it, his coaches
and other staff wouldn’t have been. These guys just want to go to work and game plan. They don’t want to be part of a circus, get interviewed about social issues they may not even have an opinion about.

Kaep wasn’t good enough to make a difference, so teams opted for a semblance of normalcy.

Freddy Rumsen
Posts: 35313
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 11:50 am
Location: "Order is the only possibility of rest." -- Wendell Berry

NFL

Postby Freddy Rumsen » Mon Feb 18, 2019 7:47 am

Collusion only works if the player is a worth keeping out.

It's why the Browns were willing to take the PR hit (no pun intended) to sign Hunt.

mikey
Posts: 42246
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 10:58 pm
Location: More of a before-rehab friend...
Contact:

NFL

Postby mikey » Mon Feb 18, 2019 7:51 am

Ya know who some of the funniest, most easy going guys are in hockey...? Backup goalies. There's a reason.

MWB
Posts: 8175
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 10:04 pm

NFL

Postby MWB » Mon Feb 18, 2019 10:09 pm

If Kaepernick ends up getting signed, does that show evidence of previous collusion?

willeyeam
Posts: 39563
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 12:49 pm
Location: hodgepodge of nothingness

NFL

Postby willeyeam » Mon Feb 18, 2019 10:37 pm

Depends how much he signs for

tifosi77
Posts: 51511
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:07 pm
Location: Batuu

NFL

Postby tifosi77 » Mon Feb 18, 2019 11:02 pm

You don’t think Daniel Snyder would’ve signed Kaepernick if there wasn’t some sort of agreement among the owners? It would have been a no-lose situation for them, and would’ve made them actually in the spotlight for the first time in years, even if it was just for a few games.
Like I said, it doesn't take back room dealing for 32 billionaires to each independently conclude Keap isn't worth it.

The team that's perpetually in the spotlight because of its racial slur franchise name probably doesn't need a high-profile free agent that, at this stage, is more known for race-related baggage than for play on the field.

MWB
Posts: 8175
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 10:04 pm

NFL

Postby MWB » Mon Feb 18, 2019 11:22 pm

Depends how much he signs for
How so? If he signs for any amount it would seem that some owner suddenly thinks he’s improved enough by not playing the last two years to be worthy of a contract.

shmenguin
Posts: 19041
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 2:37 pm
Location: people notice my car when its shined up

NFL

Postby shmenguin » Tue Feb 19, 2019 6:52 am

MWB, do you have a specific sequence that you think happened? Was there an email thread with 30 owners on it, where they all replied with a “co-sign”? A conference call? Do you think that Snyder and Jones got together and said, “I won’t if you won’t”?

I’m just not sure what realistic premise you’re positing. Or are you looking at the term “collusion” more loosely than us, where it’s just a couple owners having a couple casual conversations? Jerry Jones sending a one way message to the others saying, “guys...let’s not do this. Could be bad”?

RonnieFranchise
Posts: 12389
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 5:45 pm
Location: Phil Kessel's name is on the Stanley Cup. Thrice.

NFL

Postby RonnieFranchise » Tue Feb 19, 2019 8:20 am

All else being equal he is better than Johnson (probably anyway, he hasn’t played in how long so who really knows). He is not enough better for the Redskins- or any team- to deal with their not insubstantial “if they sign this dadhole who won’t stand for the anthem I am done with this team (and by extension this league)” Portion of the fan base. I don’t think there is truly discussed and agreed to collusion but I do think they all looked at the scenario and determined it wasn’t worth it.

Imagine The Fan if the Steelers had signed him?

CBear3
Posts: 7666
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 10:02 pm
Location: KC, MO

NFL

Postby CBear3 » Tue Feb 19, 2019 9:17 am

MWB, do you have a specific sequence that you think happened? Was there an email thread with 30 owners on it, where they all replied with a “co-sign”? A conference call? Do you think that Snyder and Jones got together and said, “I won’t if you won’t”?

I’m just not sure what realistic premise you’re positing. Or are you looking at the term “collusion” more loosely than us, where it’s just a couple owners having a couple casual conversations? Jerry Jones sending a one way message to the others saying, “guys...let’s not do this. Could be bad”?
Do you think the owners didn't sit down and discuss the anthem protests and what they could/should do? Do you think Kaep's name came up in those discussions as the origination of the anthem protests? Do you think owners of 9 digit properties like being forced to take a stand that could slice up their fan base?

I think there could certainly be a lot of hostility toward him, and I'm sure it was voiced openly in meetings. Whether somebody specifically said, "F this kid, he doesn't realize what a privilege it is to play in this league. If any of you sign this mfer I'm going kick your ass. He's the root of all our problems," would only be conjecture. If they put it in writing they're dumber than a doorknob.

MWB
Posts: 8175
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 10:04 pm

NFL

Postby MWB » Tue Feb 19, 2019 9:59 am

MWB, do you have a specific sequence that you think happened? Was there an email thread with 30 owners on it, where they all replied with a “co-sign”? A conference call? Do you think that Snyder and Jones got together and said, “I won’t if you won’t”?

I’m just not sure what realistic premise you’re positing. Or are you looking at the term “collusion” more loosely than us, where it’s just a couple owners having a couple casual conversations? Jerry Jones sending a one way message to the others saying, “guys...let’s not do this. Could be bad”?
Basically what CBear said. I think there were definitely meetings about the anthem protests and the his name came up. That said, no, I don't think there was an email chain going around saying, "let's collude." I would not be at all surprised if there was some sort of a nod-wink agreement to not sign him. So, yes, a more loose term of collusion, which I have no idea how that fits legally.

And I do think it's certainly possible that each owner independently decided not to sign him because of the headache. However, in a league where so many things get overlooked, I'm a bit surprised that one of the owners in one of these cities didn't think it was worth a shot. With my Redskins example, I'm not sure they could really lose much more of their fan-base. I think it will be telling if a team decides to sign him this off-season.

dodint
Posts: 59160
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:39 pm
Location: Cheer up, bіtch!
Contact:

NFL

Postby dodint » Tue Feb 19, 2019 10:03 am

Your presumption ignores that it was highly unlikely anyone was going to sign him while he had legal action against the owners. You would have to go back to when the lawsuit was filed and discount the duration from that point until now.

I think he won't be signed because he's not a good QB and has been out of the game for two years now. Take that and couple it with the headache he generates and he is basically unemployable. Like his nonsense with the "I need $20M to play in the AAF" when he knows the salaries are set. It's all carefully contrived.

shmenguin
Posts: 19041
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 2:37 pm
Location: people notice my car when its shined up

NFL

Postby shmenguin » Tue Feb 19, 2019 10:16 am

MWB, do you have a specific sequence that you think happened? Was there an email thread with 30 owners on it, where they all replied with a “co-sign”? A conference call? Do you think that Snyder and Jones got together and said, “I won’t if you won’t”?

I’m just not sure what realistic premise you’re positing. Or are you looking at the term “collusion” more loosely than us, where it’s just a couple owners having a couple casual conversations? Jerry Jones sending a one way message to the others saying, “guys...let’s not do this. Could be bad”?
Do you think the owners didn't sit down and discuss the anthem protests and what they could/should do? Do you think Kaep's name came up in those discussions as the origination of the anthem protests? Do you think owners of 9 digit properties like being forced to take a stand that could slice up their fan base?

I think there could certainly be a lot of hostility toward him, and I'm sure it was voiced openly in meetings. Whether somebody specifically said, "F this kid, he doesn't realize what a privilege it is to play in this league. If any of you sign this mfer I'm going kick your ass. He's the root of all our problems," would only be conjecture. If they put it in writing they're dumber than a doorknob.
I think this comes down to what your definition of collusion is. I don’t consider a meeting to discuss concerns about anthem kneeling and an informal consensus that company men are more desirable hires applies, to be honest. I know they’re the bosses. They have agency. They also are effectively part of a leadership team that sets cultural guidelines. Like any organization. The scenario you described is fine up until threats were made. I don’t understand how you think a business should run, otherwise.

They’re effectively partners in a business. They are allowed to agree. To disagree. To formally institute policy. To casually encourage policy. The only way Kaep has any case is if a specific team who wanted him was strong armed into not hiring him. And you’re getting into conspiratorial territory there. I’m not saying Jerry Jones definitely didn’t start making threats to other owners. He might have. But its not something that we can speculate. Or did I miss some piece of evidence?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Kaiser, Lemon Berry Lobster, MrKennethTKangaroo, skullman80 and 111 guests