Kaepernick's Grievance

[ronburgundy]

That isn't really an alternative. That means that NFL thought that despite their million to 1 advantage in the depth of their legal team and the incredibly high (almost impossible to prove) bar for a collusion convictions, they knew that there was enough evidence against them that they might lose, evidence that would only exist if they did in fact collude, and evidence that would severely harm their brand if made public.

When you state your religious beliefs it's customary to finish with an "amen".

I stated a detailed reasoned fact-based argument which strongly supports the plausibility of my inferences. Meanwhile you have had zero response other than to claim that there is a massive conspiracy among all NFL analysts who are rabid liberals making up the stats that show Kaepernick was an objectively better QB than many starters and most backups in the league.

 

[James Madison]

A bullshit excuse refuted by the NFL's proven track record of not being willing to settle legal cases, including the most frivolous cases imaginable (deflategate) that they fought for years and spent tens of millions and didn't spend triple that only b/c Brady chose not to appeal. Plus, the NFL had already spent almost 2 years and millions fighting this case and only settled once it came time for the information to go public.

Not to mention, the extremely dangerous precedent that the NFL just set for itself by settling a case such as this. There is now a precedent to encourage very player that winds up not getting signed one year to sue and get a payday. There is no way in hell the NFL would set that precedent if they didn't know that it was still better for them than allowing the public to hear the depositions of the owners and the facts of this case.

It is beyond any reasonable doubt that this settlement was hush money to suppress public knowledge of the damning facts that they knew would come out.

And more generally, this is the reason why most big corporations settle before trial. Settlements of truly baseless cases set precedents that cost the company more in the long run than it would to go to trial and soundly and quickly win the case (which should be easy in any actual frivolous case) to discourage future suits. Companies settle when it is NOT frivolous and there is enough evidence against them to either risk losing or at least to damage them PR wise. That is especially true if the case is already international front page news before the settlement, because then the settlement serves no purpose to keep the public from even being aware of the case and can only serve to keep the public ignorant of the facts that are clearly worse than settling and making obvious they are hiding something.

You are missing another alternative. Both sides viewed a potential trial as a toss up. Kaepernick may have wanted to extract some guaranteed financial concessions as opposed to potentially losing a toss up and receiving no financial compensation. The NFL may have wanted to settle for a lesser amount that Kaepernick would accept as opposed to proceeding to trial, losing, and paying more.

Also, why wouldn't they have just settled 18 months ago before they already spent millions and got tons of bad press. The timing of it coming right before the owners and GMs were going to be deposed is not coincidence, and favors that they were not merely afraid of losing but afraid of the even worse impact of what those depositions would do to their brand.

That isn't really an alternative. That means that NFL thought that despite their million to 1 advantage in the depth of their legal team and the incredibly high (almost impossible to prove) bar for a collusion convictions, they knew that there was enough evidence against them that they might lose, evidence that would only exist if they did in fact collude, and evidence that would severely harm their brand if made public.

Well, their "million to 1 advantage in the depth of their legal team" is a fact you have made up. Kaepernick's burden of proof is low, a mere preponderance of the evidence standard, in other words, Kaepernick has proven it is 51% likely the NFL colluded.

The toss up alternative is a viable possibility.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

but that would be 51% at least on each element necessary to prove collusion. Ergo, collusion is a reasonable conclusion and no collusion would be unreasonable...

 

[dismal]

That isn't really an alternative. That means that NFL thought that despite their million to 1 advantage in the depth of their legal team and the incredibly high (almost impossible to prove) bar for a collusion convictions, they knew that there was enough evidence against them that they might lose, evidence that would only exist if they did in fact collude, and evidence that would severely harm their brand if made public.

When you state your religious beliefs it's customary to finish with an "amen".

I stated a detailed reasoned fact-based argument which strongly supports the plausibility of my inferences. Meanwhile you have had zero response other than to claim that there is a massive conspiracy among all NFL analysts who are rabid liberals making up the stats that show Kaepernick was an objectively better QB than many starters and most backups in the league.

Fact based? Please enter into the discussion any evidence you have that the NFL colluded not so sign Kaepernick. That would be a relevant fact.

What you seem to have is not "facts" but a remarkable faith based belief that 32 the NFL owners in conjunction with all the team's player personnel departments were able to maintain a secret conspiracy to blackball Kaepernick for years while simultaneously believing the details of the lawsuit settlement leaked out within a day.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

I stated a detailed reasoned fact-based argument which strongly supports the plausibility of my inferences. Meanwhile you have had zero response other than to claim that there is a massive conspiracy among all NFL analysts who are rabid liberals making up the stats that show Kaepernick was an objectively better QB than many starters and most backups in the league.

Fact based? Please enter into the discussion any evidence you have that the NFL colluded not so sign Kaepernick. That would be a relevant fact.

What you seem to have is not "facts" but a remarkable faith based belief that 32 the NFL owners in conjunction with all the team's player personnel departments were able to maintain a secret conspiracy to blackball Kaepernick for years while simultaneously believing the details of the lawsuit settlement leaked out within a day.

And what you have is the idiotic belief that he had to prove that all 32 teams colluded, and the belief that each of the 32 the personnel departments had to know why their owner didn't want them to sign him.

All it would take would be for a few intellectually challenged owners (I can name quite a few) to swap text messages about not hiring him. He could probably even prove his case if he had signed a contract, since collusion would likely have reduced his bargaining power.

 

[dismal]

I stated a detailed reasoned fact-based argument which strongly supports the plausibility of my inferences. Meanwhile you have had zero response other than to claim that there is a massive conspiracy among all NFL analysts who are rabid liberals making up the stats that show Kaepernick was an objectively better QB than many starters and most backups in the league.

Fact based? Please enter into the discussion any evidence you have that the NFL colluded not so sign Kaepernick. That would be a relevant fact.

What you seem to have is not "facts" but a remarkable faith based belief that 32 the NFL owners in conjunction with all the team's player personnel departments were able to maintain a secret conspiracy to blackball Kaepernick for years while simultaneously believing the details of the lawsuit settlement leaked out within a day.

And what you have is the idiotic belief that he had to prove that all 32 teams colluded, and the belief that each of the 32 the personnel departments had to know why their owner didn't want them to sign him.

All it would take would be for a few intellectually challenged owners (I can name quite a few) to swap text messages about not hiring him. He could probably even prove his case if he had signed a contract, since collusion would likely have reduced his bargaining power.

Evidence please.

Evidence 32 owners conspired with each other. Evidence all 32 owners told their player personnel department not to sign Kaepernick. That's a lot of potential evidence spread among a lot of people that would have to be out there for the conspiracy to be true.

So, what have you got?

 

[James Madison]

but that would be 51% at least on each element necessary to prove collusion. Ergo, collusion is a reasonable conclusion and no collusion would be unreasonable...

I didn’t say there was sufficient evidence for each element. You are assuming the existence of facts sufficient to meet each element. It’s unknown whether such facts exists.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

And what you have is the idiotic belief that he had to prove that all 32 teams colluded, and the belief that each of the 32 the personnel departments had to know why their owner didn't want them to sign him.

All it would take would be for a few intellectually challenged owners (I can name quite a few) to swap text messages about not hiring him. He could probably even prove his case if he had signed a contract, since collusion would likely have reduced his bargaining power.

Evidence please.

Evidence 32 owners conspired with each other. Evidence all 32 owners told their player personnel department not to sign Kaepernick. That's a lot of potential evidence spread among a lot of people that would have to be out there for the conspiracy to be true.

So, what have you got?

What I’ve got is that you can’t or won’t read. What you’re demanding isn’t necessary to prove collusion.

Are you going to repeat the same thing again?

 

[dismal]

And what you have is the idiotic belief that he had to prove that all 32 teams colluded, and the belief that each of the 32 the personnel departments had to know why their owner didn't want them to sign him.

All it would take would be for a few intellectually challenged owners (I can name quite a few) to swap text messages about not hiring him. He could probably even prove his case if he had signed a contract, since collusion would likely have reduced his bargaining power.

Evidence please.

Evidence 32 owners conspired with each other. Evidence all 32 owners told their player personnel department not to sign Kaepernick. That's a lot of potential evidence spread among a lot of people that would have to be out there for the conspiracy to be true.

So, what have you got?

What I’ve got is that you can’t or won’t read. What you’re demanding isn’t necessary to prove collusion.

Are you going to repeat the same thing again?

To prove collusion you need evidence of people colluding. There is none I have seen.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

What I’ve got is that you can’t or won’t read. What you’re demanding isn’t necessary to prove collusion.

Are you going to repeat the same thing again?

To prove collusion you need evidence of people colluding. There is none I have seen.

Of course you haven’t. Gag order + confidentiality agreement. You think they should make an exception for you?

 

[dismal]

What I’ve got is that you can’t or won’t read. What you’re demanding isn’t necessary to prove collusion.

Are you going to repeat the same thing again?

To prove collusion you need evidence of people colluding. There is none I have seen.

Of course you haven’t. Gag order + confidentiality agreement. You think they should make an exception for you?

As mentioned previously, it’s challenging to believe that the NFL owners colluded among each other, communicated this to their player personnel departments, who also presumably communicated this to any coach or coordinator who raised the idea of signing Kaepernick without any of it leaking out. Where is the parade of coaches saying they wanted to sign him but got told no? Like 15 coaches have been fired. Some of them are black. None of them has rattled out the conspiracy?

And yet despite the gag orders and confidentiality agreements that have silenced a conspiracy of at least a hundred people for years , we know how much money Kaepernick settled for in a day.

Hard to explain, that.

 

[untermensche]

Owners are absolute dictators in terms of hiring.

They can say no to any decision made by the head coach or general manager.

For collusion to occur all it takes is two owners talking to each other and making an agreement to not hire the commie kneeler.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

Owners are absolute dictators in terms of hiring.

They can say no to any decision made by the head coach or general manager.

For collusion to occur all it takes is two owners talking to each other and making an agreement to not hire the commie kneeler.

It’s obvious at this point that dismal is incapable of understanding this, or is just trolling.

 

[dismal]

Owners are absolute dictators in terms of hiring.

They can say no to any decision made by the head coach or general manager.

For collusion to occur all it takes is two owners talking to each other and making an agreement to not hire the commie kneeler.

It’s obvious at this point that dismal is incapable of understanding this, or is just trolling.

First, you should know you're in trouble when you've got Untermensche on your side.

Second, when owners tell general managers and coaches "don't sign this guy" it leaves a mark. There is some general manager or coach who is not in on the conspiracy who is now out there who can say "I wanted to sign Kaepernick but was told no by the owner". You have produced no evidence of this.

Third, even if you had produced evidence of this, it is not in itself evidence of collusion. Any one owner could independently decide he didn't want Kaepernick on his team for obvious reasons. To prove collusion, you must demonstrate people colluding.

Fourth, you have not done this. You have nothing but faith-based arguments.

 

[untermensche]

A bunch of hand waving nonsense.

You not only don't know shit about football you seem to have been born yesterday.

 

[dismal]

A bunch of hand waving nonsense.

You not only don't know shit about football you seem to have been born yesterday.

LOL @ "handwaving".

You: I believe X
Me: You have no evidence of X.
You: But I believe there's evidence.
Me: What evidence? You haven't produced any evidence. You haven't produced any evidence there's evidence. Belief without evidence is a religious belief.
You: ZMFOG stop HANDWAVING you don't know shit about Fotball!@!!!

 

[untermensche]

The millions Kaepernick was just awarded is called evidence.

Your childish claim is people just give millions away when they don't have to.

Laughable.

 

[dismal]

The millions Kaepernick was just awarded is called evidence.

Your childish claim is people just give millions away when they don't have to.

Laughable.

How do you know he was awarded millions? It’s a secret settlement.

My sources say he got a Dominos Pizza voucher.

 

[untermensche]

I believe you when you say that is what your sources say.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

My sources say he got a Dominos Pizza voucher.

You shouldn't trust PizzaGate sources.