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.

So how many millions is Kaepernick going to win in his case vs the NFL? (1 Viewer)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dinsy Ejotuz said:
I believe it takes exactly TWO teams/owners to prove the case.
Click to expand...
Very interesting.  Two owners doesn't prevent him from working for 30 other teams.  I wonder how two owners collude..."If you don't sign him I won't sign him"

If that's the case, any damages should be paid for by those two owners.

 
First off...while I don’t like to get political on an FF MB, ultimately, I respect Kaepernick’s decision (and other players) to protest during the anthem as Americans.  I don’t like it, wouldn’t be how I would bring attention to these topics/issues...but as an American citizen one has the right under the First Amendment to peaceably protest, even disrespectfully...but so long as it’s not violent.

At the same time, what Kaepernick started was an incredibly divisive debate...perhaps unintentionally, but still.  And he’s become the face of this multi-faceted outcome.  So much so, that Nike one of the premier companies in the world, has made him the face of their company.

NFL locker rooms though if I had to guess are microcosms of American society.  And I’m sure that there are players in every locker room that at a very deep level, strongly disagree with the anthem stance, perhaps even anonymously.  So bringing that element into a locker room, even if it’s not Kaepernick’s doing, presents the chance/opportunity for a lot of team chemistry issues that ultimately most coaches and organization have chosen not to test as they build out their rosters.

The downside of Kaepernick outweighs his upside...perhaps quite unfairly.  Now I don’t know ‘legal’ so I can’t comment on his chances to win.  But my own rationale would seem to indicate that he won’t.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I could really care less about if teams black balled Kaepernick. They are black balling a back qb and he opted out of his contract. However the owners are stupid, they are billionaires. They could have made this go away easily by paying him to go away and it wouldn't have hurt their pockets one bit.

 
msudaisy26 said:
However the owners are stupid, they are billionaires. They could have made this go away easily by paying him to go away and it wouldn't have hurt their pockets one bit.
Click to expand...
How do we know this wasn't tried?

Regardless of how you feel about Kap's position, he seems adament about forwarding it.  Accepting money to go away and be quiet would hurt his image as a Social Justice activist.  He'd be viewed as a sell-out who put his own financial well being above the cause.

 
Didn't he supposedly turn down at least a couple of legitimate contract offers to be a backup QB in the last couple of years? If so, I would imagine there is some kind of internal email correspondence detailing this. I think that would be game over.

 
Al O'Pecia said:
How do we know this wasn't tried?

Regardless of how you feel about Kap's position, he seems adament about forwarding it.  Accepting money to go away and be quiet would hurt his image as a Social Justice activist.  He'd be viewed as a sell-out who put his own financial well being above the cause.
Click to expand...
You are right, it might have been tried, and I don't know how far Kap would be willing to push this. Everyone has their price and the owners could make this go away. With that money Kap could do so much more good then just protesting, but there could be a NDA attached to it.

 
TheDirtyWord said:
First off...while I don’t like to get political on an FF MB, ultimately, I respect Kaepernick’s decision (and other players) to protest during the anthem as Americans.  I don’t like it, wouldn’t be how I would bring attention to these topics/issues...but as an American citizen one has the right under the First Amendment to peaceably protest, even disrespectfully...but so long as it’s not violent.

At the same time, what Kaepernick started was an incredibly divisive debate...perhaps unintentionally, but still.  And he’s become the face of this multi-faceted outcome.  So much so, that Nike one of the premier companies in the world, has made him the face of their company.

NFL locker rooms though if I had to guess are microcosms of American society.  And I’m sure that there are players in every locker room that at a very deep level, strongly disagree with the anthem stance, perhaps even anonymously.  So bringing that element into a locker room, even if it’s not Kaepernick’s doing, presents the chance/opportunity for a lot of team chemistry issues that ultimately most coaches and organization have chosen not to test as they build out their rosters.

The downside of Kaepernick outweighs his upside...perhaps quite unfairly.  Now I don’t know ‘legal’ so I can’t comment on his chances to win.  But my own rationale would seem to indicate that he won’t.
Click to expand...
I agree!

Some teams agreed they would lock arms or not come out for the anthem. I'm sure this created inner turmoil for some who didn't agree with the decision but didn't want to rock the boat. All of these spin off protests seemed so disingenuous to me. How awkward did Jerry Jones look during the anthem when he locked arms with the players? 

Do people really think Nike is motivated by the issues? 

Do people really think that those who served our country are on Kap's side? They are just saying the right things...."We respect his right"..Do you really think they like seeing him disrespect the flag?

 
Manster said:
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.
Click to expand...
This is untrue on many levels.  Salty.

 
Capella said:
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. 
Click to expand...
This whole thing reeks of not taking responsibility of one's decision, then whining that it's not fair when said decision affects ones employment.

Thing is, now kaep is the new nike spokesman, so I'm sure he's doin ok money-wise.

Can't wait for the line of nikes for the liberal hipster!  Those people runnin nike are geniuses!

 
Cjw_55106 said:
The suit should’ve been thrown out. How can you opt out of a contract and then sue an entity for not employing you? He had a job and decided he no longer wanted it.
Click to expand...
Not true.  Management has already said that they were going to cut him.

 
matuski said:
Just 2 from what I have read.  2 teams/owners = collusion.
Click to expand...
I'm curious what collusion would look like in a case involving only two owners? 

An email from Owner 1 to Owner 2 that says, "No way that I'm signing that guy.  No way--at any price."  And Owner 2 replies, "Yeah, me either."  I would have to think that it would be something much more concrete than that?

 
seahawk 17 said:
He turned down a contract with Seattle last year. He has no leg to stand on.
Click to expand...
No proof or documentation he did that, that was a report from an anonymous source.

IIRC reports were that Seattle had some preliminary contacts with him, but the talks stalled after Kaep indicated he would continue his anthem protest - however no contract was actually offered.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Manster said:
Untrue how?  NFL owners assessed the risk/reward with kaep, and passed due to how polarizing he is......and he's never going to be a great pocket passer
Click to expand...
There's no evidence of him being a locker room cancer or dividing one to start.  You're just making stuff up.  I agree.....just salty.  Vick and McNabb were never good pocket passers.  No point being made there.

 
Mongidig said:
I agree!

Some teams agreed they would lock arms or not come out for the anthem. I'm sure this created inner turmoil for some who didn't agree with the decision but didn't want to rock the boat. All of these spin off protests seemed so disingenuous to me. How awkward did Jerry Jones look during the anthem when he locked arms with the players? 

Do people really think Nike is motivated by the issues? 

Do people really think that those who served our country are on Kap's side? They are just saying the right things...."We respect his right"..Do you really think they like seeing him disrespect the flag?
Click to expand...
Nike is and always be motivated by profits because as a public company, they are beholden to shareholders.

However, we are starting to see global buying behaviors influenced by political or religious stance.  And as such companies have a choice to make in some cases on which side of said issue they fall on.  And once that choice is made, they can’t do it (no pun intended) disingenuously.

 
pinequick said:
I'm curious what collusion would look like in a case involving only two owners? 

An email from Owner 1 to Owner 2 that says, "No way that I'm signing that guy.  No way--at any price."  And Owner 2 replies, "Yeah, me either."  I would have to think that it would be something much more concrete than that?
Click to expand...
Yes it would. It would have to go further than simply indicating that they wouldn't individually sign him. It would have to be shown, at a bare minimum, that they had an express or implied agreement to keep him out of the league (or at least on their teams) something along the lines of "This guy is poison to the league, let's not sign him. Agreed?" and the other party says "OK." And that, by itself, might not be enough to win his grievance claim.

 
I've already seen hipsters wearing nikes....prolly be standard gear now along with the Che shirt

 
TheDirtyWord said:
Nike is and always be motivated by profits because as a public company, they are beholden to shareholders.

However, we are starting to see global buying behaviors influenced by political or religious stance.  And as such companies have a choice to make in some cases on which side of said issue they fall on.  And once that choice is made, they can’t do it (no pun intended) disingenuously.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's mandatory for a company to choose sides on all issues. In this case, Nike saw an opportunity and is going with it. They could have simply stayed out of the debate.

 
TheDirtyWord said:
However, we are starting to see global buying behaviors influenced by political or religious stance.  And as such companies have a choice to make in some cases on which side of said issue they fall on.  And once that choice is made, they can’t do it (no pun intended) disingenuously.
Click to expand...
If companies are choosing which side of a political issue to align with based on global buying behaviors then aren't they taking that position somewhat disingenuously?

With that said, I agree that companies often do base the stances they take on social issues positions on global buying patterns and demographics.

 
SproutDaddy said:
Every sect of humans wear Nike.  You do know they're probably the most popular footwear, right?
Click to expand...
I would say not typical footwear of dudes with sleeve tats, facial piercings, and big ol spacers in his ears.....now, it makes a statement

 
Manster said:
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.....

Look, I get being a passionate about causes.....and I think Colin truly believes in what he's doing....and I do think he does some good.....I also think he's naive and lacks a bit of common sense.....his "approach" misses the mark for many, myself included....IMO, the liberal left is over playing all the "isms" to stir up people's emotions.....it's actually creating more of a divide....if people would stop listening to the media, and the narrative thats being pushed, and think for themselves, they'd realize that all these problems are not as bad as what's being portrayed....
Click to expand...
Ummmmm......you must be white. 

 
Shawnky said:
There's no evidence of him being a locker room cancer or dividing one to start.  You're just making stuff up.  I agree.....just salty.  Vick and McNabb were never good pocket passers.  No point being made there.
Click to expand...
You guys are kidding right?  There is no way all of the guys on a football team would agree with what kaep is doing......at a minimum this is a huge distraction that would bring a media circus with it.....why would ANY franchise want that headache for a guy who is not an elite talent?

This is what's wrong with our country.....someone makes a decision, doesn't like how the outcome affects them, then blames someone else!......and just FYI, I'm one who has criticized the NFL and Goodell on their handling of many issues in recent years.

 
Charlie Harper said:
Ummmmm......you must be white. 
Click to expand...
Yea, and I grew up with lots of non-whites.....

You guys need to think for yourselves.....the lefts identity politics are what's perpetuating all this......racism is never going to fully go away, but we live in a time where people in our country of all races/creeds/whatever, have more opportunity than ever before......stop buying into the negative narrative....focus on the positive.

 
To hell with any situation that makes me take sides with either Kaep or the Goodell led NFL owners.  Is there a scenario in which they can both lose as much as possible? 

Feels a lot like the choices in our last election. 

Rock and a hard place. 

 
Mongidig said:
I don't think it's mandatory for a company to choose sides on all issues. In this case, Nike saw an opportunity and is going with it. They could have simply stayed out of the debate.
Click to expand...
Oh, no doubt.  It’s not mandatory.  And there are certain, more brand recognizable industries, where the impact of doing so will be more impactful (i.e; Retail v Construction).

And I think Nike did the numbers and realized this was a winning formula.

Al O'Pecia said:
If companies are choosing which side of a political issue to align with based on global buying behaviors then aren't they taking that position somewhat disingenuously?

With that said, I agree that companies often do base the stances they take on social issues positions on global buying patterns and demographics.
Click to expand...
Not if they agree with it.  I can’t say this with 100% certainty, but I would think that executives at Nike (and likely the BOD) largely agree with Kaepernick - empathize with him.  They simply made their stance public.  Agreed though if you come back with this being opinion, not fact. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Judge Smails said:
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 
Click to expand...
That’s peanuts to the NFL. 

 
Manster said:
You guys are kidding right?  There is no way all of the guys on a football team would agree with what kaep is doing......at a minimum this is a huge distraction that would bring a media circus with it.....why would ANY franchise want that headache for a guy who is not an elite talent?

This is what's wrong with our country.....someone makes a decision, doesn't like how the outcome affects them, then blames someone else!......and just FYI, I'm one who has criticized the NFL and Goodell on their handling of many issues in recent years.
Click to expand...
I guess you missed how many NFL players have stood beside and followed Kaep's lead.

The rest of your post is wrong.  

What's wrong with our country is people are upset over a man-made tradition.  Not some law.  It's a fabricated mindset.  What's more upsetting is the nonsensical killing that's trying to be brought to your attention doesn't bother you.  Just white America being white America.

 
Shawnky said:
I guess you missed how many NFL players have stood beside and followed Kaep's lead.

The rest of your post is wrong.  

What's wrong with our country is people are upset over a man-made tradition.  Not some law.  It's a fabricated mindset.  What's more upsetting is the nonsensical killing that's trying to be brought to your attention doesn't bother you.  Just white America being white America.
Click to expand...
Perfect!  You just spewed forth why Americans are salty!  Identity politics!  You just don't get it!

 
SproutDaddy said:
Not true.  Management has already said that they were going to cut him.
Click to expand...
It is true.  He opted out. Nothing anyone can speculate on or what words were said matter. It doesn’t change the facts. The facts are he opted out of his contract. 

 
Shawnky said:
What's wrong with our country is people are upset over a man-made tradition.  Not some law.  It's a fabricated mindset.  What's more upsetting is the nonsensical killing that's trying to be brought to your attention doesn't bother you.  Just white America being white America.
Click to expand...
Honest question: If someone looked at all the nonsensical killing occurring in Chicago's South Side and said, "Just black America being black America", would you be cool with it?

If not, then why would you take the actions of some white people and negatively attribute it to "white America" on the whole?

 
Al O'Pecia said:
Honest question: If someone looked at all the nonsensical killing occurring in Chicago's South Side and said, "Just black America being black America", would you be cool with it?

If not, then why would you take the actions of some white people and negatively attribute it to "white America" on the whole?
Click to expand...
Because white america is the 99% upset with this.  I assume some blacks in the military would make up part of the other 1%, but I haven't seen it.  Every black person I know in the military, which is mainly composed of the people i went to high school with that made up over 70% of the school, have shown to fully support Colin.

 
I'm sayin one more thing then I'm out...

For any of this "movement" to work there will need to be an ALL inclusive dialog....the current undertone in our country is heading in a very negative direction.....it doesn't have to, but it is.

We need leaders who are not using terms like "white America"......this automatically offends, and makes people defensive.....it does no good.

People need to stop living in the past, and look towards the future.....If we keep talking about how our forfeathers owned slaves, and we keep trying to erase our history, we are destined to repeat it.....I think beyond a few very racist groups, most Americans want the same thing...

 
TheDirtyWord said:
First off...while I don’t like to get political on an FF MB, ultimately, I respect Kaepernick’s decision (and other players) to protest during the anthem as Americans.  I don’t like it, wouldn’t be how I would bring attention to these topics/issues...but as an American citizen one has the right under the First Amendment to peaceably protest, even disrespectfully...but so long as it’s not violent.

At the same time, what Kaepernick started was an incredibly divisive debate...perhaps unintentionally, but still.  And he’s become the face of this multi-faceted outcome.  So much so, that Nike one of the premier companies in the world, has made him the face of their company.

NFL locker rooms though if I had to guess are microcosms of American society.  And I’m sure that there are players in every locker room that at a very deep level, strongly disagree with the anthem stance, perhaps even anonymously.  So bringing that element into a locker room, even if it’s not Kaepernick’s doing, presents the chance/opportunity for a lot of team chemistry issues that ultimately most coaches and organization have chosen not to test as they build out their rosters.

The downside of Kaepernick outweighs his upside...perhaps quite unfairly.  Now I don’t know ‘legal’ so I can’t comment on his chances to win.  But my own rationale would seem to indicate that he won’t.
Click to expand...
None of this (that I actually agree with) address the question of collusion. If Kaep's legal team can show collusion, he wins. It really is as simple as that. As for damages, can be anything from 1$ to hundreds of millions

 
Shawnky said:
Because white america is the 99% upset with this.  
Click to expand...
Well, that bit of hyperbole is completely untrue. 

Sure white people make up the vast majority of those who oppose Kap's position, but there are plenty of Hispanics, Indians, and Asians who oppose how Kaepernick went about his protest.  Even some black NFL players opposed how he went about it.  Here's one, and here's another.

Your condemnation of white America on the whole might have made sense if 99% of white people were against Kap, but that's not what we see.  We see a sizable minority of whites siding with Kap in this forum and in America on the whole.

The way you frame your argument helps reinforce the division you presumably want to end.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Ministry of Pain
Atlanta Falcons Offense '24- WR/RB/TE/QB and the OL
Replies
3
Views
163
zamboni
zamboni
Ministry of Pain
What is your level of interest in the NFL when your FF season is over?
Replies
35
Views
707
Zeppelin
Z
creepythinman
True League Winners - Upgrading the Playoff Roster
Replies
25
Views
1K
creepythinman
creepythinman

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top