Kaepernick wanted $20m for a $75k position in AAF

[RolandDeschain]

In the real world, if your employer signed a collective bargaining agreement that includes stipulations against something like black balling an employee, your employer is breaking their contract and liable for damages if they do it. As this is indeed the real world, the NFL came down off of their high horse and offered a settlement because, unlike the Brady case, which they were willing to fight to the end, they realized they could lose and would lose big if they did lose.

Happen to have that CBA language handy?

 

[chris98251]

So thought about this a bit before posting, wondering if I should or not. Finally decided I would (obviously).

1) I kinda doubt the report that he wanted 20 mil. I have nothing to say its false because quite honestly I'm too lazy to look for it, but that report to me seemed suspicious from the start.

2) People saying he folded over the money crack me up. He sued the NFL saying that NFL teams colluded to keep him out of the league. It was always a lawsuit seeking monetary reward for having his career prematurely ended over a statement against injustice. If he hadn't settled and won his case, he'd have gotten a monetary award. His political stance was completely wrapped up in that lawsuit.

3) "For the people". Seriously? Dude gave 1 Mil of his own money and essentially lost his career over this thing and now that he takes money in a lawsuit against the league, suddenly he's not "for the people" anymore? Please.

Honestly, I think people expect things of athletes that are completely unrealistic and would never in a million years do themselves.

In the real world, if you publicly embroil yourself in controversial politics and that's not part of your job, your employer can fire you in most cases. In other words: he chose his path. Step down off your high horse.

In the real world, if your employer signed a collective bargaining agreement that includes stipulations against something like black balling an employee, your employer is breaking their contract and liable for damages if they do it. As this is indeed the real world, the NFL came down off of their high horse and offered a settlement because, unlike the Brady case, which they were willing to fight to the end, they realized they could lose and would lose big if they did lose.

Probably, but more then certian that emails and conversations would be exposed to air dirty laundry of Owners, the NFL office and GM's that they would be embarrassed by and show liability.


Better to have the public wonder then have your dirty laundry hanging out on the clothesline for everyone to see.

 

[JGfromtheNW]

2) People saying he folded over the money crack me up. He sued the NFL saying that NFL teams colluded to keep him out of the league. It was always a lawsuit seeking monetary reward for having his career prematurely ended over a statement against injustice. If he hadn't settled and won his case, he'd have gotten a monetary award. His political stance was completely wrapped up in that lawsuit.

3) "For the people". Seriously? Dude gave 1 Mil of his own money and essentially lost his career over this thing and now that he takes money in a lawsuit against the league, suddenly he's not "for the people" anymore? Please.

Honestly, I think people expect things of athletes that are completely unrealistic and would never in a million years do themselves.

Exactly. This was 100% a labor dispute. Kaep was blackballed from the league which caused actual monetary damages.

I'm not sure what people are getting on about saying "LOL it was always about the money, what a tool!" It makes no sense. Maybe they need it broken down into something that's very simple for them?

Scenario 1
- Kaep protests
- Individual owners and GMs decide, on their own, the protests aren't worth the headache
THIS IS OK

Scenario 2
- Kaep protests
- Owners and/or GMs, communicating and working together (colluding), decide they will not employ Kaep due to his protests
THIS IS NOT OK

Scenario 2 is what happened.

 

[RolandDeschain]

He decided to poke the hornet nest and use his employer's platform for something it has no business being used for, suffered a repercussion for it, then was able to find a way to cash out because of the repercussion. It worked out for him; but let's not pretend like he's altruistic, or the reincarnation of Martin Luther King, Jr. here.

 

[Marvin49]

Nobody is saying he's Martin Luther King, but he did take a stand and was publicly vilified over it. There is nothing illegal in being vilified by someone who disagrees with you. That's free speech. I don't think he expected anything different.

What IS illegal is franchises colluding with one another to keep a player out of the league. Every team is free to make that decision on their own but working together to keep him out is illegal. The fact that they settled tells you that they were concerned that he had proven his case.

This was a labor dispute. He sued because what was done was illegal. It has ZERO to do with his stance on Social Justice so I don't get in any way how one could think he sold out. Are people under the impression he's going to stop speaking out now? I doubt it.

He sued, his lawyer made his case, they settled. I'm not sure how in any way that's "selling out".

Its funny. People, particularly ones who are not a fan of his, always seem to think he is only allowed to speak on social injustice if he personally suffers. People who personally suffer from the issues he speaks out or demonstrates on are either voiceless or dead. He has a platform which he chooses to use, so why hate on the guy?

I honestly don't get it. Mind you, I no longer even have a dog in this fight. I just never understood the hatred.

 

[RolandDeschain]

I don't have any hatred toward him, I just don't think the NFL is supposed to be his social justice platform - and a LOT of NFL fans agree with that.

I do want to see the actual CBA language that makes colluding "illegal", though; if anyone happens to have it handy.

 

[Marvin49]

I don't have any hatred toward him, I just don't think the NFL is supposed to be his social justice platform - and a LOT of NFL fans agree with that.

I do want to see the actual CBA language that makes colluding "illegal", though; if anyone happens to have it handy.

No expert on this, clearly, but my guess is it isn't in the CBA but I don't think by law multiple companies in any industry can collude to keep someone out of their employment. I don't know for sure.

There was clearly some legal precedent however as otherwise the league would never have settled and the case would never have proceeded.

As for what the NFL is "supposed" to be, I get it. I hear you. I don't think however what he did was so egregious and IMO the responses of so many owners and POTUS made the issue far, far, FAR worse. It was unnecessary.

If people had simply let him take his knee during the anthem as many other players did, the entire issue would likely have blown over. He made a personal choice. Let it be.

The selective outrage to me was far worse.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

I guarantee if Krapper actually had talent he could get away with his bs and would of got signed. There examples of other players who are high maintenance and they still get jobs in the league..why because their talent is at time worth the bs that comes with them.

Yep.

Yes Kaepernick is (was) better than a lot of backups being signed. That's not the point. The point is that he was and still is a backup, and teams just don't want to deal with the political fallout for a backup QB.

Just not worth it.

 

[RolandDeschain]

No expert on this, clearly, but my guess is it isn't in the CBA but I don't think by law multiple companies in any industry can collude to keep someone out of their employment. I don't know for sure.

Companies do this every day. When a potential employer calls to ask if an employee is eligible for rehire, how you say they are or are not tells the other side everything they need to know. You can legally tell another potential employer they were fired simply by saying "No, Colin Kaepernick is absolutely not eligible for rehire." That paints a very different picture than "Well, unfortunately, Colin Kaepernick is not eligible for rehire..."

There was clearly some legal precedent however as otherwise the league would never have settled and the case would never have proceeded.

As for what the NFL is "supposed" to be, I get it. I hear you. I don't think however what he did was so egregious and IMO the responses of so many owners and POTUS made the issue far, far, FAR worse. It was unnecessary.

If people had simply let him take his knee during the anthem as many other players did, the entire issue would likely have blown over. He made a personal choice. Let it be.

The selective outrage to me was far worse.

People jumping on it and just claiming illegality without knowing are also annoying. I'd like to find out either way. The NFL is a how-many-billion-dollar industry? It's completely feasible that they may have paid him just to make him go away, not because they were guilty of anything. I'm not saying that's what happened, I'm just saying it's very realistically possible. We see this happen ALL THE TIME with celebrities and pro athletes. How many Hollywood celebrities have paid a photographer not to publish nude photos?

 

[Marvin49]

No expert on this, clearly, but my guess is it isn't in the CBA but I don't think by law multiple companies in any industry can collude to keep someone out of their employment. I don't know for sure.

Companies do this every day. When a potential employer calls to ask if an employee is eligible for rehire, how you say they are or are not tells the other side everything they need to know. You can legally tell another potential employer they were fired simply by saying "No, Colin Kaepernick is absolutely not eligible for rehire." That paints a very different picture than "Well, unfortunately, Colin Kaepernick is not eligible for rehire..."

There was clearly some legal precedent however as otherwise the league would never have settled and the case would never have proceeded.

As for what the NFL is "supposed" to be, I get it. I hear you. I don't think however what he did was so egregious and IMO the responses of so many owners and POTUS made the issue far, far, FAR worse. It was unnecessary.

If people had simply let him take his knee during the anthem as many other players did, the entire issue would likely have blown over. He made a personal choice. Let it be.

The selective outrage to me was far worse.

People jumping on it and just claiming illegality without knowing are also annoying. I'd like to find out either way. The NFL is a how-many-billion-dollar industry? It's completely feasible that they may have paid him just to make him go away, not because they were guilty of anything. I'm not saying that's what happened, I'm just saying it's very realistically possible. We see this happen ALL THE TIME with celebrities and pro athletes. How many Hollywood celebrities have paid a photographer not to publish nude photos?

Entirely possible. I honestly don't know, so I'm not going to pretend that I do.

It seems to me though that the case could have been tossed if there was no precedent and they would never have gone to discovery.

IMO, I think the NFL pretty much did every single thing wrong that they could have done. If they'd simply ignored it, it would have gone away. Instead, they tried to use it as a soapbox to stand on which did little more than expose how out of touch many NFL owners were. Then they feared POTUS and felt the need to go further....and...well....nothing good happens then.

If the NFL had literally done nothing, they'd have ended up in a far, far better position. Kaps position wasn't anti-NFL. They had no need to respond to the personal actions of a player.

...and on a COMPLETELY different note, I'm on an Audible kick and reading a ton of Stephen King (in the middle of "The Stand" right now). I'm guessing by your username that you are a Dark Tower fan and was wondering if i should add it to my Audible Library.

 

[Popeyejones]

I don't have any hatred toward him, I just don't think the NFL is supposed to be his social justice platform - and a LOT of NFL fans agree with that.

I do want to see the actual CBA language that makes colluding "illegal", though; if anyone happens to have it handy.

No expert on this, clearly, but my guess is it isn't in the CBA but I don't think by law multiple companies in any industry can collude to keep someone out of their employment. I don't know for sure.

It's in the CBA.

I don't know why Roland is so insistent on someone else doing his ten seconds of Googling for him, but here ya go:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/marcedelma ... efee5d7199

You're welcome. :lol: :2thumbs:

AFAIK there's no state or federal laws preventing regular industries from blackballing people, but regular industries aren't also governmentally sanctioned legal monopolies, which is why it applies here and is in the CBA to begin with.

 

[5_Golden_Rings]

In the real world, if your employer signed a collective bargaining agreement that includes stipulations against something like black balling an employee, your employer is breaking their contract and liable for damages if they do it. As this is indeed the real world, the NFL came down off of their high horse and offered a settlement because, unlike the Brady case, which they were willing to fight to the end, they realized they could lose and would lose big if they did lose.

Happen to have that CBA language handy?

See article 17.

https://nfllabor.files.wordpress.com/20 ... 1-2020.pdf

 

[5_Golden_Rings]

Do note that the use of the word “collusion” was deliberate, as that is the precise language of article 17 in the link I provided after depending approximately fifteen seconds searching. Okay, it was more like thirty. I found one link, then googled a phrase from that link to find the entire source I posted, rather than a mere sniped piece.

 

[RolandDeschain]

...and on a COMPLETELY different note, I'm on an Audible kick and reading a ton of Stephen King (in the middle of "The Stand" right now). I'm guessing by your username that you are a Dark Tower fan and was wondering if i should add it to my Audible Library.

Hahaha, yes, I am; and yes, you should. Amazing series overall. A good friend of mine is listening to The Dead Zone by Stephen King right now; you need to make sure you add that and Salem's Lot to your list. There are plenty of other great novels by him as well, but The Dark Tower holds a special place in my heart.

 

[Marvin49]

...and on a COMPLETELY different note, I'm on an Audible kick and reading a ton of Stephen King (in the middle of "The Stand" right now). I'm guessing by your username that you are a Dark Tower fan and was wondering if i should add it to my Audible Library.

Hahaha, yes, I am; and yes, you should. Amazing series overall. A good friend of mine is listening to The Dead Zone by Stephen King right now; you need to make sure you add that and Salem's Lot to your list. There are plenty of other great novels by him as well, but The Dark Tower holds a special place in my heart.

I've read "It", "Carrie", "On Writing" (I'm an amateur writer) and am about 1/3 through "The Stand". I have "Salems Lot" and "The Shining" in my queue. I'll add "Dark Tower".

So far, "It" is by far my favorite. I also read "Dune" and now absolutely hate the movie I once loved.

 

[RolandDeschain]

So far, "It" is by far my favorite. I also read "Dune" and now absolutely hate the movie I once loved.

The only film that does the source written material justice from Stephen King is Shawshank Redemption. (The entire film's script was practically the novella itself; they are VERY similar.) The only thing I've seen where the visual spectacle surpasses the written material is Game of Thrones. You have to expect, in general, that the books are always going to be better than the films/shows, lol.

You should just make your way through everything by King, TBH.

 

[pmedic920]

 

[Popeyejones]

The only film that does the source written material justice from Stephen King is Shawshank Redemption. (The entire film's script was practically the novella itself; they are VERY similar.)

If you want to really nerd out, that Rita Hayworth novella is as good of an audiobook as it is a novella or a movie.

I remember seeing the movie and loving it, and then buying Four Seasons and reading it and loving it all over again, and then coming across the audiobook of it (the version of it read by Frank Muller, who is now dead I think but was about as famous of an audiobook reader as you could be) and loving it all over again over again.

 

[Marvin49]

So far, "It" is by far my favorite. I also read "Dune" and now absolutely hate the movie I once loved.

The only film that does the source written material justice from Stephen King is Shawshank Redemption. (The entire film's script was practically the novella itself; they are VERY similar.) The only thing I've seen where the visual spectacle surpasses the written material is Game of Thrones. You have to expect, in general, that the books are always going to be better than the films/shows, lol.

You should just make your way through everything by King, TBH.

I expect a certain amount of stuff that needs to be left out or changed a bit to make a film work. Lord of the Rings is a good example. You can't film it the way its written. It just doesn't work.

Dune tho....wow.

Just an example of completely UNNECESSARY changes. There is a character named Thufir Hawat who is a member of House Atreides, IE Loyal to the heroes of the story.

He is taken by House Harkonnen, lied to (told that Leto Atreides wife killed him) and then poisoned without his knowledge. The Harkonnens give him the antidote every day in his food so he stays alive, but he doesn't know this. If he were to ever run, he'd die without the antidote.

In the movie....I can't make this up....He is told he has been poisoned and the Baron and Feyd Rautha (Sting) bring him a hairless cat tied up in a box that he must milk in order to get the antidote.

Not kidding. WTF?

 

[mrt144]

So far, "It" is by far my favorite. I also read "Dune" and now absolutely hate the movie I once loved.

The only film that does the source written material justice from Stephen King is Shawshank Redemption. (The entire film's script was practically the novella itself; they are VERY similar.) The only thing I've seen where the visual spectacle surpasses the written material is Game of Thrones. You have to expect, in general, that the books are always going to be better than the films/shows, lol.

You should just make your way through everything by King, TBH.

I expect a certain amount of stuff that needs to be left out or changed a bit to make a film work. Lord of the Rings is a good example. You can't film it the way its written. It just doesn't work.

Dune tho....wow.

Just an example of completely UNNECESSARY changes. There is a character named Thufir Hawat who is a member of House Atreides, IE Loyal to the heroes of the story.

He is taken by House Harkonnen, lied to (told that Leto Atreides wife killed him) and then poisoned without his knowledge. The Harkonnens give him the antidote every day in his food so he stays alive, but he doesn't know this. If he were to ever run, he'd die without the antidote.

In the movie....I can't make this up....He is told he has been poisoned and the Baron and Feyd Rautha (Sting) bring him a hairless cat tied up in a box that he must milk in order to get the antidote.

Not kidding. WTF?

Lotsa cocaine?