Kaepernick's Grievance

[dismal]

Let's suppose the following fact set:

1) 3 owners were exicited to sign Kaepernick on Monday
2) Trumps said mean things about protestors on Tuesday
3) Those 3 owners said "oh, crap I don't want to lose my golf date at Mira Lago" and cancelled Kaepernick's tryout on Wednesday.

OK Perry Mason.

if you think Kaepernicks lawyers are as dull as you you will be surprised by every word from their mouths.

Heh. Lawyers are paid to advocate on behalf of their clients. I independently have the ability to read their brief and note it has no mention of evidence supporting collusion.

If you disagree here's what you can do: point out the evidence that supports collusion. You guys seem to be struggling on that front.

 

[Malintent]

Look at all the collusion in this thread... all these people talking.. about the SAME THING.. at the SAME TIME. HORROR!

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

Look at all the collusion in this thread... all these people talking.. about the SAME THING.. at the SAME TIME. HORROR!

When I think of the millions of people who colluded to perform the irrational act of voting for the current SCROTUS, I'd like to sue all of them.

 

[untermensche]

OK Perry Mason.

if you think Kaepernicks lawyers are as dull as you you will be surprised by every word from their mouths.

Heh. Lawyers are paid to advocate on behalf of their clients. I independently have the ability to read their brief and note it has no mention of evidence supporting collusion.

If you disagree here's what you can do: point out the evidence that supports collusion. You guys seem to be struggling on that front.

Truths do not rest on your ability to see them or judge them.

We will see if what you say is true or if it is nonsense.

How Kaepernick's lawyers will argue this has yet to be seen.

I have no idea what evidence they will present.

 

[dismal]

I have no idea what evidence they will present.

Nor do I. Because their brief doesn't mention any.

 

[coloradoatheist]

I have no idea what evidence they will present.

Nor do I. Because their brief doesn't mention any.

Maybe they are hoping for a Perry Mason and having someone break down on the stand.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

Nor do I. Because their brief doesn't mention any.

Maybe they are hoping for a Perry Mason and having someone break down on the stand.

My money's on the owner of the Browns losing it over the strawberry incident.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Maybe they are hoping for a Perry Mason and having someone break down on the stand.

My money's on the owner of the Browns losing it over the strawberry incident.

Or maybe we know Kapernick didn't do it because he wouldn't be in a shower after getting his perm done that day. Oh wait, that was Legally Blonde

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Maybe they are hoping for a Perry Mason and having someone break down on the stand.

My money's on the owner of the Browns losing it over the strawberry incident.

Maybe if the other owners supported him after that meeting instead of conspiring against him...

...oh the shame!

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

People still seem to be focusing on expressed agreement but the contract says both expressed and implied agreement are problems. Likewise, Kaepernick's grievance is being over-simplified a second time by not considering implied agreement (or collusion) in game theory such as Prisoner's Dilemma. When I have some time, I will try to write out concretely such analogy so one can consider how collective decisions and implied agreements could be factors in the odd NFL owner behaviors. But for now I don't think it is necessary, I think those who are over-simplifying collusion can still respond to the issue of Prisoner's Dilemma analogy at a high level.

 

[dismal]

People still seem to be focusing on expressed agreement but the contract says both expressed and implied agreement are problems. Likewise, Kaepernick's grievance is being over-simplified a second time by not considering implied agreement (or collusion) in game theory such as Prisoner's Dilemma. When I have some time, I will try to write out concretely such analogy so one can consider how collective decisions and implied agreements could be factors in the odd NFL owner behaviors. But for now I don't think it is necessary, I think those who are over-simplifying collusion can still respond to the issue of Prisoner's Dilemma analogy at a high level.

There is no collusion in the Prisoner's Dilemma. They are kept separate.

Collusion requires colluding. If people independently decide something there is no collusion.

 

[laughing dog]

In labor arbitration cases, it is up to the grieving party to make its case. Without knowing what facts or evidence Kaepernick or the NFL player's union has on hand, it is a pure guessing game on the actual outcome.

 

[blastula]

People still seem to be focusing on expressed agreement but the contract says both expressed and implied agreement are problems. Likewise, Kaepernick's grievance is being over-simplified a second time by not considering implied agreement (or collusion) in game theory such as Prisoner's Dilemma. When I have some time, I will try to write out concretely such analogy so one can consider how collective decisions and implied agreements could be factors in the odd NFL owner behaviors. But for now I don't think it is necessary, I think those who are over-simplifying collusion can still respond to the issue of Prisoner's Dilemma analogy at a high level.

I take "implied" to still require some evidence of communication that would imply collusion and not simply independent opinion. Coming to the same conclusion (to not hire someone) is not the same as entering an agreement, expressly or implicitly, to not hire someone. Otherwise, anytime some player is cut and never plays again, you could say it was an act of collusion because they all concluded (or "agreed") they would not hire that person.

 

[dismal]

People still seem to be focusing on expressed agreement but the contract says both expressed and implied agreement are problems. Likewise, Kaepernick's grievance is being over-simplified a second time by not considering implied agreement (or collusion) in game theory such as Prisoner's Dilemma. When I have some time, I will try to write out concretely such analogy so one can consider how collective decisions and implied agreements could be factors in the odd NFL owner behaviors. But for now I don't think it is necessary, I think those who are over-simplifying collusion can still respond to the issue of Prisoner's Dilemma analogy at a high level.

I take "implied" to still require some evidence of communication that would imply collusion. Coming to the same conclusion (to not hire someone) is not the same as entering an agreement, expressly or implicitly, to not hire someone. Otherwise, anytime some player is cut and never plays again, you could say it was an act of collusion because they all concluded (or "agreed") they would not hire that person.

In this case "implied" has an established legal meaning. There are two kinds of contracts, express and implied. Express is written, Implied is inferred by parties conducting themselves according to an agreement.

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-is-implied-contract.html

 

[ZiprHead]

The owners of Respondent NFL Teams have been quoted describing their communications with President Trump, who has been an organizing force in the collusion among team owners in their conduct towards Mr. Kaepernick and other NFL players. Owners have described the Trump Administration as causing paradigm shifts in their views toward NFL players.

Does this lead back to Loren's thread about Trump violating the laws against interfering interfering in business decision?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

People still seem to be focusing on expressed agreement but the contract says both expressed and implied agreement are problems. Likewise, Kaepernick's grievance is being over-simplified a second time by not considering implied agreement (or collusion) in game theory such as Prisoner's Dilemma. When I have some time, I will try to write out concretely such analogy so one can consider how collective decisions and implied agreements could be factors in the odd NFL owner behaviors. But for now I don't think it is necessary, I think those who are over-simplifying collusion can still respond to the issue of Prisoner's Dilemma analogy at a high level.

I take "implied" to still require some evidence of communication that would imply collusion and not simply independent opinion.

Here is an example of collusion without explicit agreement to collude:

Tacit collusion occurs where firms undergo actions that are likely to minimize a response from another firm, e.g. avoiding the opportunity to price cut an opposition. Put another way, two firms agree to play a certain strategy without explicitly saying so. Oligopolists usually try not to engage in price cutting, excessive advertising or other forms of competition. Thus, there may be unwritten rules of collusive behavior such as price leadership (tacit collusion). A price leader will then emerge and it sets the general industry price, with other firms following suit. For example, see the case of British Salt Limited and New Cheshire Salt Works Limited.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacit_collusion

While this is a different type of collusion, the principle that explicit communication of intent to collude is not necessary remains the same.

Coming to the same conclusion (to not hire someone) is not the same as entering an agreement, expressly or implicitly, to not hire someone. Otherwise, anytime some player is cut and never plays again, you could say it was an act of collusion because they all concluded (or "agreed") they would not hire that person.

This is a distinction that Kaepernick's team is going to have to present some evidence for or make a logical argument for, one being more likely than the other.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The agreement says you can use those in combination with other facts.



Yes, there like 12 more bullets in there. Did you not read it?

Except for one claim, all of them were Kapernick is good, he should be playing. They made claims that several coaches wanted to make offers but withdrew them without explanation. So maybe they have emails or have some proof that he met with coaches and owners and they withdrew support.

So? Coaches like him as a player. Owners don't like him as PR. It's the general penalty for embarrassing the boss.

 

[dismal]

While this is a different type of collusion, the principle that explicit communication of intent to collude is not necessary remains the same.

Hmm, well, in this case for the document to be breached there must be an agreement.

No Club, its employees or agents shall enter into any agreement, express
or implied, with the NFL or any other Club, its employees or agents to restrict or limit
individual Club decision-making as follows:

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Hmm, well, in this case for the document to be breached there must be an agreement.

No Club, its employees or agents shall enter into any agreement, express
or implied, with the NFL or any other Club, its employees or agents to restrict or limit
individual Club decision-making as follows:

The word "implied" is in there.

Does tacit collusion have implied agreement?

If the NFL owners all decided to follow a rule that did not yet exist formally but to be declared in the future (the rule to reject kneeling by players and/or not hire such persons who would do that), would that constitute an implied agreement among the owners and the NFL and therefore satisfy the definition of tacit collusion?

Maybe not?

I don't know about you, but in work if I am instituting a major change to something I normally have some discussion or other communication with stakeholders.

The proposed rule on Oct 10th isn't something that just happened arbitrarily out of the blue and so therefore it means there were likely communications prior to the proposal between NFL, employees, agents, club owners, etc advocating restricting behaviors of players, the most well-known such player being Kaepernick. The logical inference of such pre-proposal communication between NFL, agents, employees, and/or owners would be that such person ought not be hired.

In a civil matter for arbitration, what gaps are remaining? Are there remaining logical gaps? Does evidence of communication about the change need to be presented? Or is the likely inference enough?

 

[dismal]

Hmm, well, in this case for the document to be breached there must be an agreement.

The word "implied" is in there.

Does tacit collusion have implied agreement?

If the NFL owners all decided to follow a rule that did not yet exist formally but to be declared in the future (the rule to reject kneeling by players and/or not hire such persons who would do that), would that constitute an implied agreement among the owners and the NFL and therefore satisfy the definition of tacit collusion?

Maybe not?

I don't know about you, but in work if I am instituting a major change to something I normally have some discussion or other communication with stakeholders.

The proposed rule on Oct 10th isn't something that just happened arbitrarily out of the blue and so therefore it means there were likely communications prior to the proposal between NFL, employees, agents, club owners, etc advocating restricting behaviors of players, the most well-known such player being Kaepernick. The logical inference of such pre-proposal communication between NFL, agents, employees, and/or owners would be that such person ought not be hired.

In a civil matter for arbitration, what gaps are remaining? Are there remaining logical gaps? Does evidence of communication about the change need to be presented? Or is the likely inference enough?

As mentioned previously, "implied contract" has specific legal meaning.

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-is-implied-contract.html

https://fcw.com/Articles/1998/11/15/What-are-implied-contracts.aspx?Page=1

The burden of proof is on you. Show the elements of an implied contract exist.