formerlyofCtown Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 1 hour ago, Alphadawg7 said: https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2820996-colin-kaepernick-eric-reid-settle-grievances-with-nfl-in-collusion-case No details will be made available, gag order on both sides. But obviously was some kind of financial settlement from the NFL. Im guessing it could be in the $50M range or bigger based on what QB's make in the NFL, his last contract, how long he was out to the league and damages consideration. Which really isnt that much money to the NFL in the first place to make this go away and not go to a trial they have a good shot at losing. Be interesting to see what happens rest of offseason if Kap gets any interest now. Couple teams would make sense as either a stop gap or backup like Was, Jax, Mia, Balt, Seattle, potentially Oakland if the trade Carr and draft Murray. Although I still think not that likely he gets much attention as it will still be seen as potential big distraction. If he is a backup, distraction goes away quickly, no one will care much about a guy on the bench. But as a stop gap starter, his play will be overly analyzed every week and it will be a media circus following him if he struggles while starting. He wasnt blacklisted before but now he will never set foot on an NFL field again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CuddyDark Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 9 minutes ago, Bills2ref said: Are we sure that’s it? Because I sure feel I could be fired at my job if I perform political activism at it. I was thinking it was more along the lines that collusion between two businesses is illegal, irrespective of the part being negwtively impacted. In this case two (or more) independent businesses (the nfl franchises) colluded with each other to negatively impact a party (Kapernick). From my brief research on the subject over the past twenty minutes this is what I’ve gathered. However, like I said, I’m completely unsure. It's not the firing. It's not discrimination of his beliefs or race or any of those things. It's preventing him from working that is illegal. It's part of the antitrust laws. In short, the NFL is given a special charter by the government which allows it to have a monopoly. In Kaepernick's case they used this monopoly to prevent him from working. It's illegal. Anyway that how my small brain see it. I could be completely wrong. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bing Bong Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 26 minutes ago, Bills2ref said: Forgive me if this is something I should know, but I’m having a heck of a time understanding why this is illegal. If someone could explain this for me, I would be very grateful. And you never will, that's why he settled and got money. The NFL thought it was worth giving him money so the details and legality of whatever happened isn't public. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted February 15, 2019 Author Share Posted February 15, 2019 (edited) 24 minutes ago, Bills2ref said: Are we sure that’s it? Because I sure feel I could be fired at my job if I perform political activism at it. I was thinking it was more along the lines that collusion between two businesses is illegal, irrespective of the part being negwtively impacted. In this case two (or more) independent businesses (the nfl franchises) colluded with each other to negatively impact a party (Kapernick). From my brief research on the subject over the past twenty minutes this is what I’ve gathered. However, like I said, I’m completely unsure. Yes that is it. To show this better and address your scenario, lets pretend your work suddenly started requiring you all to start each day off with the playing of the National Anthem in your office and also required you to stand for it. If you had personal reasons that made you uncomfortable standing for it and elected to sit and they fired you for that, you would win a BIG wrongful termination law suit. It would be a slam dunk, just like if Kap could prove collusion it was going to be a slam dunk and massive pay day. Which is why the NFL likely chose to settle if they felt that Kaps team had a strong enough chance to prove it. Im guessing there is some smoking gun in emails, thats typically where people screw up the most in terms of putting damning information down...that and text messages. They can not require you to perform any actions through the playing of the song just like they cant force you into prayer or any acts of religion. And the playing of the national anthem is a political moment, albeit positive and celebratory moment most people enjoy and want to be a part of. So to force an individual to participate in that moment or face termination (or in this case blocked from employment) will be a form of discrimination in the court of law. 10 minutes ago, formerlyofCtown said: He wasnt blacklisted before but now he will never set foot on an NFL field again. He was absolutely black listed IMO...if not, there is 0% chance the NFL settles as now the assumption is that there was collusion and NFL paid to make it go away before being exposed. Settling equals guilt in the court of public opinion, and thats the court the NFL is most afraid of. NFL didnt back down from their golden boy Brady or Zeke last year...they aren't settling just to be more convenient. They settled because they felt they couldn't win or there was enough of a chance of a loss to not risk it. Edited February 15, 2019 by Alphadawg7 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
formerlyofCtown Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said: Yes that is it. To show this better and address your scenario, lets pretend your work suddenly started requiring you all to start each day off with the playing of the National Anthem in your office and also required you to stand for it. If you had personal reasons that made you uncomfortable standing for it and elected to sit and they fired you for that, you would win a BIG wrongful termination law suit. It would be a slam dunk, just like if Kap could prove collusion it was going to be a slam dunk and massive pay day. Which is why the NFL likely chose to settle if they felt that Kaps team had a strong enough chance to prove it. Im guessing there is some smoking gun in emails, thats typically where people screw up the most in terms of putting damning information down...that and text messages. They can not require you to perform any actions through the playing of the song just like they cant force you into prayer or any acts of religion. And the playing of the national anthem is a political moment, albeit positive and celebratory moment most people enjoy and want to be a part of. So to force an individual to participate in that moment or face termination (or in this case blocked from employment) will be a form of discrimination in the court of law. He was absolutely black listed IMO...if not, there is 0% chance the NFL settles as now the assumption is that there was collusion and NFL paid to make it go away before being exposed. Settling equals guilt in the court of public opinion, and thats the court the NFL is most afraid of. NFL didnt back down from their golden boy Brady or Zeke last year...they aren't settling just to be more convenient. They settled because they felt they couldn't win or there was enough of a chance of a loss to not risk it. There was a chance the NFL would lose based on current politics. You notice they used the term collusion? Where do we recognise that term from? If you dont think that was intentional you would be mistaken. You see lawyers consider those things when they file suit and settle a suit. Those are the very things that lawyers discuss when trying to reach a settlement and I gaurantee Kaps Lawyers braught that up. Also If they absolutely did it then why would Kap settle. Have you ever considered that Kap was just a flash in the pan and not that good of a QB. Do you really think if this was Mahomes he would be unsigned Lol. Edited February 15, 2019 by formerlyofCtown Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bing Bong Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 26 minutes ago, Bray Wyatt said: I said this in the other thread but will say here, if the decision was coming in less than a month (final decision from an arbitrator per the article), and he had the league by the balls, why settle? I dont think it was as clear cut as many think The NFL could have won and have some nasty evidence emails come to the public regardless. Take a huge PR hit. Alternatively, and my lawyer friend is telling me more likely from a settlement at this time, Kaep could have had them by the balls.. NFL didn't want the case to go public and offered to settle with Kaep for more than what the arbitration would have decided. Hence why many are reporting a settlement higher than a contract you'd except Kaep to have received if he stayed employed in the league. But these are all just guesses. We don't know how much he settled for which is really the whole crux of the matter. Depends on if it's more or less than what Kaep would have gotten if he got some wacky John Elway contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 30 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said: Yeah he is a guy who spends millions (before the protests ever started too, not just after) and dedicated time and work to a number of charities and social causes. Yet people, including here, still want to believe he’s a monster and also judge his character based on their opinion of him as a QB and the fact he protested in a way they didn’t like. Meanwhile a true monster in Vick never received remotely close to the kind of hate Kap gets. One is a violent murderer for pleasure of defenseless animals and the other fights for social issues and charitable causes. Society has some serious priority issues. Indeed. Did you read about what the Wisconsin legislature did? Members of their black caucus wanted to include him, as a Madison native, as an honoree during their Black History month celebration for his activism on various civil rights issues and moved to get the motion passed. Needless to say, the Republican majority voted it down, citing his “controversial” status. I can’t think of one prominent civil rights activist in the past that wasn’t controversial. I mean, that’s kind of the point. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BakersBills Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 57 minutes ago, B-Man said: After all the hoopla...Kaepernick took the money, and a confidentiality agreement. It was NEVER about "Principle & Conviction". It was ALWAYS about the Benjamins. well settling, means he won.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 2 hours ago, Alphadawg7 said: https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2820996-colin-kaepernick-eric-reid-settle-grievances-with-nfl-in-collusion-case No details will be made available, gag order on both sides. But obviously was some kind of financial settlement from the NFL. Im guessing it could be in the $50M range or bigger based on what QB's make in the NFL, his last contract, how long he was out to the league and damages consideration. Which really isnt that much money to the NFL in the first place to make this go away and not go to a trial they have a good shot at losing. Be interesting to see what happens rest of offseason if Kap gets any interest now. Couple teams would make sense as either a stop gap or backup like Was, Jax, Mia, Balt, Seattle, potentially Oakland if the trade Carr and draft Murray. Although I still think not that likely he gets much attention as it will still be seen as potential big distraction. If he is a backup, distraction goes away quickly, no one will care much about a guy on the bench. But as a stop gap starter, his play will be overly analyzed every week and it will be a media circus following him if he struggles while starting. ...thank God......let 'em sail off into the sunset..............he is not a good football player........forget the politics crap.... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bing Bong Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, B-Man said: After all the hoopla...Kaepernick took the money, and a confidentiality agreement. It was NEVER about "Principle & Conviction". It was ALWAYS about the Benjamins. Kaepernick was never protesting for all players in the league getting blackballed by the NFL. Wasn't kneeling for all laborers in the world.. being a champion of workers comp. He settled a civil suit about employment. He won. Of course that suit over EMPLOYMENT was always about the benjamins lol. He was protesting police brutality.. which has nothing to do with NFL players being blackballed. Not all social issues civil cases are the same dude. Edited February 15, 2019 by BarkleyForGOATBackupPT5P 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicken Boo Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 *Teddy KGB* Today is a wonderful day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mead107 Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 Heard it was 30 million Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bing Bong Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 (edited) 45 minutes ago, formerlyofCtown said: Also If they absolutely did it then why would Kap settle. NFL could pay more than the arbitration would have so the case doesn't become public. It's chump change to the NFL more or less, and the arbitration would have been worth one 5 year decent quarterback salary.. $15-20M. He doesn't win infinite amounts of money.. they more or less know what arbitration gives if he wins. If the NFL wants to keep it private then Kaep tells them the price. So Kaep gets more with the settlement so it's confidential.. which is exactly what happened. Edited February 15, 2019 by BarkleyForGOATBackupPT5P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 Just now, mead107 said: Heard it was 30 million ...so a BIGGER extortion job than what he tried with the AAF......Willie Sutton is jealous......after Slippery Geragos takes his cut, hope he ends up with 42 bucks...a sham.... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsSB2020 Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 1 hour ago, H2o said: If he takes the money and allows that money to silence him then I think we realize what it was all about in the first place. And if it is $60,000,000-$80,000,000 that is like 3 times the money he would have made for the rest of his career being a mediocre backup. Yes, it was always about money. It was a lawsuit and the NFL agreed to pay him a boatload of money. Now I'm not going to get involved in the politics, but it appears as though the young man made out quite well. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted February 15, 2019 Author Share Posted February 15, 2019 1 hour ago, K-9 said: Indeed. Did you read about what the Wisconsin legislature did? Members of their black caucus wanted to include him, as a Madison native, as an honoree during their Black History month celebration for his activism on various civil rights issues and moved to get the motion passed. Needless to say, the Republican majority voted it down, citing his “controversial” status. I can’t think of one prominent civil rights activist in the past that wasn’t controversial. I mean, that’s kind of the point. Wow, had not heard about that. Crazy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 1 minute ago, Alphadawg7 said: Wow, had not heard about that. Crazy ....yup....shocking isn't it?.....smell the race card coming......Sharpton and Jackson are prolly en route...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOUSE Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 The settlement is 250 bucks + a signed Tim Tebow Jersey 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted February 15, 2019 Author Share Posted February 15, 2019 45 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said: ...thank God......let 'em sail off into the sunset..............he is not a good football player........forget the politics crap.... I dont know, I mean he led a team to the SB, that team then dismantled itself and became the least talented roster in the NFL yet he still had 16 TDs and only 4 INT in his last partial season. Not saying he could be a franchise corner stone, but he is certainly better than 2/3rds of all the QB's in the NFL when you factor in backups too. In other words, he is good enough to be playing in the NFL still. Not really fair to say a guy is not good if he was good enough to make a SB and get a $100m contract from what he did on the field. Terrible contract...yes, absolutely. But bad enough player to no longer be in the league? No way. I get people dont think he is a good starting option, but he is obviously good enough to be part of the NFL. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 1 minute ago, Alphadawg7 said: I dont know, I mean he led a team to the SB, that team then dismantled itself and became the least talented roster in the NFL yet he still had 16 TDs and only 4 INT in his last partial season. Not saying he could be a franchise corner stone, but he is certainly better than 2/3rds of all the QB's in the NFL when you factor in backups too. In other words, he is good enough to be playing in the NFL still. Not really fair to say a guy is not good if he was good enough to make a SB and get a $100m contract from what he did on the field. Terrible contract...yes, absolutely. But bad enough player to no longer be in the league? No way. I get people dont think he is a good starting option, but he is obviously good enough to be part of the NFL. ...here's my problem with the kid 'Dawg and I don't give a rat's azz about his politic......he hit the scene and dazzled.....but it just seemed to me (probably DEAD wrong as usual) that "tats 'n poses" became his focus, forgetting that being an NFL QB is one helluva job that needs TOTAL focus....and it didn't take long for opposing DC's to figure him out.....he flashed like RG III did without RG's "meddling Daddy baggage".......the premature limelight blinded his focus IMO...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punching Bag Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 3 hours ago, KD in CA said: If the NFL had to write him a big check, you can be sure he'll never play again. But I wouldn't be surprised if the deal was 'no money, but we'll get you on a roster before training camp.' Is this for the new team in Montana? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CuddyDark Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, formerlyofCtown said: There was a chance the NFL would lose based on current politics. You notice they used the term collusion? Where do we recognise that term from? If you dont think that was intentional you would be mistaken. You see lawyers consider those things when they file suit and settle a suit. Those are the very things that lawyers discuss when trying to reach a settlement and I gaurantee Kaps Lawyers braught that up. Also If they absolutely did it then why would Kap settle. Have you ever considered that Kap was just a flash in the pan and not that good of a QB. Do you really think if this was Mahomes he would be unsigned Lol. This is kind of moronic. Antitrust and collusion laws are probably 100 years old. It has nothing to do with politics. If they could win the NFL would have taken it to court. It's just most of Trump's followers keep hearing "Collusion is not a crime" and it's wrong. Collusion is a crime. You won't get jail time in most collusion cases so conservatives in the media know Trump would never be charged with a crime that is impeachable for collusion. Collusion is usually financial crimes and conservatives in the media know this so it doesn't matter if they lie a little. What they have to get Trump on is conspiracy. Collusion that lead to a high crime, like hacking. Edited February 15, 2019 by CuddyDark 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punching Bag Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 2 hours ago, H2o said: Then wouldn't he be considered a "sell-out"? Yes. He is a Laywer in training. 2 hours ago, B-Man said: After all the hoopla...Kaepernick took the money, and a confidentiality agreement. It was NEVER about "Principle & Conviction". It was ALWAYS about the Benjamins. Agreement should have been signed on President's Day so we would know it was about the Presidents (on the bills). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aristocrat Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 He might have gotten 60 mil in court and he might not have. Likely the settlement was closer to 10-20 mil if that m. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffaloboyinATL Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 Somewhere out there Ray Rice is contacting a lawyer. Collusion is collusion regardless of the reason. This is a dangerous precedent for the NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoudyBills Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 2 hours ago, stony said: I wouldn't put it past the owners to have a chain email entitled "We all agree to never sign Kaepernick, right?" and then all reply in the affirmative. A lot of them seem that stupid. Right. Billions are typically morons, barely smart enough to breath actually. Good call cletus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stony Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 2 minutes ago, CoudyBills said: Right. Billions are typically morons, barely smart enough to breath actually. Good call cletus. I mean, check your grammar before you call me Cletus. But thanks for weighing in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted February 15, 2019 Author Share Posted February 15, 2019 10 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said: ...here's my problem with the kid 'Dawg and I don't give a rat's azz about his politic......he hit the scene and dazzled.....but it just seemed to me (probably DEAD wrong as usual) that "tats 'n poses" became his focus, forgetting that being an NFL QB is one helluva job that needs TOTAL focus....and it didn't take long for opposing DC's to figure him out.....he flashed like RG III did without RG's "meddling Daddy baggage".......the premature limelight blinded his focus IMO...... All good man, and not saying your opinion has no merit. However, that comes with the territory. Players with success have a lot of demand outside football, and thats part of their brand. He didnt do anything anyone else wasn't doing that had the same opportunity. He was a hot new player, a good looking guy with unique hair, and an exciting play style. So that created other opportunities for him, but that was always off season stuff. Not like he was missing practice over it or letting himself go physically during that time. The thing is, Kap spent a ton of time working with kids in his local community donating both a lot of money and his time. He was one of the most active players in this regard. Yet he gets this bad rep because some magazines wanted to put him on their cover because he was young, highly paid, unique, exciting, etc. But that was not a fair representation of who he is as a person. All kind of athletes have a ton of tattoos, so not sure where the tattoo comment comes in. Now he is still out there fighting for causes, charity, etc and giving lots of his money and time to them. But people still want to use magazine pictures o their opinion of him as a QB to now decide his character, yet he literally has never done a single thing to suggest a bad character. He has always been a pillar of his community and never been in any kind of trouble. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klos63 Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 32 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said: ....yup....shocking isn't it?.....smell the race card coming......Sharpton and Jackson are prolly en route...... I'll bet you they aren't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CuddyDark Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 7 minutes ago, buffaloboyinATL said: Somewhere out there Ray Rice is contacting a lawyer. Collusion is collusion regardless of the reason. This is a dangerous precedent for the NFL. No it's different for Rice. Rice violated the collective bargaining agreement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffaloboyinATL Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 Just now, CuddyDark said: No it's different for Rice. Rice violated the collective bargaining agreement. So did MANY other players who were ultimately given a second chance after serving their suspension. Rice could easily argue he was not given that same opportunity because of collusion between the owners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphadawg7 Posted February 15, 2019 Author Share Posted February 15, 2019 7 minutes ago, buffaloboyinATL said: Somewhere out there Ray Rice is contacting a lawyer. Collusion is collusion regardless of the reason. This is a dangerous precedent for the NFL. Rice won't have a case...he didnt get a job because his career was done. And no one was going to add a player who was on video knocking a woman out in an elevator that also couldn't help their team. So NFL didn't need to "collude" against him, his diminishing skills and atrocious tape was enough for teams just flat out not want to sign him on their own without having to band together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CuddyDark Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 1 minute ago, buffaloboyinATL said: So did MANY other players who were ultimately given a second chance after serving their suspension. Rice could easily argue he was not given that same opportunity because of collusion between the owners. And he would lose. It would be a waste of money to his lawyers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 The $60-80m estimate came from officials of NFL teams, they would be in a position to know and have an educated guess. I would bet that number is pretty accurate. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MPT Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 2 hours ago, Bray Wyatt said: I said this in the other thread but will say here, if the decision was coming in less than a month (final decision from an arbitrator per the article), and he had the league by the balls, why settle? I dont think it was as clear cut as many think I agree. The league knows this settlement looks like an admission of guilt so they wouldn't have agreed to it unless there was something in evidence that gave Kaepernick a strong case. At the same time, Kaepernick would have pushed for a public trial and maximum compensation if said evidence were rock solid. He probably gave up some money and public vindication, and the league probably gave up some money and lost some face. Seems like a pretty even compromise, which leads me to believe the evidence was damaging to the NFL but not bad enough to be a slam dunk, at least legally speaking. Of course, if the actual settlement ever becomes public knowledge, all of my assumptions could be proven wrong one way or the other. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beast Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 (edited) 18 minutes ago, buffaloboyinATL said: Somewhere out there Ray Rice is contacting a lawyer. Collusion is collusion regardless of the reason. This is a dangerous precedent for the NFL. Ray Rice wouldn’t have a leg to stand on. The NFL could very easily argue, and win, that having him involved in the league could hurt the bottom line by alienating women. The NFL is still a business. Edited February 15, 2019 by Binghamton Beast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffaloboyinATL Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 3 minutes ago, Binghamton Beast said: Ray Rice wouldn’t have a leg to stand on. The NFL could very easily argue, and win, that having him involved in the league could hurt the bottom line by alienating women. The NFL is still a business. I know the cases are different but can’t the argument also be made that hiring Kaepernick could also impact the bottom line? (I honestly thought this is why the NFL would win this case) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 21 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said: All good man, and not saying your opinion has no merit. However, that comes with the territory. Players with success have a lot of demand outside football, and thats part of their brand. He didnt do anything anyone else wasn't doing that had the same opportunity. He was a hot new player, a good looking guy with unique hair, and an exciting play style. So that created other opportunities for him, but that was always off season stuff. Not like he was missing practice over it or letting himself go physically during that time. The thing is, Kap spent a ton of time working with kids in his local community donating both a lot of money and his time. He was one of the most active players in this regard. Yet he gets this bad rep because some magazines wanted to put him on their cover because he was young, highly paid, unique, exciting, etc. But that was not a fair representation of who he is as a person. All kind of athletes have a ton of tattoos, so not sure where the tattoo comment comes in. Now he is still out there fighting for causes, charity, etc and giving lots of his money and time to them. But people still want to use magazine pictures o their opinion of him as a QB to now decide his character, yet he literally has never done a single thing to suggest a bad character. He has always been a pillar of his community and never been in any kind of trouble. ...nicely and fairly done my friend...nice..... 21 minutes ago, klos63 said: I'll bet you they aren't. ...ok... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CuddyDark Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 4 minutes ago, buffaloboyinATL said: I know the cases are different but can’t the argument also be made that hiring Kaepernick could also impact the bottom line? (I honestly thought this is why the NFL would win this case) The NFL has successfully defended the CBA in court many times. They would have to fight Rice to the supreme court because a loss to him would make the CBA invalid and college sophomores would be able to enter the draft and a bunch of other things they have won in court would fall. He would lose anyway but they'd have to fight with whatever it took to win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffaloboyinATL Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 Just now, CuddyDark said: The NFL has successfully defended the CBA in court many times. They would have to fight Rice to the supreme court because a loss to him would make the CBA invalid and college sophomores would be able to enter the draft and a bunch of other things they have won in court would fall. He would lose anyway but they'd have to fight with whatever it took to win. For the record, I have no issue with the NFL not bringing Rice back. I am just using him as an example to say I am surprised they caved on the Kaepernick lawsuit because it is a bad precedent that could open a can of worms. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts