What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Colin Kaepernick Thread and related anthem kneeling issues/news (6 Viewers)

Two weeks passed since the initial inquiry, either someone missed a sign or something because Seahawks worked him out last year and they should have know his stance hasn't changed. Weird story, it sounds like they just assumed he changed his mind ... considering he's in the middle of his lawsuit against the NFL kinda dumb.

Jacksonke1 said:
Not like Seattle desperately needs him anyway, not worth the hassle.
Click to expand...
I don't even see the hassle at this point. It's gone on so long it's boring.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke said:
The reporters' behavior is driven by what the fans will or will not tolerate or what interests them.  If the fans were outraged by the presence of Frank Clark on the roster (which they should be IMO) and didn't really have strong feelings about Kaepernick's peaceful protest or his activism (which they shouldn't IMO) then the reporters would adjust accordingly. 

So this doesn't really change my point. I agree with you that it's reasonable for teams to feel it's not worth it, but the forces that make it "not worth it" to deal with Kaepernick but worth it to deal with Clark and many others are worth discussing.
Click to expand...
I think it’s a combination of owners not wanting to deal with fan reaction AND police reaction.  No NFL owner wants to risk a potential game day security walk out or blue flu.  The juice is not worth the squeeze for the owners   Kap isn’t taking anyone to the Super Bowl  

Kap has made his point.  If he wants to play football, he needs to drop his lawsuit, keep his (and his girlfriend’s) mouth shut, clean up his silly Oscar Gamble afro and quit kneeling.  He would have a Backup job by training camp.  I don’t think he really WANTS to play at this point.  

 
knowledge dropper said:
I think it’s a combination of owners not wanting to deal with fan reaction AND police reaction.  No NFL owner wants to risk a potential game day security walk out or blue flu.  The juice is not worth the squeeze for the owners   Kap isn’t taking anyone to the Super Bowl  

Kap has made his point.  If he wants to play football, he needs to drop his lawsuit, keep his (and his girlfriend’s) mouth shut, clean up his silly Oscar Gamble afro and quit kneeling.  He would have a Backup job by training camp.  I don’t think he really WANTS to play at this point.  
Click to expand...
:lol:

 
knowledge dropper said:
I think it’s a combination of owners not wanting to deal with fan reaction AND police reaction.  No NFL owner wants to risk a potential game day security walk out or blue flu.  The juice is not worth the squeeze for the owners   Kap isn’t taking anyone to the Super Bowl  

Kap has made his point.  If he wants to play football, he needs to drop his lawsuit, keep his (and his girlfriend’s) mouth shut, clean up his silly Oscar Gamble afro and quit kneeling.  He would have a Backup job by training camp.  I don’t think he really WANTS to play at this point.  
Click to expand...
If he were to do all that, he still wouldn't get a backup job, because those who have criticized him and demanded he not be hired by any team have not given any conditions under which his return to playing would be acceptable to them. I think the damage and done and is irreversible - as the expression goes, you can't put toothpaste back in the tube.

More importantly if he were to do what you ask, then the criticism would be that the whole kneeling thing was insincere shtick only for the publicity - that he never really believed in what he was protesting and is willing to throw away his principles just to a get a paycheck, as proven by the criticism of Eric Reid some pages back after he initially indicated that he would no longer protest:

Cowboysfan8 said:
Funny how they don't care about it anymore when the cashola stops pouring in
Click to expand...


tjnc09 said:
lol it's hilarious how quickly these guys change their tune when they are out of a job.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
hunter1 said:
I suspect this is not the forum for a discussion regarding the importance of (pardon the irony) standing up for what's right, so I will just drop the issue but will leave you with the assurance that, sadly, most folks probably share your confusion.  
Click to expand...
It's not confusion (I'll pardon the error).  I agree though this is probably not the right forum for this.

 
I really hate people who have to pull the race card when they don't get their way. This guy OPTED OUT OF HIS CONTRACT and was deemed a distraction, not good enough to be a back up let alone start for someone. I highly doubt his whole kneeling thing was ever genuine and was just a way for him to force SF's hand and keep him on the team. The dude showed zero willingness to go play else where from declining to go to the Browns as he was afraid they drafted his replacement AKA afraid of competition (Sounds like a former Eagles QB that got traded) and refused to restructure his deal to go to Den. Before all of this there were reports of SF ownership and FO babying Kapernick and that didn't sit well with teammates to the point they left VIA FA or in Vernon Davis Case asked to be traded. There were questions well before he started kneeing of his general overall commitment to playing and the team. Add on that Aldon Smith's GF is CK's GF now and well you got a guy who sleeps with teammates GF's. Correct me if I'm wrong but a QB is a team leader and that's not leadership right there. Kaepernick opted out after having a very poor season and becoming historic for playing the worst play QB game in pro football history against a terrible Chicago Bears team. His net yards lost were among the worst in the NFL his last year and he was top 5 out of skilled position players in fumbles lost. He was sacked almost at the top of the list. His overall pass and TD/INT numbers are so padded as he got most of it in garbage time and kind of easy to have some fairly good stats when your team is down by 30 after half time in most of the games you played. Correct me if I'm wrong SF fans but wasn't there a report this guys own offensive line when Harbaugh was coach they went into his office and asked for CK to be benched because of poor play and not taking things seriously or did I miss hear or read something? Finally HE OPTED OUT OF HIS CONTRACT WILLINGLY & despite his poor play has the audacity to ask for big money and a starting QB job? Teams then question his commitment to HIS JOB which they have every right to do if they are signing you btw and deem he's not committed enough. Then when the time comes he might get signed by Baltimore his GF makes some racial charged tweets about the team owner and one of the franchises most popular players so the team opts not to sign him? Right then and there if I were a judge I'd have laugh my ####### ### off and asked why are you wasting my time with bull#### and tax payers money for this? 

I'm starting to wonder if maybe this was his plan all along. Make the NFL look bad with some sort of politically charged BS he probably doesn't support, get to a point where he can make a case against the league and then sue them for a big sum of money and walk away without ever playing again. Plus the GF is a locker room rat who's only around for the money. 

 
Meanwhile, on the collusion grievance front:

https://sports.yahoo.com/buzz-swirls-colin-kaepernick-seahawks-cowboys-jerry-jones-deposed-grievance-case-191600966.html?soc_src=social-sh&soc_trk=tw

As buzz swirls over Colin Kaepernick and Seahawks, Cowboys’ Jerry Jones deposed in grievance case:

Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones is sitting for his deposition in the Colin Kaepernick collusion grievance in a Thursday session that will also be attended by the former San Francisco 49ers quarterback.

The deposition is slated to cover several hours and take place in Frisco, Texas, the home base of the Cowboys’ multibillion-dollar practice complex. Interestingly, it took place as news broke that the Seattle Seahawks had arranged a workout for Kaepernick that was slated for Monday, but then was subsequently canceled by the team’s front office. According to a source who spoke to Yahoo Sports, Seattle’s cancellation of Kaepernick’s visit came after the quarterback declined to make a commitment to halting his kneeling during the national anthem as a form of protest against racial and social inequalities. A conflicting report from the NFL Network said the Seahawks simply wanted “a plan” in place from Kaepernick before following through on a workout.

The news created a dramatic backdrop for Thursday’s deposition of the Cowboys’ Jones – particularly given Kaepernick’s attendance. It marks the second time Kaepernick will have attended complaint proceedings with an NFL owner, including the March deposition of the Houston Texans’ Bob McNair. At least four other NFL owners are still on the docket for depositions, including the New England Patriots’ Robert Kraft, the Miami Dolphins’ Stephen Ross, the Seattle Seahawks’ Paul Allen and the San Francisco 49ers’ Jed York.

While the content of the depositions is sealed in the complaint arbitration process, Jones’ inclusion is believed to stem from several factors. Among them: Previous statements the Cowboys owner made about retribution against NFL players who kneel during the national anthem; conversations Jones had with President Donald Trump about the league’s response to protesting during the anthem; and Jones’ business relationship with former Papa John’s CEO John Schnatter, who raised eyebrows while making critical remarks about the NFL’s response to protests during an earnings call last November.

Like the Texans’ McNair, Jones has remained squarely in a group of NFL owners that have criticized social protests as being bad for the league’s bottom line. He’s also among a group that have continually pressured league commissioner Roger Goodell to end kneeling during the national anthem – and is expected to be one of the owners who will push for a resolution in May, when owners are slated to meet in Atlanta to discuss the topic again.

Sources familiar with the deposition dockets from Kaepernick’s camp and the NFL have previously told Yahoo Sports the discovery proceedings are expected to last at least several more months, but could stretch into 2019. [...]

 
DJackson10 said:
I really hate people who have to pull the race card when they don't get their way. This guy OPTED OUT OF HIS CONTRACT and was deemed a distraction, not good enough to be a back up let alone start for someone. I highly doubt his whole kneeling thing was ever genuine and was just a way for him to force SF's hand and keep him on the team. The dude showed zero willingness to go play else where from declining to go to the Browns as he was afraid they drafted his replacement AKA afraid of competition (Sounds like a former Eagles QB that got traded) and refused to restructure his deal to go to Den. Before all of this there were reports of SF ownership and FO babying Kapernick and that didn't sit well with teammates to the point they left VIA FA or in Vernon Davis Case asked to be traded. There were questions well before he started kneeing of his general overall commitment to playing and the team. Add on that Aldon Smith's GF is CK's GF now and well you got a guy who sleeps with teammates GF's. Correct me if I'm wrong but a QB is a team leader and that's not leadership right there. Kaepernick opted out after having a very poor season and becoming historic for playing the worst play QB game in pro football history against a terrible Chicago Bears team. His net yards lost were among the worst in the NFL his last year and he was top 5 out of skilled position players in fumbles lost. He was sacked almost at the top of the list. His overall pass and TD/INT numbers are so padded as he got most of it in garbage time and kind of easy to have some fairly good stats when your team is down by 30 after half time in most of the games you played. Correct me if I'm wrong SF fans but wasn't there a report this guys own offensive line when Harbaugh was coach they went into his office and asked for CK to be benched because of poor play and not taking things seriously or did I miss hear or read something? Finally HE OPTED OUT OF HIS CONTRACT WILLINGLY & despite his poor play has the audacity to ask for big money and a starting QB job? Teams then question his commitment to HIS JOB which they have every right to do if they are signing you btw and deem he's not committed enough. Then when the time comes he might get signed by Baltimore his GF makes some racial charged tweets about the team owner and one of the franchises most popular players so the team opts not to sign him? Right then and there if I were a judge I'd have laugh my ####### ### off and asked why are you wasting my time with bull#### and tax payers money for this? 

I'm starting to wonder if maybe this was his plan all along. Make the NFL look bad with some sort of politically charged BS he probably doesn't support, get to a point where he can make a case against the league and then sue them for a big sum of money and walk away without ever playing again. Plus the GF is a locker room rat who's only around for the money. 
Click to expand...
So what you're saying is that you don't like Kaepernick?

 
So if I understand PFT takes, some team has to sign Kaepernick for it to not be collusion? The collusion argument is ridiculous. No team wants anything to do with controversy. No team wants to sign a guy who will be boo'd by half of its ticketholders, weekly. How can any team focus on football with that ongoing circus of a guy suing the league? It's no different than Ray Rice being an unsigned pariah. JMHO, could actually be worse PR even than that.  And for what, a marginal starter or QB2? I wouldn't need 31 other guys to tell me not to pay for that.

 
daveR said:
It's this simple: he is a man of principles and integrity.  He could give them up to get a job, but then he becomes someone else.
Click to expand...
Okay so if I follow the rules of employment I sold my soul to my workplace? It seems like I would just be ensuring I still work at said workplace.

 
smbkrypt24 said:
Okay so if I follow the rules of employment I sold my soul to my workplace? It seems like I would just be ensuring I still work at said workplace.
Click to expand...
Most of of us probably  have sold our soul to our workplace.  Personally I’d rather have a home than a soul. Kaepernick is apparently able to have both.

 
smbkrypt24 said:
Okay so if I follow the rules of employment I sold my soul to my workplace? It seems like I would just be ensuring I still work at said workplace.
Click to expand...
If the rules of a workplace demand that you become a distributor of child porn, would you comply?  Why not?  If you were Jewish & the corporation demanded that all employees become Hindu?  If you were a pacifist and they required that you enlist?  What if they required that you leave your family?

In this case, they are demanding that he give up his stance on racism.  For me, that is selling one's soul -- giving up on something vitally important for a job.  

 
daveR said:
If the rules of a workplace demand that you become a distributor of child porn, would you comply?  Why not?  If you were Jewish & the corporation demanded that all employees become Hindu?  If you were a pacifist and they required that you enlist?  What if they required that you leave your family?

In this case, they are demanding that he give up his stance on racism.  For me, that is selling one's soul -- giving up on something vitally important for a job.  
Click to expand...
Well those are all terrible analogies.

In reality they may or may not be able to structure an employment contract that prohibits specific forms of "expression" under specific conditions (eg. if you take a knee during an anthem you will be fined $XXXXX and/or terminated) but there's no practical way they can demand or accomplish making him "give up his stance on racism".

 
habsfan said:
Well those are all terrible analogies.

In reality they may or may not be able to structure an employment contract that prohibits specific forms of "expression" under specific conditions (eg. if you take a knee during an anthem you will be fined $XXXXX and/or terminated) but there's no practical way they can demand or accomplish making him "give up his stance on racism".
Click to expand...
Call it what you will.  Everyone knows that the effect would be a public appearance of knuckling under to the NFL owners (and Trump) who themselves only contribute to the problem.

ETA:  They have an opportunity to stand up & say, "Racism has no place in America, especially on the police force.  No racist should carry a badge and a gun."  That, IMO, would be a good start towards making people proud to be American and happy to stand for the anthem.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
daveR said:
If the rules of a workplace demand that you become a distributor of child porn, would you comply?  Why not?  If you were Jewish & the corporation demanded that all employees become Hindu?  If you were a pacifist and they required that you enlist?  What if they required that you leave your family?

In this case, they are demanding that he give up his stance on racism.  For me, that is selling one's soul -- giving up on something vitally important for a job.  
Click to expand...


It’s surprising that people live in a country like America and still completely not get it.  Their notion of “rights” is so wrong.

An employer is stating to an employee that a condition of employment is that you:  While on the company clock, while wearing a company uniform, and standing in the company workplace that you refrain from overtly expressing a polarizing personal political stance that alienates and angers a substantial portion of our clientele.

It is that simple, and it is that reasonable, and it has absolutely nothing in common with the hypotheticals that you listed, some of which ridiculously presuppose that an employer can require employees to violate the law or that the employer can willfully violate Federal labor laws.  

And no, no one is demanding that he give up his stance on racism.  How far do you have to leap to manage to land at that conclusion?  You might try expressing your position a bit better by not resorting to wildly disconnected hyperbole.

 
Does CK have some sort of measuring stick for how his anthem actions have changed the course of history? There's been copycats and predecessors in other contexts, but at what point would he say, "This worked, America has changed because of me, I will revert to standing for the anthem."

Never gonna happen.

Are things not the same in reality as to when he stood for the anthem previously during his career?

 
Bronco Billy said:
It’s surprising that people live in a country like America and still completely not get it.  Their notion of “rights” is so wrong.

An employer is stating to an employee that a condition of employment is that you:  While on the company clock, while wearing a company uniform, and standing in the company workplace that you refrain from overtly expressing a polarizing personal political stance that alienates and angers a substantial portion of our clientele.

It is that simple, and it is that reasonable, and it has absolutely nothing in common with the hypotheticals that you listed, some of which ridiculously presuppose that an employer can require employees to violate the law or that the employer can willfully violate Federal labor laws.  

And no, no one is demanding that he give up his stance on racism.  How far do you have to leap to manage to land at that conclusion?  You might try expressing your position a bit better by not resorting to wildly disconnected hyperbole.
Click to expand...
Taking part in a ceremony to "honor" a situation he feels DISHONORS a large percentage of people he identifies with is NOT the same as wearing a uniform at work.  In fact, the playing of the anthem has ZERO connection to football.   

 
Bronco Billy said:
It’s surprising that people live in a country like America and still completely not get it.  Their notion of “rights” is so wrong.

An employer is stating to an employee that a condition of employment is that you:  While on the company clock, while wearing a company uniform, and standing in the company workplace that you refrain from overtly expressing a polarizing personal political stance that alienates and angers a substantial portion of our clientele.

It is that simple, and it is that reasonable, and it has absolutely nothing in common with the hypotheticals that you listed, some of which ridiculously presuppose that an employer can require employees to violate the law or that the employer can willfully violate Federal labor laws.  

And no, no one is demanding that he give up his stance on racism.  How far do you have to leap to manage to land at that conclusion?  You might try expressing your position a bit better by not resorting to wildly disconnected hyperbole.
Click to expand...
The one thing that you are missing out is the NFLPA have a CBO with the league. The players are not at-will employees. The CBO does not ban kneeling in protest, there is not past precedent against it, etc. I am sure it will be negotiated when this contract is up, as of now, the players do have the right to kneel. 

 
daveR said:
Taking part in a ceremony to "honor" a situation he feels DISHONORS a large percentage of people he identifies with is NOT the same as wearing a uniform at work.  In fact, the playing of the anthem has ZERO connection to football.   
Click to expand...


And if it were your business, you could make that determination.  But it isn’t, so you can’t.  That is up to the NFL and to each club, and they have decided otherwise.  That is their right to do so, so long as the are not breaking any laws or violating labor agreements.  Just because you feel something should be so in your opinion, it does not bind any other party to comply with that opinion.  Thankfully.

 
Ilov80s said:
The one thing that you are missing out is the NFLPA have a CBO with the league. The players are not at-will employees. The CBO does not ban kneeling in protest, there is not past precedent against it, etc. I am sure it will be negotiated when this contract is up, as of now, the players do have the right to kneel. 
Click to expand...


And the clubs have the right to establish conduct, so long as it does not violate the agreement, and they are the deteriminant of whom they will and will not employ.  Why is it that you guys think that agreements only work in one direction?  As I stated earlier, that mentality is so odd for anyone who lives in this country.  Schools need to start teaching civics again, it seems that there is a serious need.

 
The other item missing is CK  is not employed right now.  So the clubs can inquire all manners of things to a prospective employee.  Once they are hired, they will then fall under another level of the CBA and have the potential ability to file grievances.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
daveR said:
If the rules of a workplace demand that you become a distributor of child porn, would you comply?  Why not?  If you were Jewish & the corporation demanded that all employees become Hindu?  If you were a pacifist and they required that you enlist?  What if they required that you leave your family?

In this case, they are demanding that he give up his stance on racism.  For me, that is selling one's soul -- giving up on something vitally important for a job.  
Click to expand...
I was absent from these boards and I think bronco billy helped sum up why your post was out there and does not relate. However, they aren’t asking him to give up his stance on racism or become racist. They are asking him to not kneel while in their uniform for their team. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
smbkrypt24 said:
I was absent from these boards and I think bronco billy helped sum up why your post was out there and does not relate. However, they aren’t asking him to give up his stance on racism or become racist. They are asking him to not kneel while in their uniform for their team. 
Click to expand...
Agree, the child porn analogy is asking one to commit a crime, which is a bad example. This is far simpler: The NFL is an entertainment league. If Brad Pitt insisted on running his own personal 60 second protest of some sort before any movie he's a lead actor in, movie producers would have every right to elect not to give him parts in movies. Right or wrong, they are inextricably associated with the message, and it detracts from what they want to deliver. If movie companies do not want to give a lead to Mel Gibson because of controversies he's had, they should not have to give him roles. If a concert tour does not want to include Dixie Chicks because of political statements/controversy, that's their right. It's a free market, and anyone in entertainment has a right to care about how paying customers and sponsors might react to controversial conduct. Kaepernick can live by whatever conduct he wants, he just can't expect employers in an entertainment industry to tolerate it.

Strictly on NFL, NFL teams should have absolute discretion to avoid introducing players who might impede focus on actual football. Being an NFL player is not a right. History is littered with guys who have the physical talent to be on a team but are passed on by NFL teams because they don't want to add a toxic element to the team.

 
hunter1 said:
Just wanted to pop back in to say I agree with your objection to the rest of this crap.  Totally unnecessary and dilutes his message.  
Click to expand...
It's why a lot of people are wondering if it's genuine. His GF is BLM leader in the SF area as well so some people believe she's using her causes on Kapernick and using him as a stepping stone as well as him financially. She also likes banging athletes from what I've heard. She was dating Aldon Smith who found out she was seeing CK which speculation led to the fight that happened with him and Kapernick which was over her. Some have speculated Smith wasn't released do to off the field problems because as good as Aldon Smith was at the time you just don't release a guy like him. Do to reports of players and other people not liking how ownership and FO have handled CK (Most of it do to babying the guy) some have speculated Smith was released to protect Kapernick. Either way some of Ck's off the field decisions dilutes his message. He's basically doing what the rich politicians want him to. Do unnecessary crap that keeps diving our country. It's like the blacks who say Whites can't be a part of fighting oppression or racism. There was a female wrestler who was being insulted on social media called a monkey and other racially charged tweets yesterday so a podcaster I listen to tweeted her as she had tweeted a pic of the guy insulting her plus his tweets) saying she's better then that and don't give him attention. Some of her Black fans went on a rampage insulting the guy telling her not to give the guy attention. Saying things like "They" meaning whites want to be a part of stuff just to be included etc etc. Its what these politicians want them to do. Keep dividing people. I see no reason why Whites/Blacks/Hispanics/Asians/Native Americans/etc all can't help stop fight these things together. Point is people like Kapernick and his GF their messages get diluted and buried when they do this sort of dividing. It's what led people to call CK a hypocrite as well. If it wasn't for the off field BS he and his GF have done I'd probably be more in favor of supporting the dude but given what I've read about the guy he doesn't seem like a great teammate at all. Seems more into it being all about him. 

 
seahawk 17 said:
My employer has certain expectations of me that I don't agree with. I want to work so I comply.
Click to expand...
I agree however the NFL CBA has no mention that players can't kneel. I think the NFL issue with the dude is he doesn't seem like a great teammate at all from what I've read about him well before this whole kneeling nonsense and two he's a terrible player. He's just another athlete pretending to be a QB who was exposed after that gimmick college BS Read Option was learned how to be defended in the NFL. He had a great defense and run game as well. Once SF started losing talent he was getting greatly exposed to his weaknesses. When a dam NFL team pulls their outside DB's inside and basically dares you blatantly to throw to a WR because you don't respect his passing abilities I think that should concern any NFL GM and the simple fact he didn't change the play and throw a screen or something to a guy that Wide open shows his lack of on field awareness. It's pretty simple. The guy causes a distraction in and out of the locker room and his playing ability isn't there plus he wants to be paid as a starter and start. I think it's pretty simple GM's don't want that kind of guy on their teams. If CK is willing to continue his playing career he can go to the XFL or another semi pro league or go to Canada. There's options for him to play. Though he might not like XFL's no kneeling rules which I heard will be included in the rules. 

 
BigJim® said:
Agree, the child porn analogy is asking one to commit a crime, which is a bad example. This is far simpler: The NFL is an entertainment league. If Brad Pitt insisted on running his own personal 60 second protest of some sort before any movie he's a lead actor in, movie producers would have every right to elect not to give him parts in movies. Right or wrong, they are inextricably associated with the message, and it detracts from what they want to deliver. If movie companies do not want to give a lead to Mel Gibson because of controversies he's had, they should not have to give him roles. If a concert tour does not want to include Dixie Chicks because of political statements/controversy, that's their right. It's a free market, and anyone in entertainment has a right to care about how paying customers and sponsors might react to controversial conduct. Kaepernick can live by whatever conduct he wants, he just can't expect employers in an entertainment industry to tolerate it.

Strictly on NFL, NFL teams should have absolute discretion to avoid introducing players who might impede focus on actual football. Being an NFL player is not a right. History is littered with guys who have the physical talent to be on a team but are passed on by NFL teams because they don't want to add a toxic element to the team.
Click to expand...
I also love the analogy people use that teams signed Vick after his crimes. I'm by no means a Vick fan or supporter (Think he might be one of the most overrated QB's in the last decade or 2) and nor did I think he should've had a chance in the NFL again. I'm happy he changed as a person and found new reform. The dude did his time and if teams thought he could contribute to the team in someway then fine. my Eagles decided that was the case with him and took it. However Vick at the time of his issues WAS RELEASED BY ATL AND SERVED HIS TIME. For people who also defend prison reform and people of race going to jail and sentenced longer then others this seems to contradict them in all ways this argument. Also going on past NFL domestic issues really? The NFL is changed. You saw that with Rice and Hardy. I suspect Foster to be cut before the end of the weekend by SF right now. Josh Brown was suspended after what happened with him as well and people got involved. 

 
Bronco Billy said:
And the clubs have the right to establish conduct, so long as it does not violate the agreement, and they are the deteriminant of whom they will and will not employ.  Why is it that you guys think that agreements only work in one direction?  As I stated earlier, that mentality is so odd for anyone who lives in this country.  Schools need to start teaching civics again, it seems that there is a serious need.
Click to expand...
Ironically, one could argue that the kneeling protest is a perfect example of civics at work...individual citizens taking responsibility for actively shaping their government and society.

In this case employer / labor relations in the NFL and potentially spreading more broadly into government and other industries.

Seems most major change starts at the fringe and can appear messy and extremely one-directional in the short term.

 
DJackson10 said:
I also love the analogy people use that teams signed Vick after his crimes. I'm by no means a Vick fan or supporter (Think he might be one of the most overrated QB's in the last decade or 2) and nor did I think he should've had a chance in the NFL again. I'm happy he changed as a person and found new reform. The dude did his time and if teams thought he could contribute to the team in someway then fine. my Eagles decided that was the case with him and took it. However Vick at the time of his issues WAS RELEASED BY ATL AND SERVED HIS TIME. For people who also defend prison reform and people of race going to jail and sentenced longer then others this seems to contradict them in all ways this argument. Also going on past NFL domestic issues really? The NFL is changed. You saw that with Rice and Hardy. I suspect Foster to be cut before the end of the weekend by SF right now. Josh Brown was suspended after what happened with him as well and people got involved. 
Click to expand...
I agree, but would add I don't even think personnel discretion should be tied to criminal conduct. This is a football league. If a guy wants to protest 2nd amendment, abortion, whatever as an aspect of being an NFL player on an NFL sideline, he can't expect teams to embroil themselves in divisive controversy. The sad thing is, my sense is about 90% of the population agrees with Kaepernick that we have work to do on equality, profiling, police abuses. It's a righteous cause, that unfortunately he's chosen to call attention to in a manner which inflames half his supporters. Personally, I put Kaepernick in my ignore pile when I found out he didn't even use his right to vote during the last election. Why should I give a rats behind about a guy who creates a political firestorm while opting out of the most basic right of individual political expression?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bronco Billy said:
And if it were your business, you could make that determination.  But it isn’t, so you can’t.  That is up to the NFL and to each club, and they have decided otherwise.  That is their right to do so, so long as the are not breaking any laws or violating labor agreements.  Just because you feel something should be so in your opinion, it does not bind any other party to comply with that opinion.  Thankfully.
Click to expand...
Outside of the CBO, the NFL has official guidelines. They say players must be on the sidelines during the anthem which is played before every game and that players SHOULD stand for the anthem. The league does not say they MUST. The NFL could have changed this, but they did not change it. They continued to say standing is encouraged but not required. The league has repeatedly said players have the right to protest. This means the league has to protect that right which means making sure hiring/firing decsions are not based on whether someone has or will protest. 

Ksquared said:
The other item missing is CK  is not employed right now.  So the clubs can inquire all manners of things to a prospective employee.  Once they are hired, they will then fall under another level of the CBA and have the potential ability to file grievances.
Click to expand...
This is not entirely true. See above

 
That does not refute what I said.  The individual clubs that do want players to stand may not be able to stop it once they are under the CBA.  But CK is not under the CBA yet...he is not an employee of an NFL team.  Of course he could just lie and say he would stand, sign a contract and then give the ownership the finger and kneel.  But that is a different issue.  I see it as ownership trying to deal with the issue before he would have possible CBA protection.

 
Ilov80s said:
Outside of the CBO, the NFL has official guidelines. They say players must be on the sidelines during the anthem which is played before every game and that players SHOULD stand for the anthem. The league does not say they MUST. The NFL could have changed this, but they did not change it. They continued to say standing is encouraged but not required. The league has repeatedly said players have the right to protest. This means the league has to protect that right which means making sure hiring/firing decsions are not based on whether someone has or will protest. 
Click to expand...


Having the right to protest is having protection from the government to be allowed to protest.  That does not mean that a company is forced to allow an employee on the clock, in their uniform, and in the workplace to do so.  In fact, the company can forbid those acts under those circumstances and provided that the action does not violate a labor agreement that it can be a condition of employment.  Unless the league expressly forbids its members (the teams) to take or not take action, the teams are free to set their employment requirements as they see fit.  Damn, this just isn’t that difficult to comprehend.

.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The league needs to lock something down whatever it is......because the next on field protest may be about guns, abortion, cloning, gay marriage,.....pick your topic. I mean they ban every other individual act, like decals supporting Pat Tillman, etc. Is this tolerance for Kap kneeling different from the NFL because it involves race and they just don't want to go there?

Bottom line....no consumer of the NFL product is tuning in to see individual activists advocate for their own personal causes at kickoff.

 
Bronco Billy said:
Having the right to protest is having protection from the government to be allowed to protest.  That does not mean that a company is forced to allow an employee on the clock, in their uniform, and in the workplace to do so.  In fact, the company can forbid those acts under those circumstances and provided that the action does not violate a labor agreement that it can be a condition of employment.  Unless the league expressly forbids its members (the teams) to take or not take action, the teams are free to set their employment requirements as they see fit.  Damn, this just isn’t that difficult to comprehend.

.
Click to expand...
The NFL protected the right to protest

 
Ilov80s said:
The NFL protected the right to protest
Click to expand...


*sigh*

Do you understand that not allowing players to protest on the job at the work place is completely divorced from supporting the players’ right to protest?  The right is attached to protection from the government to protest in public venues.  A team can both not allow player protests at games and support their right to protest in this country simultaneously and not be in conflict.

And your source is a tweet from the NFLPA no less.  Really?

.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bronco Billy said:
*sigh*

Do you understand that not allowing players to protest on the job at the work place is completely divorced from supporting the players’ right to protest?  The right is attached to protection from the government to protest in public venues.  A team can both not allow player protests at games and support their right to protest in this country simultaneously and not be in conflict.

And your source is a tweet from the NFLPA no less.  Really?

.
Click to expand...
The tweet was in regards to the changed stance Dolphins and Texans ownership have made regarding players kneeling. The protest they are referring to is kneeling. Here is the story on the Dolphins owner allowing players to kneel. Did Goodell or any of the owners come out and say the NFLPA was wrong or lying about the statement?

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/03/06/stephen-ross-says-his-comments-were-misconstrued/

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ilov80s said:
The tweet was in regards to the changed stance Dolphins and Texans ownership have made regarding players kneeling. The protest they are referring to is kneeling. Here is the story on the Dolphins owner allowing players to kneel. Did Goodell or any of the owners come out and say the NFLPA was wrong or lying about the statement?

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/03/06/stephen-ross-says-his-comments-were-misconstrued/
Click to expand...


So if I post that you said something, unless you specifically deny that you said it that means it’s true?  Is that how it works?

 
daveR said:
If the rules of a workplace demand that you become a distributor of child porn, would you comply?  Why not?  If you were Jewish & the corporation demanded that all employees become Hindu?  If you were a pacifist and they required that you enlist?  What if they required that you leave your family?

In this case, they are demanding that he give up his stance on racism.  
Click to expand...
No. No they're not

 
Bronco Billy said:
So if I post that you said something, unless you specifically deny that you said it that means it’s true?  Is that how it works?
Click to expand...
Its the NFLPA and the Commissioner of the League. I am pretty sure they would issue a statement if they thought the other was lying about an agreement. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
The Official Katie Porter (HOR/D-CA45) And Her "Whiteboard Of Justice" Appreciation Thread (10/24/22 17:34 PST)
Replies
2
Views
309
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
Mike Rowe Evaluates America's Workforce: "Your Choice Isn’t College Or Oblivion" ( 7/16/22 18:28 PST )
Replies
5
Views
491
bcat01
B
GordonGekko
Newsweek: "Democrats Have Forgotten The Working Class. It Will Cost Them" (7/14/22 14:39 PST)
Replies
19
Views
922
GordonGekko
GordonGekko

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 7 (members: 0, guests: 7)
Top