Kaepernick's Grievance

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Here is the official document for the grievance:
https://www.scribd.com/document/361...urce=impactradius&medium=affiliate#from_embed

What merit does it have? Personally, I think it has some merit in that it identifies behaviors of the owners/NFL.

What gaps does it have? Personally, it isn't clear to me that it adequately demonstrates owners cooperating with each other toward the goal of not hiring Kaepernick.

What things are yet to be determined? Lawyers might request some documents even if they cannot subpoena anything. What such documents may say are to be determined. Anything else?

Here are some interesting things I was unaware of:

NFL teams exhibited unusual and bizarre behavior regarding Mr. Kaepernick’s
prospective employment. Multiple NFL head coaches and general managers stated that they wanted to sign Mr. Kaepernick, only to mysteriously go silent with no explanation and no contract offer made to Mr. Kaepernick. Other NFL teams stated they had no interest in Mr. Kaepernick and refused to explain why. NFL teams who ran offensive systems favorable to
Mr. Kaepernick’s style of play instead employed retired quarterbacks or quarterbacks who
had not played in a regular season game in years, and signed them to significant contracts while prohibiting Mr. Kaepernick from even trying out or interviewing for those jobs.

However, such conduct by NFL owners proved to be a public relations stunt, designed to appear empathetic to players; in reality, NFL owners threatened players with fines and suspension if they refused to stand for the national anthem in the following weeks.

On or around October 10, 2017, NFL Commissioner Goodell announced a proposed NFL rule change requiring players to stand during the national anthem...

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.

NFL General Managers and team leaders have referred to directives from NFL owners to not let Mr. Kaepernick so much as practice with a team.

 

[dismal]

Here is the official document for the grievance:
https://www.scribd.com/document/361...urce=impactradius&medium=affiliate#from_embed

What merit does it have? Personally, I think it has some merit in that it identifies behaviors of the owners/NFL.

What gaps does it have? Personally, it isn't clear to me that it adequately demonstrates owners cooperating with each other toward the goal of not hiring Kaepernick.

What things are yet to be determined? Lawyers might request some documents even if they cannot subpoena anything. What such documents may say are to be determined. Anything else?

Here are some interesting things I was unaware of:

However, such conduct by NFL owners proved to be a public relations stunt, designed to appear empathetic to players; in reality, NFL owners threatened players with fines and suspension if they refused to stand for the national anthem in the following weeks.

On or around October 10, 2017, NFL Commissioner Goodell announced a proposed NFL rule change requiring players to stand during the national anthem...

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.

NFL General Managers and team leaders have referred to directives from NFL owners to not let Mr. Kaepernick so much as practice with a team.

The agreement specifically states that you may not cite as proof of collusion: 1) no one signed me 2) I'm good. If you strike out all the examples of those things in the brief is there anything left?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The agreement specifically states that you may not cite as proof of collusion: 1) no one signed me 2) I'm good.

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

If you strike out all the examples of those things in the brief is there anything left?

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

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

...

What gaps does it have? Personally, it isn't clear to me that it adequately demonstrates owners cooperating with each other toward the goal of not hiring Kaepernick.

...

On the flip side, if you review the grievance, it cites the contract as follows:

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

I think some people have been really focused on an "expressed" agreement but not on an "implied" agreement. An implied agreement need not be spoken or otherwise communicated.

 

[Malintent]

I fully support any employee of any company to freely exercise their freedom of speech.
I fully support any company's right to freely exercise their freedom to set policy and hold all employees equally accountable.

You are free to express yourself any way you wish. However, you are not free to be exempt from the consequences of your actions.

 

[dismal]

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

Yeah, without any "other facts" there's no combination...

If you think there are other facts supporting collusion in there, please restate them.

 

[coloradoatheist]

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

If you strike out all the examples of those things in the brief is there anything left?

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.

 

[dismal]

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.

Collusion requires people from different teams colluding.

That's not evidence of collusion.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

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.

Even if they do have proof of that, it's not proof of collusion. It's proof that coaches don't sign players, and it's proof that owners have veto power.

 

[Malintent]

so if more than one HR worker is involved in the hiring process, that is "collusion"? I think the word is Collaboration... I would like to think that a responsible organization is going to perform performance reviews and conduct the hiring process with a good amount of collaboration across all stakeholders to ensure good due diligence in filling positions and making important company decisions.

It's not like he was a Whistleblower, calling out the CEO of the NFL for touching his dick in the locker room....
He was an employee that was violating a company policy that was not strongly enforced in the past.

Hopefully, the COLLABORATION of stakeholders will produce a thoughtful and most profitable outcome.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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.

There are some other subtleties there such as those quotes I gave in the op. They show that the NFL was likely on board with banning displays because of their proposed rule change on Oct 10th. They also show Trump as a likely motivating factor in decisions to treat players in various ways outside the scope of their contracts with NFL. The real crux of the question to me is whether a complete set of individuals (i.e. all owners) acting in concert to follow an external directive, while knowing that each other likely follows the external directive, constitutes cooperation with each other and/or unexpressed, "implied" agreement with each other. Perhaps, the kind of cooperation and implied agreement to consider here are demonstrated in more abstract thinking exercises such as the Prisoner's Dilemma.

 

[dismal]

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.

There are some other subtleties there such as those quotes I gave in the op. They show that the NFL was likely on board with banning displays because of their proposed rule change on Oct 10th. They also show Trump as a likely motivating factor in decisions to treat players in various ways outside the scope of their contracts with NFL. The real crux of the question to me is whether a complete set of individuals (i.e. all owners) acting in concert to follow an external directive, while knowing that each other likely follows the external directive, constitutes cooperation with each other and/or unexpressed, "implied" agreement with each other. Perhaps, the kind of cooperation and implied agreement to consider here are demonstrated in more abstract thinking exercises such as the Prisoner's Dilemma.

The NFL can ban displays, or not. Irrelevant to whether there was collusion among teams with respect to Kaepernick.

Trump is not a party to the agreement at all. He can say whatever he wants. It is not possible to introduce evidence of collusion among teams with the subject "Trump did this" or "Trump said this".

These things have nothing to do with whether teams colluded not to sign Kaepernick.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

There are some other subtleties there such as those quotes I gave in the op. They show that the NFL was likely on board with banning displays because of their proposed rule change on Oct 10th. They also show Trump as a likely motivating factor in decisions to treat players in various ways outside the scope of their contracts with NFL. The real crux of the question to me is whether a complete set of individuals (i.e. all owners) acting in concert to follow an external directive, while knowing that each other likely follows the external directive, constitutes cooperation with each other and/or unexpressed, "implied" agreement with each other. Perhaps, the kind of cooperation and implied agreement to consider here are demonstrated in more abstract thinking exercises such as the Prisoner's Dilemma.

The NFL can ban displays, or not. Irrelevant to whether there was collusion among teams with respect to Kaepernick.

Trump is not a party to the agreement at all. He can say whatever he wants. It is not possible to introduce evidence of collusion among teams with the subject "Trump did this" or "Trump said this".

These things have nothing to do with whether teams colluded not to sign Kaepernick.

They might.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The NFL can ban displays, or not. Irrelevant to whether there was collusion among teams with respect to Kaepernick.

Trump is not a party to the agreement at all. He can say whatever he wants. It is not possible to introduce evidence of collusion among teams with the subject "Trump did this" or "Trump said this".

These things have nothing to do with whether teams colluded not to sign Kaepernick.

Trump threatened challenging the monopoly status of the NFL. Granted this is after Kaepernick wasn't signed by anyone, Trump is definitely applying political pressure, and illegally so.

 

[untermensche]

The agreement specifically states that you may not cite as proof of collusion: 1) no one signed me 2) I'm good. If you strike out all the examples of those things in the brief is there anything left?

That's why all that stuff about Trump is in there.

 

[dismal]

The NFL can ban displays, or not. Irrelevant to whether there was collusion among teams with respect to Kaepernick.

Trump is not a party to the agreement at all. He can say whatever he wants. It is not possible to introduce evidence of collusion among teams with the subject "Trump did this" or "Trump said this".

These things have nothing to do with whether teams colluded not to sign Kaepernick.

Trump threatened challenging the monopoly status of the NFL. Granted this is after Kaepernick wasn't signed by anyone, Trump is definitely applying political pressure, and illegally so.

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.

Note: There is no collusion among NFL teams in the above fact set.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The NFL can ban displays, or not. Irrelevant to whether there was collusion among teams with respect to Kaepernick.

Trump is not a party to the agreement at all. He can say whatever he wants. It is not possible to introduce evidence of collusion among teams with the subject "Trump did this" or "Trump said this".

These things have nothing to do with whether teams colluded not to sign Kaepernick.

Trump threatened challenging the monopoly status of the NFL. Granted this is after Kaepernick wasn't signed by anyone, Trump is definitely applying political pressure, and illegally so.

If Trump can apply pressure at them collectively, then it makes their decision-making more complex, like Game Theory, which is why I introduced the analogy to Prisoner's Dilemma. In such situation, it is possible for NFL owners to cooperate with each other through an implied rule without necessarily communicating with each other and such rule would fall under category of "implied" "agreement" in the contract.

 

[blastula]

Unless they are holding back something, his only hope is finding something in discovery. Even if there were real collusion, doubtful that there is any documentation. So, he has to hope someone who knows something damning will testify. Doubt there is anyone brave enough even if.

 

[untermensche]

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.

 

[blastula]

Both sides have lawyers, and this is before an arbitrator not a jury.