Judge Smails
Footballguy
He’s going to win and he’s going to win huge. Absolute blackball/collusion of the highest order. I’m saying $30 million + $100 million in punitive damages
thisHe’s going to win and he’s going to win huge. Absolute blackball/collusion of the highest order. I’m saying $30 million + $100 million in punitive damages
I just went surfing the net for news. Dude must just be posting random thoughts popping in his head.Did something new happen today? If not he's not going to win.
He's unquestionably being blackballed but he's not going to win.
Doubtful. Maybe if the NFL had gotten it tossed last week, but there's enough merit to explore the case.It’s more likely that he loses thousands after he is ordered to pay the NFL’s legal fees.
The case has already been in discovery for months. There have already been numerous depositions and document requests.NFL will settle. Not sure they want this making it to discovery.
NFL will settle. Not sure they want this making it to discovery.
This "locker room cancer" was awarded the Len Eshmont award by a vote of the 49ers players after the 2016 season. He joined Montana, Rice, Young, and Roger Craig as winners of that award.Blackballed my ###.....dude is a locker room cancer.....he would divide any locker room he became a part of immediately. Hes not good enough to justify the risk, period......also, he's not the sharpest tool in the shed.....he's influenced heavily by his GF.
Says more about the lack of moral quality on his team than it says about how much he deserved the award.This "locker room cancer" was awarded the Len Eshmont award by a vote of the 49ers players after the 2016 season. He joined Montana, Rice, Young, and Roger Craig as winners of that award.
How can it be a good posting when Discovery has already been ongoing for nine months?
I think NFL owners and GM's disagree with you.I think he would divide the fan base, not so much the locker room.
Come on man, it's more than that and you know it......he has become THE polarizing figure in our country.....hes influenced very much by his GF who thinks NFL owners are slave masters.....What divides a locker room more, taking a chance on kap or letting peterman get in and throw his 5th int of the half?
So he kneels in protest during the anthem and everyone goes ballistic. What do most fans do during the anthem? Try to use the bathroom before the game starts? Run to the kitchen? Change the channel to see if another game is finished with the anthem and about to kick off? Take off their hat? Hand on heart?
This. Exactly what happened when Baltimore started talking to him.I think he would divide the fan base, not so much the locker room.
You think so? Won't he need documentation or admission that the league banned signing him or a majority of the owners got together and decided not to sign him?Yea he’s gonna clean house. A lot of people going to be shocked in here apparently.
1. This one has a better basis for discussion.I'm just curious why the more anti-Kaepernick themed thread in the Shark Pool from a couple days ago was deleted, but the now more pro-Kaepernick themed thread in the Shark Pool remains. Seems suspiciously selective.
I am assuming they have some sort of emails or documentation showing higher-ups discussing it. Otherwise, why even bring the case.You think so? Won't he need documentation or admission that the league banned signing him or a majority of the owners got together and decided not to sign him?
Dodds is a co-owner and he’s uhhhhhhh...how can I say this?......not liberal, so I don’t think the conspiracy theory flies here.1. This one has a better basis for discussion.
2. The moderating team here is very liberal so the posters on their team always get a little more leeway with their posts.
Because they might be hoping the NFL is willing to settle rather than just have it in the news. Or he just wants to make his name as relevant as possible so he can make as much money as possible to fight.... well, fight for any cause that will pay him the most money after his NFL career is over. Which it is. And Nike is already paying him just for "fighting for his cause".I am assuming they have some sort of emails or documentation showing higher-ups discussing it. Otherwise, why even bring the case.
Construction has nearly been completed on a Kaepernick forum. Problem is that I.T. work was mostly out-sourced to labor in India and I don't know if you've seen their labor laws but.......I'm just curious why the more anti-Kaepernick themed thread in the Shark Pool from a couple days ago was deleted, but the now more pro-Kaepernick themed thread in the Shark Pool remains. Seems suspiciously selective.
Is common sense / talent a basis for a case to continue? Does there need to a be a smoking gun for this to move forward? Could you meet the minimum bar to go to trial by showing RG3 continuing to get jobs and your client not getting a sniff? The once at trial the owners use the defense that impact on their revenues outweighed the benefit of signing him as a backup?I am assuming they have some sort of emails or documentation showing higher-ups discussing it. Otherwise, why even bring the case.
Agreed, but he's not part of the moderating team and rarely posts anymore. I think J rightly put a leash on him for business purposes. There was also a mod with far left rants that enjoyed insulting customer that J probably clamped down on.Dodds is a co-owner and he’s uhhhhhhh...how can I say this?......not liberal, so I don’t think the conspiracy theory flies here.
No, teams not signing him is not evidence of collusion. There needs to be some proof that a group of people colluded to keep him out.Is common sense / talent a basis for a case to continue? Does there need to a be a smoking gun for this to move forward? Could you meet the minimum bar to go to trial by showing RG3 continuing to get jobs and your client not getting a sniff? The once at trial the owners use the defense that impact on their revenues outweighed the benefit of signing him as a backup?
Who's going to leave e-mails around documenting collusion once the heads to court?
For it to truly be collusion wouldn't a majority of the owners have to be involved? If that many owners were involved would at least one of these billionaires be smart enough to tell explain collusion to the others and bury this long ago?
Agree but to be fair, the NFL cant do anything right and hasn't for about a decade now. I don't think they're dumb enough to send emails to each other saying to blackball this dude but just because your're rich doesn't mean you're not a moron.Is common sense / talent a basis for a case to continue? Does there need to a be a smoking gun for this to move forward? Could you meet the minimum bar to go to trial by showing RG3 continuing to get jobs and your client not getting a sniff? The once at trial the owners use the defense that impact on their revenues outweighed the benefit of signing him as a backup?
Who's going to leave e-mails around documenting collusion once the heads to court?
For it to truly be collusion wouldn't a majority of the owners have to be involved? If that many owners were involved would at least one of these billionaires be smart enough to tell explain collusion to the others and bury this long ago?
Of course they are that dumb, and there are a lot of people in a lot of front offices who agree with him and would love to forward those emails along.Agree but to be fair, the NFL cant do anything right and hasn't for about a decade now. I don't think they're dumb enough to send emails to each other saying to blackball this dude but just because your're rich doesn't mean you're not a moron.
In your opinion would it have to be a significant number of owners or a league directive for it to be collusion? Jones and Richardson discussing it might be the evidence for the case to proceed but that might not establish league wide collusion needed to win.No, teams not signing him is not evidence of collusion. There needs to be some proof that a group of people colluded to keep him out.
Does it have to be owners? I’m not sure. Probably has to come from the direction of owners since the nfl is the defendant.
Spin-off site?I think J rightly put a leash on him for business purposes.
Two or more teams, or the NFL FO and a team would prove collusion.In your opinion would it have to be a significant number of owners or a league directive for it to be collusion? Jones and Richardson discussing it might be the evidence for the case to proceed but that might not establish league wide collusion needed to win.
Is 50 people passing by free Super Bowl tickets laying on the street enough evidence to advance a case that they could have colluded not to pick them up?
The owners care more about the fanbase than the locker rooms.. right?I think NFL owners and GM's disagree with you.
Just 2 from what I have read. 2 teams/owners = collusion.For it to truly be collusion wouldn't a majority of the owners have to be involved?
I believe it takes exactly TWO teams/owners to prove the case.In your opinion would it have to be a significant number of owners or a league directive for it to be collusion? Jones and Richardson discussing it might be the evidence for the case to proceed but that might not establish league wide collusion needed to win.
Is 50 people passing by free Super Bowl tickets laying on the street enough evidence to advance a case that they could have colluded not to pick them up?