mannc
-
Posts
18,171 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by mannc
-
-
19 hours ago, Wayne Arnold said:
They won the Super Bowl without Gronk.
Enough with the Gronk worshipping. Could be the single most overrated player in my lifetime.
This could be one of the most ridiculous takes in the history of TSW. Please explain how the hands down best player of all time at his position is also the most overrated player in your lifetime.
-
2
-
-
47 minutes ago, The Wiz said:
Or at least replaceable enough to have someone on the team that will have a team mentality instead of a "me first" perspective on life.
How did Kaepernick’s protests evince a “me first” perspective on life? Please explain.
-
1 minute ago, wppete said:
If you were an owner would you hire him????? Do you think any of the owners will hire him????? I
That’s not the question. The question is whether the owners made a secret agreement not to hire him, or whether teams were pressured by the league or by other owners not to sign him.
-
1
-
-
26 minutes ago, mjt328 said:
I am a salesman, traveling from business to business. For my job, I spend 99% of my job outside of the office.
My company still expects me to be on-time every day, gives me a dress code and tells me how to act while representing them.
If I don't live up to those standards, they have the right to fire me.
When you are employed, your boss makes the rules.
Not if you are in a union. The NFL players are in a union, so your analogy is incorrect. And even non-union employers have limits on their rights to control employees' speech and behavior in the workplace.
-
21 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:
That's the point though. His grievance is for collusion, which would mean that more than 1 team entered an agreed upon pact to not sign him. Reality is that he simply isn't good enough to be worth the headache that comes with him.
Best of luck proving it.
I'm not intimately familiar with Kaepernick's grievance, but from what I have heard, I believe he has a strong case. If leaked reports are accurate, there is some damning evidence against the owners. The mere fact that he wasn't offered a contract is not enough, but it is my understanding that there are emails, texts, and other evidence that suggest he was blackballed. Not that hard to prove, in this day and age.
-
2 hours ago, wppete said:
I cant see how kaepernick can win this law suit. Billionaire owners and a league full of the top lawyers in the USA.
If you were an owner of a business would you hire someone who is suing you and your business partners????
Sorry, that's not how it works. First of all, it's not a lawsuit. It's a grievance/arbitration. And Kaepernick brought the grievance only after the League (allegedly) blackballed him. Kaepernick has a highly competent legal team and big companies with lots of money lose legal proceedings all the time.
-
45 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:
Since not one of them thought this was worth "believing" in before 2016, it is as easy to question their allegiance to their current "protest".
So by not protesting sooner, they waived their right to protest? Interesting theory. In your opinion, when would the protests have had to begin in order to be timely? Would you support their right to protest if the protests had begun in 2014?
-
12 minutes ago, BringBackFergy said:
He earned the right to be in that house.
That proposition is very much up in the air, at this point.
-
20 hours ago, Boatdrinks said:
Almost certainly yes. I can't think of anything where it wouldn't . Maybe someone else could , so I'll leave it at almost. Just not the time or place for protests. Plenty of other opportunities to do so outside of the job.
In other words, in your view, they can protest only when and where hardly anyone is paying attention. Got it.
They aren’t protesting during the game; they are protesting during a compelled act of allegiance to something they may or may not believe in. To me, that seems like an appropriate time and place for a protest.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:
...if the NFL as Standard Operating Procedure chooses to play the national anthem and requires EMPLOYEES of the NFL to stand, where are they wrong?.......
What if they required players to stand at attention and pledge allegiance to Donald Trump before every game. Do you think that would be wrong?
-
9 hours ago, keepthefaith said:
As for Kaepernick, he chose a lousy path to further his cause, probably the worst path possible. He should have thought through the potential reaction of customers and employers in his field of work. He should have thought through whether or not it would be a good idea to vent his grievance while on camera at work. He should have educated himself better on what he feels are the issues and been better prepared to articulate the supporting facts. Instead he bit the hand the fed him and failed to move many people to his side. He did succeed in bringing attention to what he feels are issues and he paid a high personal price. He is a big reason why the NFL committed 10's of millions of dollars to social causes.
Is this meant as a criticism of Kaep? Because if it’s true, it makes him look entirely admirable: Siunds like he sacrificed personal goals and wealth to bring attention to a cause he passionately believes in, without harming anyone. And, as you say, he got the league to donate millions to the cause.
-
13 minutes ago, napmaster said:
The NFL can mandate whatever speech they like and it will be protected. Players can choose to drop out of the league, or fans can stop supporting the league and put them out of business.
Not necessarily. The players are members of a union and have rights under their CBA that most workers don’t have.
You’re probably right, though, that the 1st Amendment, which protects citizens against state action, doesn’t help the players much. But the situation might be different if the owners are acting at the behest of the President of the United States, or in response to threats he’s made against the league. It’s an interesting question.
In addition, the NFL owner/player relationship is hardly your typical employer/employee relationship. The players have far more leverage than the typical worker does.
-
39 minutes ago, tumaro02 said:
Started going to "The Rockpile" in my teens and watched Jack Kemp, Elberbert Dubenion, and can name most of the AFL Bills champion teams in '64 and '65. Look up "The Rockpile" in Bill's Lore which will tell you how long I have been a Bill's fan.
Why would any of that make me more likely to believe you when you say you quit the NFL because of the protests?
-
15 hours ago, tumaro02 said:
After being a diehard Bills fan for many years--when the Bills players took a knee last year I immediately called Direct TV and cancelled my Sunday Ticket and didn't attend or watch another Bills game last year. I have no interest in players (most of whom have done "nothing" in their life to earn the right to disrespect the flag and anthem provided by the blood shed for that freedom) use the stage to protest anything. I am one of those who hurt the NFL business in my disgust by stopping my payments for fan gear, tickets, etc. I am hoping the protests end so I can return to paying my hundreds of dollars this year to the Buffalo Bill coffers. If they adopt the Jets owner's lead they will save me a lot of money again this year. Whats next? So when 1500 players want to protest 1500 different social causes you want the NFL ownership to support ALL of those Player's causes too, and shove that down a $200.00 ticket payer 10 times? Provide them another venue if you wish but not one I am paying hundreds to watch.
And yet here you are, posting on an NFL team’s fan message board (and not just about the national anthem, by the way).
I don’t believe you.
-
1
-
1
-
-
48 minutes ago, Alaska Darin said:
That's a great example. Tim Couch is another. NFL history is just littered with them.
And you can’t prove that a single one of them would have been good if only they sat for a year or two. The league is also “littered” with successful QBs who started out of the gate. So there.
-
1 hour ago, gjv001 said:
With all the new faces and inexperience at QB, going against a team that ranked at the top of the AFC could be very beneficial.
I don’t think “Pittsburg” has an NFL team yet. And anyway, it wouldn’t make sense for the Bills to practice with a team from California.
-
3
-
-
Let’s tank for him.
-
2
-
-
12 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:
You are focusing upon one narrow aspect, and skipping the broader point. I did not say what the players are doing is akin to picketing. You brought up " Why do you so strenuously object to union-protected employees expressing their views in this way?"
My point is that union-protection does NOT entitle employees to co-opt their employer's property for their protests, or to protest on their employers time. The placement of picket lines outside the employer's is an EXAMPLE of this principle - not an EXACT ANALOGY to the player's protests. Therefore debunking the analogy doesn't address the point.
You have a viewpoint that the protests are OK because the employees (players) are not using up the bosses time or distracting others. But that's from the viewpoint that football is just about the game, not about the whole "Fan Experience" or about entertainment in general. The players who protest are clearly attracting attention to themselves and influencing public perception of the NFL. (if they weren't, there would be no point to the protests). The owners may take the viewpoint that non-football-game related factors within the stadium (and even outside it) are relevant to their "brand" - they require media availability of players, there's the whole NFL Code of Conduct" prohibiting "conduct detrimental to the integrity of and public confidence in the National Football League."IOW, you can take the viewpoint that the national anthem and how players conduct themselves during it has "zero to do with football", but the NFL can the playing of the anthem as part of the "patriotism/family" connection they wish to market, and see protesting it as "conduct detrimental to the NFL".
You may see football as a sport, where the only thing that matters is the game, but keep in mind to the NFL owners, it's "entertainment" and a "game day experience".
I don't think the league's lawyers were going to advise the owners draft and issue a statement that would be smacked down easily in court. That would not help public perception.
I guess I just disagree that the players are “co-opting” the owner’s property. How are they doing so? They are refusing to participate in a compelled act of false patriotism. Not the same thing at all. Whether the owners have the right to enforce the policy under the banner of the “best interests of the league” clause is an open question.
My guess is that the lawyers told the owners the policy stands a good chance of passing legal muster, but no guarantees. Even if they lose, they can still win the public relations battle because they “tried to uphold the flag”.
-
14 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:
If it's the NFL players you're referencing as "union-protected employees expressing their views in this way", why do you think
1) that employees, union-protected or not, should have the right to protest on the job, on their employer's premises, on their employer's time?
Union picket lines are manned outside the employer's property, for example, because even union-protected employees don't have a legal right to co-opt their employer's property for their protests.
2) that the union contract, the CBA, protects the rights of the players to protest on the job, on their employer's premises, on their employer's time?
At best, this is muddy. You can bet the NFLPA will be looking for a basis to challenge the new policy, and thus, that the NFL's own lawyers were doing their own comb-through before the policy was released and think they're good.
1. What Kaep and others are doing is not akin to picketing. They aren’t asking people not to attend games or calling attention to poor working conditions. Nor are they using up the boss’s time in their silent protest: they are kneeling while others are standing, doing nothing. They are not slacking off instead of working or distracting others from working. They are simply refusing to comply with a forced show of (IMO, false) patriotism that has zero to do with football. The “protests” need to be viewed in that light.
2. I agree it’s muddy. I don’t believe the CBA clearly addresses the issue, and what it does say also needs to be viewed through the lens of various arbitration decisions related to the CBA and the league’s ability to punish players for off-field conduct. Despite what the CBA might say, the league’s authority in this area is not absolute. And the answer is far from obvious. Lawyers who have spent lots of time on this disagree about it. Kaep’s grievance is proceeding and it might eventually answer a lot of these questions.
The fact that the new policy passed doesn’t mean the league’s lawyers necessarily think it will withstand legal scrutiny if challenged. I think the owners are much more concerned with public perception than they are with the legal implications.
-
4 hours ago, Augie said:
I worked at a large bank that required permission to do any media interviews. They had people for specifically that. THAT was their job. Anything political and I’d be sent packing immediately. I don’t know where that might be in writing, but I wouldn’t even ask to read it - it’s just so obvious that it I’d just get up and go.....if I were ever that stupid. On my own time, I could have all the causes I wished, but NOT representing my employer.
Great. That’s your experience. It doesn’t mean all workplaces work that way (or should work that way). Why do you so strenuously object to union-protected employees expressing their views in this way?
4 hours ago, Bruce_Stools said:I have forced “to stay in line and do what the f*** I’m told or I lose my job”
How about you?
Not me.
Because you have to shut the hell up or be fired at your job, does that mean those rules should apply in all workplaces?
-
2 minutes ago, MAJBobby said:
Yet ratings down all across TV and the NFLs where actually up this year so you might want to rethink why ratings where “down”
Thank you. The “ratings are down because of the protests” argument is nonsense. It certainly has not negatively affected the value of NFL franchises.
-
15 minutes ago, Boyst62 said:
Under thar cba they have rights but this isn't one of them. It's gray area and the NFL is wise not to challenge it. It'd be a PR nightmare and the owners have no balls because they just want to make.money. And as long as they make money they don't care one bit, but they hurt last year and now sick of it.
But, under the CBA they don't have the ability to protest if the NFL stopped them. The CBA hasn't changed yet the NFL just slapped them silly, so they have no protection. This isn't your common employee/employer relationship. It's contract.
As you said, it’s a gray area. I’m not intimately familiar with the CBA so I’m not sure, but it’s possible that the league can’t mandate something like this and that a player who’s fined (or disciplined) could win a grievance.
-
1 minute ago, Boyst62 said:
They're at work. They don't have that right to peacefully protest
The players are union members, so they actually do have rights under the collective bargaining agreement, one of which may be to peacefully protest in a way that has no effect on the on-field product. It’s not “my way or the highway” for the NFL.
-
1
-
-
17 hours ago, Rochesterfan said:
No - that is incorrect.
Lots of teams have multiple owners - majority and minority stakes.
Such as?
Something brewing with the Patriots?
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
I have seen zero evidence of this. The opposite, actually.