Batman1876 Posted September 22, 2018 Share Posted September 22, 2018 1 minute ago, SouthNYfan said: The repercussions are arising when their contracts are up. Teams have not signed a couple of these guys who knelt, as they don't want the media storm that comes with it. The question is if they are all making that determination individually or if it was a collective decision they made together at some point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthNYfan Posted September 22, 2018 Share Posted September 22, 2018 Just now, Batman1876 said: We don’t know if the owners made an agreement to not hire these players. If they did then they are at fault. That’s what needs to be sorted out. Why are they at fault? The owners are basically the board of directors. If a board of directors of a private company gets together and says "look. we shouldn't hire any of these kneeling guys, as it looks really bad for our business in the public eye" that is not illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted September 22, 2018 Share Posted September 22, 2018 1 minute ago, Bruce_Stools said: If you have any knowledge of the cba, rule book, and the operations manual, can you answer the question I had for the other guy? I honestly don’t know. Thanks What’s the question? I do know a little about the CBA (more about the NBA CBA) but have a working knowledge of the NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthNYfan Posted September 22, 2018 Share Posted September 22, 2018 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said: The only place that we disagree is that not all 32 teams are private. 31 are and that is a part of the reason that it is difficult to enforce. In general, I agree with your sentiment. FWIW, I wouldn’t sign either of these guys because the juice isn’t worth the squeeze. If Khalil Mack was the guy doing this I would be all for adding him. If I thought that these guys could impact the team I’d be all for it. I don’t think that the media attention and distractions are worth it for these guys. 100% agree Which team is not private? Packers right? Edited September 22, 2018 by SouthNYfan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce_Stools Posted September 22, 2018 Share Posted September 22, 2018 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said: What’s the question? I do know a little about the CBA (more about the NBA CBA) but have a working knowledge of the NFL. In order for a rule or “suggestion” to actually get into the official rule book and operations manual, wouldn’t they have already been cleared by the players?? If that is the case, which it might not be, then the players would have already agreed to this “suggestion” and would therefore need to follow this “suggestion”, right? Edited September 22, 2018 by Bruce_Stools Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted September 22, 2018 Share Posted September 22, 2018 6 minutes ago, Bruce_Stools said: I’m actually a little confused honestly. Even though the nfl rule book and the operations manual, according to an nfl representative, govern the nfl, the cba is actually the only way to determine a rule or what’s punishable or not? Isn’t that what the books are for in the first place. Wouldn’t that have been cleared by the players association before anything gets put into said books??? These manuals are put together by lawyers and every word is thought out. When I worked in the NBA the Game Ops Book was like 1,000 pages each year. It was as detailed down to the 3 songs that you are allowed to play when the road team is on offense. (Seriously if you watch an NBA game when the visiting team has the ball only three songs/chants will play). Sometimes these issues though go unforseen so they follow it by the letter the letter of the law. The fact that it says “should” means that they will leave that as a suggestion. If it said “must” it would be different. 5 years ago they probably could have changed that and no one would have thought twice. Now that it is in the public eye the changes will have to be agreed upon. Like anything it will be a negotiation. You usually give something and get something simultaneously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman1876 Posted September 22, 2018 Share Posted September 22, 2018 5 minutes ago, SouthNYfan said: Why are they at fault? The owners are basically the board of directors. If a board of directors of a private company gets together and says "look. we shouldn't hire any of these kneeling guys, as it looks really bad for our business in the public eye" that is not illegal. The owners aren’t a board of directors, the league is a trade association. So this would be several private companies coming together to make a joint bussinuss decision that limits open competition and defrauds others in some way. Railroads used to use such arrangements to fix prices. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted September 22, 2018 Share Posted September 22, 2018 4 minutes ago, Bruce_Stools said: In order for a rule or “suggestion” to actually get into the official rule book and operations manual, wouldn’t they have already been cleared by the players?? If that is the case, which it might not be, then the players would have already agreed to this “suggestion” and would therefore need to follow this “suggestion”, right? There’s a difference between things clearly defined vs. suggested. You “can’t” take certain drugs. You “should” stand for the anthem, with helmet in left hand, etc.. A lot of these things aren’t necessarily designed to be rules. They are more designed to make things uniform and clean so that teams don’t go rouge. Think of the NFL like McDonald’s corporate. There are certain things that franchisees “must” do, other things that they “should” do and other things that they “can” do. All of those have different meanings but the goal is that if you go to 3 different McDonald’s there are a lot of similarities amongst them all. 9 minutes ago, SouthNYfan said: Which team is not private? Packers right? Correct Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce_Stools Posted September 22, 2018 Share Posted September 22, 2018 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said: These manuals are put together by lawyers and every word is thought out. When I worked in the NBA the Game Ops Book was like 1,000 pages each year. It was as detailed down to the 3 songs that you are allowed to play when the road team is on offense. (Seriously if you watch an NBA game when the visiting team has the ball only three songs/chants will play). Sometimes these issues though go unforseen so they follow it by the letter the letter of the law. The fact that it says “should” means that they will leave that as a suggestion. If it said “must” it would be different. 5 years ago they probably could have changed that and no one would have thought twice. Now that it is in the public eye the changes will have to be agreed upon. Like anything it will be a negotiation. You usually give something and get something simultaneously. Thank you for the response. I had had no idea it got down to the nitty gritty with what songs can be played and all that! And while I agree the manual obviously states “should”, It appears to have been left open for interpretation. In certain instances, “should” and “must” are interchangeable. In this case, I interpret “should” as a rule. As in, one “should” look both ways before crossing a road. Simply put, in this instance “you should look” replaces “if you want to live, you MUST look both way on a busy road!” The manual says the players “should” do something to stay within the guidelines, it unfortunately doesn’t say what the repercussions would be if they don’t adhere to them. 3 minutes ago, Bruce_Stools said: Thank you for the response. I had had no idea it got down to the nitty gritty with what songs can be played and all that! And while I agree the manual obviously states “should”, It appears to have been left open for interpretation. In certain instances, “should” and “must” are interchangeable. In this case, I interpret “should” as a rule. As in, one “should” look both ways before crossing a road. Simply put, in this instance “you should look” replaces “if you want to live, you MUST look both way on a busy road!” The manual says the players “should” do something to stay within the guidelines, it unfortunately doesn’t say what the repercussions would be if they don’t adhere to them. 9 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said: There’s a difference between things clearly defined vs. suggested. You “can’t” take certain drugs. You “should” stand for the anthem, with helmet in left hand, etc.. A lot of these things aren’t necessarily designed to be rules. They are more designed to make things uniform and clean so that teams don’t go rouge. Think of the NFL like McDonald’s corporate. There are certain things that franchisees “must” do, other things that they “should” do and other things that they “can” do. All of those have different meanings but the goal is that if you go to 3 different McDonald’s there are a lot of similarities amongst them all. Correct I posted my last post before I got to read your newest one. My apologies. Althought they aren’t rules, you mentioned they were designed to be uniform and so teams don’t go rogue. Isn’t that exactly what happened though? edit. I think I quoted myself accidentally lol Edited September 22, 2018 by Bruce_Stools Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted September 22, 2018 Share Posted September 22, 2018 12 minutes ago, Bruce_Stools said: Thank you for the response. I had had no idea it got down to the nitty gritty with what songs can be played and all that! And while I agree the manual obviously states “should”, It appears to have been left open for interpretation. In certain instances, “should” and “must” are interchangeable. In this case, I interpret “should” as a rule. As in, one “should” look both ways before crossing a road. Simply put, in this instance “you should look” replaces “if you want to live, you MUST look both way on a busy road!” The manual says the players “should” do something to stay within the guidelines, it unfortunately doesn’t say what the repercussions would be if they don’t adhere to them. I posted my last post before I got to read your newest one. My apologies. Althought they aren’t rules, you mentioned they were designed to be uniform and so teams don’t go rogue. Isn’t that exactly what happened though? edit. I think I quoted myself accidentally lol No problem, I am thinking more like one team decides that they want to have death metal before the game instead of the anthem. They try to say “here’s what an NFL game looks like.” There is certainly some room for creativity as you get to the details (ie you can have someone wave a Bills flag and lead the charge). You can’t decide major things if that makes sense. As an aside, I went McDonalds earlier this week. I probably go into a McDonalds 4 or 5 times a year. I ordered at a kiosk and not from a person. This was completely new to me. This must be the type of thing that they allow (but don’t require) franchisees to do. That’s the best parallel that I can draw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthNYfan Posted September 22, 2018 Share Posted September 22, 2018 28 minutes ago, Batman1876 said: The owners aren’t a board of directors, the league is a trade association. So this would be several private companies coming together to make a joint bussinuss decision that limits open competition and defrauds others in some way. Railroads used to use such arrangements to fix prices. How exactly are they a "trade organization" they are a privately owned company (save for the packers) who employ people to play a game. they aren't several private companies, they are one. there is no competition against them to "fix prices". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackOrton Posted September 22, 2018 Share Posted September 22, 2018 9 hours ago, MAJBobby said: I would have signed him. Makes team better. But he kneeled so NFL blackballed him. Felons rapists abusers drugs running around naked gun violations murderers All ok. But DONT exercise your Constitutional Rights. Then your not welcome LOL be better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThunderGun Posted September 22, 2018 Share Posted September 22, 2018 I’d sign both him and Kap. Kap has experience, is young, he can play a college RPO that Daboll could scheme up for him, he’s mobile and just like Allen he also has a cannon with accuracy issues... Most importantly, his name isn’t Nathan Peterman. Oh, and once upon a time he helped take a team within 5 yards of winning a Super Bowl... Kap isn’t great, but he’s certainly better than many other QBs currently employed. As for the “he’s such a big distraction”, if I were McD and Beane I would welcome any distraction that would take the attention away from what a colossal **** show this season is going to be... I mean, 16.5 points dogs, and it’s only week 3, for the love of sweet baby Jesus do something!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman1876 Posted September 22, 2018 Share Posted September 22, 2018 17 minutes ago, SouthNYfan said: How exactly are they a "trade organization" they are a privately owned company (save for the packers) who employ people to play a game. they aren't several private companies, they are one. there is no competition against them to "fix prices". Each team is a private company ( one held in the public trust) and the league itself is a trade association. When several different companies make a private agreement to blacklist someone, or some group then it is an illegal collusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RPbillsfan Posted September 22, 2018 Share Posted September 22, 2018 9 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said: This is America!!! I don’t want no stinkin’ Kaeperdick or Eric Greed!! These guys Nealed during the National Anthem of These United States of America!! Pass on all guys that Neal!! Kneel, my friend kneel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce_Stools Posted September 22, 2018 Share Posted September 22, 2018 38 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said: No problem, I am thinking more like one team decides that they want to have death metal before the game instead of the anthem. They try to say “here’s what an NFL game looks like.” There is certainly some room for creativity as you get to the details (ie you can have someone wave a Bills flag and lead the charge). You can’t decide major things if that makes sense. As an aside, I went McDonalds earlier this week. I probably go into a McDonalds 4 or 5 times a year. I ordered at a kiosk and not from a person. This was completely new to me. This must be the type of thing that they allow (but don’t require) franchisees to do. That’s the best parallel that I can draw. Ok, I totally understand what you’re saying as in differentiating between what “must” happen and what will be permitted. With all of the detail they went into, as far as deciding whether or not players stand, down to which hand the helmet is held in, I still feel it may be more than just a suggestion, but there are no defined repercussions so maybe not. Thanks, I appreciate the clarification 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthNYfan Posted September 22, 2018 Share Posted September 22, 2018 27 minutes ago, Batman1876 said: Each team is a private company ( one held in the public trust) and the league itself is a trade association. When several different companies make a private agreement to blacklist someone, or some group then it is an illegal collusion. Hmm... If that's how they are setup then okay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted September 22, 2018 Share Posted September 22, 2018 11 minutes ago, Bruce_Stools said: Ok, I totally understand what you’re saying as in differentiating between what “must” happen and what will be permitted. With all of the detail they went into, as far as deciding whether or not players stand, down to which hand the helmet is held in, I still feel it may be more than just a suggestion, but there are no defined repercussions so maybe not. Thanks, I appreciate the clarification FWIW, I agree that’s probably what they intended. If they could do it differently they probably would. Good conversation!! I look forward to more in the future. Have a goodnight!! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman1876 Posted September 22, 2018 Share Posted September 22, 2018 12 minutes ago, SouthNYfan said: Hmm... If that's how they are setup then okay. The tough part is proving they made a private agreement. Probably no way to do so, unless the owners were dumb and let a paper trail. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mannc Posted September 22, 2018 Share Posted September 22, 2018 2 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said: No confusion at all. The Packers are a part of the public sector. The constitution can’t restrict them from expressing themselves. Almost everything you’ve said in this thread is dead-on, except this. The Packers are not in any sense part of the “public sector”. They might be owned by members of the public, unlike other teams, but they are still a private corporation. Public sector refers to divisions of the government, such as the USPS and the Coast Guard. The first amendment applies directly to employees of those organizations, but they still have work rules they must abide by, so their first amendment rights are far from absolute. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flutie Flakes Posted September 22, 2018 Share Posted September 22, 2018 9 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said: The only place that we disagree is that not all 32 teams are private. 31 are and that is a part of the reason that it is difficult to enforce. In general, I agree with your sentiment. FWIW, I wouldn’t sign either of these guys because the juice isn’t worth the squeeze. If Khalil Mack was the guy doing this I would be all for adding him. If I thought that these guys could impact the team I’d be all for it. I don’t think that the media attention and distractions are worth it for these guys. 100% agree Agree. It's about @$$es in seats. Posters that think bringing Reid to Buffalo have not been to a game in a while. At the opener, one guy in my section inadvertently did not take his hat off during the anthem and the people around him immediately started yelling at him. I can't imagine what people would have done if anyone chose to stay seated. There is just not enough upside with Reid's play to bring him to blue collar Buffalo where the backlash would be tremendous. At the end of the day, even bringing in a hall of fame safety wouldn't do much when opposing QB's have all the time in the world to pick your secondary apart. Focus needs to start with our line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TigerJ Posted September 22, 2018 Share Posted September 22, 2018 20 hours ago, RyanC883 said: Pitts stepping up would be huge. I guess the coaches believe he will. I guess he played better in the second half of the Chargers game than Vontae Davis did in the first half. Ryan Lewis has good athleticism too. I'd love to see wone more guy with some experience, but Buffalo won't be any worse off in the secondary than they were in the Chargers game, and they might be a bit better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HalftimeAdjustment Posted September 22, 2018 Share Posted September 22, 2018 Regardless of rights I would say that safety isn't our greatest area of need. If Reid is asking for more compensation than he's worth I would pass. But if he is looking for a fair deal he should be evaluated. Other kneelers are still in the league. While he was very visible... he is not Kaepernick. Kaepernick has other issues beyond kneeling, even if kneeling and suing the NFL are the big ones: 1) I think he has been asking for starter level money. 2) If rumors are correct he (or his GF) insulted rhe Ravens owner and Ray Lewis while he was being considered. That kind of action has repercussions with other teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted September 22, 2018 Share Posted September 22, 2018 13 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said: They “should” be. It has already been determined that you cant punish someone for something that they “should” do. That’s why guys can (and are) still kneeling with no repercussions. didn't Jerry Jones mandate that none of his players would kneel (Neal was it?) or else they would find themselves unemployed? i don't think any Cowboy Neals (kneel (sp?). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RevWarRifleman Posted September 22, 2018 Share Posted September 22, 2018 21 hours ago, MAJBobby said: I would have signed him. Makes team better. But he kneeled so NFL blackballed him. Felons rapists abusers drugs running around naked gun violations murderers All ok. But DONT exercise your Constitutional Rights. Then your not welcome You forgot the biggest fault of all. Being a "leftist". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That's No Moon Posted September 22, 2018 Share Posted September 22, 2018 20 hours ago, RyanC883 said: If you are at work, your employer has the right to control your behavior, publicly funded space or not. Public funding has nothing to do with it. It's simply not a Constitutional Right to kneel during an NFL game. period. Employer policy also does not implicate Constitutional Rights. If an employer wants to fire you for it, the employer has every right to do so. Just because they have the right to do it doesn't make them right for doing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in Chicago Posted September 22, 2018 Share Posted September 22, 2018 If Reid is likely to have 1-2 years of good play, I would seriously consider adding him. As long as he isnt a slouch or a quitter, I am fine. The reason is that the Bills "stock" (not laughing) is very low right now. We are being rightfully bashed in the media and among us fans as fielding a poor team. This is the right time to add a player who could create controversy. How bad can it get ? If it pans out and we look respectable, then people will soon forget that he didnt kneel. As for ticket buyer backlash, the Bills fans have come no matter what the state of the team has been. The delta via fans taking a stand may not be noticeable. Of course all of this hinges on his ability and willingness to play well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatdrinks Posted September 22, 2018 Share Posted September 22, 2018 1 hour ago, That's No Moon said: Just because they have the right to do it doesn't make them right for doing it. Yes it does. The business owner is there to make money, not to give anyone a platform to express views on something. Controversial views expressed by employees may offend some customers. This interferes with the purpose of the business. What could be more right than the business owner making such a decision ?Just who should make it for them ? What a nonsensical notion. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LSHMEAB Posted September 22, 2018 Share Posted September 22, 2018 4 hours ago, Flutie Flakes said: Agree. It's about @$$es in seats. Posters that think bringing Reid to Buffalo have not been to a game in a while. At the opener, one guy in my section inadvertently did not take his hat off during the anthem and the people around him immediately started yelling at him. I can't imagine what people would have done if anyone chose to stay seated. Sounds like we have a serious problem with Anti-American sentiment at games if people are suppressing freedom. If a fan acts in a threatening manner towards another fan for their choice of headwear, he/she should be permanently banned from the stadium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted September 22, 2018 Share Posted September 22, 2018 1 hour ago, Foxx said: didn't Jerry Jones mandate that none of his players would kneel (Neal was it?) or else they would find themselves unemployed? i don't think any Cowboy Neals (kneel (sp?). There are only two guys still kneeling and they are on the Dolphins. Jerry Jones, I suppose could cut a guy that kneels but he’d have hell to pay from the NFLPA. The league has decided not to institute a policy this year and would strongly push Jerry against taking action towards said player. It will become another PR nightmare. So in theory, he could cut a guy that kneels, but it won’t happen. It will be too big of a headache. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthNYfan Posted September 22, 2018 Share Posted September 22, 2018 41 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said: Yes it does. The business owner is there to make money, not to give anyone a platform to express views on something. Controversial views expressed by employees may offend some customers. This interferes with the purpose of the business. What could be more right than the business owner making such a decision ?Just who should make it for them ? What a nonsensical notion. Look at Hollywood. Gunn was fired from Disney as the guardians of the Galaxy director and writer for some bs joking (albeit poor taste) tweets from like 10 years ago. He just wrote and directed two of the biggest blockbusters ever, and was in the middle of production on the third, and was still fired, even with the entire cast siding with him!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatdrinks Posted September 22, 2018 Share Posted September 22, 2018 2 minutes ago, SouthNYfan said: Look at Hollywood. Gunn was fired from Disney as the guardians of the Galaxy director and writer for some bs joking (albeit poor taste) tweets from like 10 years ago. He just wrote and directed two of the biggest blockbusters ever, and was in the middle of production on the third, and was still fired, even with the entire cast siding with him!! This can happen even in Tinseltown ... and who’s to say the business owner isn’t right? In the end, the business will do as it sees fit. Own the business, and do as you wish. No one is owed a platform as an employee. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cba fan Posted September 22, 2018 Share Posted September 22, 2018 22 hours ago, MAJBobby said: Stadiums Publically Funded. Employer has no policy against. So want to try again. Collusion to blackball is not a policy Many jobs are publicly funded. Still can not bring politics to work. NFL has policy that all payers must be on field standing for anthem. They then changed it and then rescinded the change. Now no one knows what the policy is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punching Bag Posted September 22, 2018 Share Posted September 22, 2018 On 9/21/2018 at 12:58 PM, Chuck Wagon said: Reid is the finished version of what they drafted Siran Neal to be. I think he'd be a very nice fit, especially in nickle packages with Hyde / Poyer and allow Hyde to be the "nickle". But I'm sure McD is afraid he would cause massive upheaval in the locker room due to independent thought, so that isn't happening. Reid is finished so you got that right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Says Posted September 22, 2018 Share Posted September 22, 2018 (edited) On 9/21/2018 at 12:35 PM, MAJBobby said: I would have signed him. Makes team better. But he kneeled so NFL blackballed him. Felons rapists abusers drugs running around naked gun violations murderers All ok. But DONT exercise your Constitutional Rights. Then your not welcome Football players kneeling is not a First Amendment issue Edited September 22, 2018 by Pablocruise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That's No Moon Posted September 22, 2018 Share Posted September 22, 2018 1 hour ago, Boatdrinks said: Yes it does. The business owner is there to make money, not to give anyone a platform to express views on something. Controversial views expressed by employees may offend some customers. This interferes with the purpose of the business. What could be more right than the business owner making such a decision ?Just who should make it for them ? What a nonsensical notion. Nobody is suggesting somebody else make the decision for them. Just because you CAN do a thing doesn't mean you SHOULD do a thing and the Pegulas and the rest of the owners are wrong IMO. God forbid someone sometime side with what is right and just over what is expedient and profitable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That's No Moon Posted September 22, 2018 Share Posted September 22, 2018 27 minutes ago, Pablocruise said: Football players kneeling is not a First Amendment issue You are correct it's not. The owners are well within their legal rights to do what they are doing. That doesn't make it the morally and ethically correct decision, however. When profitability trumps morality the world becomes a darker place for everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatdrinks Posted September 22, 2018 Share Posted September 22, 2018 18 minutes ago, That's No Moon said: Nobody is suggesting somebody else make the decision for them. Just because you CAN do a thing doesn't mean you SHOULD do a thing and the Pegulas and the rest of the owners are wrong IMO. God forbid someone sometime side with what is right and just over what is expedient and profitable. Business exists to make profit. You are making a huge assumption that Reid, Kaepernick et al are doing what is “ right”. I for one do not believe that their assertions about America and Police are anywhere near correct, much less “ right and just”. You seem to believe that because wrongs were committed in the distant past, society must make up for it today. The situations being “ protested” are statistically uncommon, to the point of being negligible. There is an existing legal procedure to deal with them and determine if any criminal act was involved. Media hyperbole doesn’t make these occurrences statistically frequent. Do you side with the law and those who enforce it ( acknowledging that errors sometimes occur) or do you side with those who do wrong and excuse their behavior due to whatever external factors life has thrown at them ? Some individuals being “ honored “ with these protests weren’t exhibiting right and just behavior ; such as reaching for a Cop’s gun. 20 minutes ago, That's No Moon said: You are correct it's not. The owners are well within their legal rights to do what they are doing. That doesn't make it the morally and ethically correct decision, however. When profitability trumps morality the world becomes a darker place for everyone. Such as promoting hatred of Police and pushing a false narrative about America in order to sell more sneakers ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAJBobby Posted September 22, 2018 Share Posted September 22, 2018 51 minutes ago, Pablocruise said: Football players kneeling is not a First Amendment issue So would you sign Eric Reid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatdrinks Posted September 22, 2018 Share Posted September 22, 2018 Don’t the Bills need CBs more than a Safety ? Anyway, I don’t think the Bills should sign Reid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts